## 15138

mined that the proposal. as amended by the changes discussed above, be issued. Accordingly, Pa.rt' 92, Title 9, Code of Federal Regulations, is amendedinthe followingreSpects:
§92.11 [Amended]

1. §92.11(d),**th~** last two sentences
are deleted.

2. In§ 92.25, paragraph Ca) is redesfg-. nated as (a)(1), a new paragraph (a)(2) is added and redesignated paragraph (a)(l) is amendedtoreadasfollows:.

§92.25 Special provisions.

(a) In-bona shipments from Canada. (1) Cattle, sheep, goats, swine, horses, poultry and birds from Canada transported in-bond through the United states for immediate exPort shall be inspected at the border port of entry and, when accompanied by an import permit obtained under §92.4 of this Part and allconditions therein are observed, shall be allowed entry into the United states and shall be otherwise handIed as provided in paragraph (d) of § 92.2. Animals not accompanied by

a permit shall meet_ the requirements of this Part in the same manner as animals destined for importation into the United States, except that- the DeputyAdministrator, VeterinaryServices, may permit their inspection at
some other point when he finds that such action will not increase the risk that communicable diseases of livestock and poultrywill be dIsseminated to the livestock or poultry of the UnitedStates.

(2) In-transit shipments through Canad.a. Animals (including poultry) originating in the United- States and transported directly through Canada may re-enter the United States without Canadian health or test certificates when accompanied by copies of the United States exPort health certificates properlyissued andendorsed in accordance withregulations inPart 91 of this chapter; Provided.. That, to qualify for entry, the date, time, port of entry, and signature of the Canadian Port Veterinarian that inspected the animals for entry into Canada shall be recorded onthe United St!!-tes health certificate, or a paper containing the information shall be attached to the certificatethataccompanies the animals. In all cases it shall be determined by the veterinary inspector at the United States port of entry that the animals are the identical animals coveredbysaidcertificate.

-


## • • 

## • • 

# •

§92.34 [Amended]

3. In §92.34(c) thelasttwo sentences
aredeleted. (Sec. 2. 32 Stat. 792, as amended; sees. 2, 3. 4, and 11. 76 Stat. 129, 130. 132 (21 U.s.C. 111. 134a. 134b. 134c. and 134f>; 37 FR 284114. 28477; a8FR 19141.) 

### RULES AND R.EGULATIONS

It does not appear that further publicparticipation inthisrulemaking proceeding woUld make additional relevantinformation available to the Department. This amendment ofthe reg- ulations will reduce the time and expense associated with the importation of certain animals without increasing the risk of the introduction or spread of any contagloug, infectious or communicable**dise~e** oflivestock or poultryintothe United States.

Accordingly, under the administrative procedure provisions in 5 U.S.C. 553, it is found upon goqd cause that further notice and other public proce- dure with respect to tJ:le amendments
areimpracticable and unnecessary and good cause is found for making the

. amendments effective less than 30 days after publication in the FEDERAL
REGISTER.

Done at Washington, D.C., this 5th day ofApril, 1978.

Non:.-The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this documentdoes not containa.majorproposal requiring preparation of an Inflation Impact Statement under Executive Order 11821 and OMB CircularA-107. PIERREA. CHALoux, VMD, DeputyAaministrator, VeterinaryServices.

[FRDoc. 78-9544Filed4-10-78; 8:45 am]



### [3128-01] Title 100Energy



### CHAPTER II-FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION 1 • 

### PART 430-ENERGY CONSERVATION

- PRQGRAM FOR APPUANCES

Energy Efficiency Improvement Targets for Nine Types ofAppliances
AGENCY:DepartmentofEnergy. ACTION:Finalrule. SUMMARY: This rule prescribes final energy efficiency improvement targets for refrigerators,

-refrigerator-freezers, freezers, dishwashers, clothes dryers,
room air conditioners, television sets, humidifiers, dehumidifiers, and centralairconditioners. Energy efficiency improvement targets are one element ofthe appliance efficiencyprogramrequiredby the Energy Policy and ConservationAct. EFFECTIVEDATE:May 15, 1978. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

'EDrroRIAL Non:.-It Iscontemplated that Chapter IIwill berenamed ata future date to reflect the fact that it contains regulations a.dministered by the Department of Energy, including regulations admlnlstered by· the Office ofConservation and Solar**Ap~** pllca.tions.

. James A. Smith, (Office of Consum·
er Products), Old Post Office Bulld· ing, Room 307, Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. 20461, 202-566-4635. Jim Merna, (Media Relations), 12th 

### & Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 3104, Washington, D.C. 20461, 202- 566-9833. William J. Dennison, (Office of General Counsel). 12th &; Pennsylvania Avenue NW

.. ROOm 7148, Washington,D.C. 20461, 202-566-9750. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

. I. BACKGROUND On October I, 1977, the Department of Energy (DOE) assumed the author· ity of the Federal Energy Administration (FEA) for the energy conservation program for appliances, pursuant to section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (DOE Act) (Pub. L. 95-91>. The energy conservation program for appliances was estab· lished by FEA pursuant to Title Ill, Part B of the Energy Policy and Con· servation Act (Act) (Pub. L. 94-103), Section 325 ofthe Act, as amended by section 161 of the Energy Conservn· tion and Production Act (Pub. L. 04- 385), requires that energy efficiency improvement targets be presecrJbed for certain types of covered appli· ances, specifically:

(1) Refrigerators and refrigerator· freezers.

(2) Freezers. (3) Dishwashers. (4) Clothes dryers. (5) Waterheaters. (6) Room airconditioners. (7) Home heating equipment, not in· cludingfurnaces.

(8) Televisionsets. (9) Kitchenranges andovens. (10) Clothes washers. (11) Humidifiers and dehumidifiers, (12) Central aircondItioners. (13) Furnaces. DOEhereby amends Part 430, Chap. ter II ofTitle 10, Code ofFederal Reg· ulations, in order to establish a Subpart C for the efficiency improvement targets. Proposed efficiency improvement targets for the product types listed in (1) through (10) abovo nre issued by FEA on July 8, 1977 (42 FR 36648, July 15, 1977). Proposed targets for theproducttypes listed in (11) and (12) above were issued on August 4, 1977 (42 FR 40701, August 11, 1977). A proposed target for furnaces was issued on September 23, 1977 (42 FR 52426, September 30, 1977). Publio hearings concerning the proposed tar· gets for product types (1) through (10)

were held August 16-19, 1977, for producttypes (Il) and (12) on September 14-15, 1977, and for furnaces on November 8, 1977.

< The targets for product types (1) through (10) are required by section

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 70-TUESDAY, APRIL 

## n, 1978325 to be designed so that. if.met, the -aggregate energy efficiency of all such products which are manufactured in 1980 will exceed the aggregate energy efficiency of all such products manu- factured in 1972 by the maximumper-

_

centage improvement which DOE determines to be economically and tech-

_ nologically.feasible, but which in any case is not less than 20 percent. Targets for products (11) through (13) are required 

### to be designed so as 

### to achievethe maximumimprovementin energy efficiency'determined by DOE to betechnologically and economically feasibleby 1980.

AnaIysis- leading to the establIshment of the targets was accomplished in three stages. First, potential energy efficiency improvement design options for each product type were identified and then**~ed** to determine whether they were technologically feasible. The energysavings ofindividual design options were combined 

### to provide a single target for each product. In the second stage, the economic feasibility ofthe energy efficiency,targets calculated in the first stage was evaluated. In the third stage the individual targetsforproducts (1) through (10) we.re combined 

### to determine the aggregate energy efficiency .improvement ofthese product types manufacturedin 1980 as comparedwiththe aggregate energy efficiency of the same producttypesmanufacturedin 1972.

This notice does not prescribe final targets for water heaters, home heating equipment (not including furnaces), kitchen ranges and ovens, and furnaces, because test procedures for these product types are not yet final. In addition, this notice does not pre- senoe

-the final target for clothes washers because the 1972 baseline data for this product has not beenre- ceived from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). Sincefour- oftheseproducts areincat-

. egories (1)-(10} which must meet the 20 percent thresbhold requirement of section 325, the aggregate energy efficiency improvement for product typea (l}-(10) was calculated· using estimates of efficiency improvements for those products not having final test procedures or baseline data. The estimates

were derived from the"near-final 

### test procedures for each product and analysis of the comments received at the

_hearings on the proposed efficiency ,target for each product. Using this method the agregate energy efficiency improvement for product types (1)-

-(10) is 28 percent. Al; envisioned by the Act, the appli-

ance program is responsible for en- couraging manufacturers to produce, and consumers 

### to purchase, significantly more efficient appliances by 1980. The Act sets forth two interrelated strategies for accomplishlnlr this objective. 

### RULES AND REGULATIONS

Thefirst is to establishvoluntary efficiency improvement targets representingaggregate Industryle\'els of efficiency improvement to be achieved by 1980. Al; an incentive for the industry to reach these targets, a reporting and monitoring system will be established to track Industry progress. In the event that achievement of any target appears unllkely, this system will require DOE to Initiate an admlnsistratIve proceeding to prescribe 

### a mandatory mInimum efficiency standardfor the productIn question.

The second strategy entails develop.- ment of 

### a labeling program to require thatmanufacturerslabel eachproduct with energy lnIormation 

### to allow con- sumer comparisons. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is charged with responslblllty for devising labeling rules and administering the labelingprogram.

In conjunction with issuance of the labeling rules, 

### a consumer education effort will enhance consumer aware- ness of the labels and create a better understanding ofthe lnIormation pro- videdonthelabels. This is Intendedto encourage comparison shopping and to enhance consumer demand for the

more efficient products. Al; a conse- quence, itis anticipated thatmanufacturers will be Influenced to expedite efficIency improvements for their var- ious product lines 

### to meet market demand.

In order

### to support these dual strategies, Section 323 of the Actmandates that DOE develop test procedures for the determIna.tlon of estimated annual operating costs and at least one other

measure of energy consumption for each coveredproduct which will assist

consumers in making pruchasing decIsIons. The test procedures, when ap.- plied by Individual manufacturers to their productlines, will serve two purposes: (1) To provIde test related data for FTC mandated product labels and for representations regarding energy consumption; and (2)

### toprovide a com- parable measure of the energy eUI· -clency for all products covered by & given test procedure. Test procedure design must be flexible enough 

### to allow for technological variation among dlUerent product lines. yet standardized enough to assure that each manufacturer's product line will be subject to the same measurement criteria.

An outline of the provisions of Subparts 

### A. B, and C of Part 430 which have so far been established, including the provisIons in today's notice, Is as follows:

StJBPAR'r A-GSNERALPROVISIONS

Sec. 430.1 Purpose andscope. 430.2 Deffnitions.

StJBpAR'rB-TEsrPRoammn:s 430.21 Purpose andscope. 

### 15139

Scc430.22 Test procedures for messures of energyconsumption. Cn) ReIrigerators andrefrlgerator·freezers. (b)Freezen. Cc) DIshwashers. Cd) Clothesdryers. Ce) Waterheaters. 

## en Room aIrcondltloners.



### • • 

## • (h)TeJe\1slonsets.



## • • (j) Clotheswashers. (k)HumIdIfIers. (1)Dehumidifiers. 

## • •

•

(m) Central aircondltioners. 

## •

•

430.23 Units tobetested £Reserved]. 430.24 Representations regardingmeasures ofenergyconsumption. Cn) Refrigerators andre!rlgerator-!reezers_ (b) Freezers. (c)DIsh'ilo"1\.Shers. Cd) Clothesdryers. (e)Waterheaters. CD Roomaircondltloners.



## • 

## •

(h)TelevisIon sets.


## • •
(j)Clotheswashers. (k)HumIdIfIers. (1)Dehumidifiers. 

## •

• 

## •

•

em)Central aircondltloners.

.APn:NDICZS TO StrnPAR'r B 

## •

•

Appendix A1-UiiIform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Electric Refrigerators and Electric Refrigerator-Freezers.



## • 

## • • • 

## • Appendix B-UnIlorm Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Fretzers. Appendix C-UnIlorm Test Method for Meuurlng the Energy Consumption of Dishwashers. Appendix D-UnIlorm Test Method for Ileuurlng the Energy Consumption of ClothesDryers. Appendix E-UnIlorm Test Method for**Me~** the Energy Consumption of WaterHeaten.. Appendix P-UnIlorm Test Method for J.(euurlng the Energy Consumption of RoomAIrConditioners.



## • 

## • • • 

## • Appendix H-UnIlorm Test Method for**M~** the Energy Consumption of TeJc\1s1on Seta.



## • 

## • • • 

## • AppendixJ-UnIlormTestMethodforMeasuring the- Energy Con.sumptlon of ClothesWashers.. Appendix Kl-UnIlorm Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of

• CentralSystemHumidifiers. Appendix K2-UnIlorm Test Method for Mea.sunng the Energy Consumption of RoomHumIdifiers. Append.ix L-UnIlorm Test !lethod for !leuurlng the Energy Consumption of DehumIdifiers.

FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL 43, NO. 70-TUESOAY. APRIL 11. 1978Appendix M-Unifonn Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of CentralAirConditioners.

Sec. ,SUDPART C-ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT TARGETS

-430.31 Purposeandscope. 430.32 Energy efficiency improvement targets. (a) Refrigerators andrefrigerator-freezers. (b) Freezers. (c) Dishwashers. (d) Clothes dryers. (e) [Reserved] (f) Room airconditioners. (g) [Reserved] (h)TelevisIon sets. (l) [Reserved] (j) [Reserved] (k) HumidifIers. (1) Dehumidifiers. (m) Central airconditioners. (n) [Reserved]

II. FINAL

### TARGE."r DETERMINATIONS AND DISCUSSION OF COMMENTS 

### After careful consideration of_the oral and written comments received in response to the proposed targets, DOE is 

### today prescribing the following targets (proposed targets which differed from the targets prescribed today are notedinparentheses):'

- '"RefrIgerators and refrigerator-freezers-39 percent(47 percent). Freezers-28percent(30 percent). Dishwashers-25p·ercent. Clotheedryers-8percent (11 percent). Room air conditIoners-28 percent (30 per-

cent). Television sets-79percent. HumIdIfiers-O percent(24 percent). DehumIdIfiers-19 percent(28 percent). Central airconditIoners-21 percent (25 percent). 

### Major comments received by

## DOE regarding these targets are siunm.arized and discussed below. For a detailed explanation

- of the technological and economic methodologies Used to·arrive at the targets, refer to the FEDERAL REGISTER of July 15, 1977, at page 36648 et seq. Revised economic and technical backgroundpapers aswell as 

### a. micro economic analysis for each product affected by today's action are available for inspection in the DOE Freedom of Information Office, Room 2107, FederalBuilding, 12thandPennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, D.C., between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., MondaythroughFriday.

A. REFRIGERATORS AND REFRIGERATORFREEZERS 

### DOE has determined that an efficiency improvement target of 39 percentfor refrigerators.andrefrigerator- freezers is the maximum improvement which is 

### technologically and economically feasible. Analysis of the comments received showed that interactions between the selected design. op- tions reduced the aggregate energy :savings from 32 percent to 28 percent 

### RULES AND REGULATIONS

for refrigerators and refrigerator-

.freezers, and reduced the ef1iciency improvement target from the pro- posed 47 percentto 39 percent. Table 1 summarizes the final efficiency target andassociated energyfactors.

TABLE I.-Refrigerator and RefrigeratorFreezer Energy Elficiency Improvement Target

Energy 1972 energy efficIency factorcubIc Improvement feet/kllowatt target(percent) hours/cycle (24 

### hrs.>

39 • 3.80 1980 energy factorcubIc feet/kllowatt hours/cycle (24 hrs.)

&.28

1. Timing. 

### Comments stated that in· sufficient time remained to develop andproduce newproductlines thatincorpQrate all 

### the design options. Some comments specifically indicated that the design option calling for improved insulation required three years to implement. Comments further stated that simultaneous development of many new product lines would over· load component manUfacturers and safetycertification organizations.

It should be noted, however, that the targets only establish guidelines for the percentage increase ofthe pro· duc.tion-weighted energy factor over the period from 1972 to 1980. These guidelines in some caSes call for 'less than 100 percent implementation of

some design options. Comments elicitedatthehearingrevealed thatnumerous improvements in efficiency have already beenimplemented, so thatthe 1977 ,production-weighted energy factor exceeds the 1972 baseline efficiency. Furthermore,recent studyconducted by the National Bureau of Standards(NBS) shows that 98 of 336,

or29.2 percent, oftherefrigerator and refrigerator-freezer basic models listed in the 1977 Directory of Certified Refrigerators and Freezers, 

### published by AHAM, had energyjactors exceeding the 1980 production-weighted energy factor. Forthese reasons DOE has determined that attainment of the target prescribed today is 

### feasible by 1980.

2. Material Requirements. 

### Severat comments indicated that shortages in polyurethane foam insulation materials 

### woUld hinder achievement of the targetby 1980. If

### manufacturers ofrefrigerators and refrigerator/freezers
were 

### to incorporate foam insulation into all 

### their products by 1980, demand for polyurethane foam would increase by about 39,000 tons, according to DOE estimates. As 

### a result, demand for the material currently being used for insulation, fiberglass, would decrease by an equivalent amount. Based on available data, DOE believes that all 

### these adjustments in material supplies are within the scope of the respective- supplier industries and that implementation of Insulation design options would not be hindered due to supply constraints provided that petroleum, a key ingredient in polyurethane foam, remains in ade· quate supply.

Comments noted that various Stato andFederal authorities have Indicated

an inclination to limlt or ban the use of Freon-ll, a critical material for the manufacture ofpolyurethanefonni. In 

### the event that laws or regulations are prescribed which render polyurethane foam unavailable, DOE will review and, if 

### justified, amend the final target for refrigerators and refrigera- tor-freezers. Such an eventuality i/l speculative, howe.ver, and no modification has been made in the rule pre· scribedtoday.

3. Elimination ofautomatic defrost. 

### Some comments indicated that auto· matic defrost should be elimlnated in 

### order to save the energy consumed by thisfeature. DOEhas determined that the elimlnation of automatic defrost ill 

### not a viable alternative because the design option has real utility to con· sumers and the energy savings resulting from the elimlnation of this fea· ture are questionable atthistime.

4. RollOut Shelve$. 

### Roll out shelves
were suggested as a possible design option to reduce the amount of time thattherefrigeratordooris open.

According to studies of the energy consumption of refrigeration products commissioned by FEA, the energy corio sumption attributable to all door openings is apprOximately five per· ceJ;lt. The fraction of this portion of the energy consumption which might be saved by incorporating roll out shelves·can be affected by several fac· tors, including the frequency of door openings and the ambient room condi· tions. Although some energy might be saved in this manner, more energy might also beconsumedbecause ofthe extra time required to roll out the shelf and the fact that the refrigerntor doormustbe fully open in order to roll out a shelf. Therefore, DOE doeg not plan to include roll out shelves M
a design option.

5. Venting Sy&tem. 

### A suggestion was made to require refrigeration products to be designed so that they would be adaptable to**v~nting** 

### systems which would be used to exhaust the heat coming from the condemer and other

sources to the exterior of the home during summer months and to the in· terior of the home during winter months. Prelimlnary analysis indicates that the additional cost to the con· sumer for air 

### ducting and installation compared to potential energy saved makes this design option infeasible. Therefore, no adjustment to the target was made to reflect any 

### energy savings whichmight accrue.

6. Retail Price Increase Due To Design Option Implementation. 

### Some

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 7O-TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 1978

### RULES AND REGULATIONS

comments statedthatFEA's estimated because of th1s non-additive relation· total retail price increase of $45.20, a. ship, the energy savings potential Is production-weighted price increase less than originally estImAted. DOE based on FEA's projections of design has, therefore, reduced the target for**~** option implementation. was too low. refrigerators and refrigerator·freezers In support of this statement the com- from47 percentto 39 percent. menters estimated 

### a cost increase of 9. 

### International Competition. A $20 to $60 for the addition offoam in- commenter raised 

### a. question as to the sulation alone. DOE estimated 

### a. price international competitive position of increase of aJ.niost $35 for foam insula- domestic firms who must attempt to tion,

.which is slightly below the**~** meet the target. The commenter con- median point of the range suggested tended that because most of his prodby the comments ($40). This differ- ucts were produced In the U.s. nnd / ence of $5 is not in this case economi- sold domestically, he would be at a

cally significant.·Further. no evidence competitive disadvantage with compa- was submitted to indicate that a $60 nieswhoproducedabroad and soldrelprice increase was more likely than 

### a atively few 

### units In the U.s. His com- $20 increase. mentpointed outthat the foreign proWhen the FEA estimated price in- ducerwould beIn 

### a. better competitive

crease of $35 for foam Insulation is position. due to the target program, production-weighted it reduces to $22 since he would only be making those per unit. This. production-weighted energy-saving improvements In his price increase Qf $22 was usedindeter· products destined for the U.s. market. miningthe $45.20 production-weighted leaving the rest of his production un- price increase for this product. There- affected. Because·only

### a portion ofthe fore, theDOE estimatedpriceincrease overseas manufacturers' lines would for refrigerators and refrigerator- be affected. 

### a. foreign firm could then freezers.remaIns at$45.20. distribute the increased costs over Its

7. 

### Investment. DOE's estimated in- entire productline, and thus minimize

. vestment requirement to implement the price impact of energy·savIngs the design options was·almost $1 mil- design options. Because of this costlionperfirm or $7.5 millionfor the in- spreading, It 

### was ctmtended that for· dustry. Comments indicated that this eignproducerswould gain

### a. price-comestimate was too low. A range of $8 petitive edge In the U.s. market rela· million to $48 million per firm was tive toU.s.producers. cited as beingmorerealistic. One com- At present. refrigerator imports are pany statedith8.d spent $27 millionto focused inthe small or compactrefrIg· implement one design. option-foam erator varl,ety which are designed to Insulation. Detailed cost breakouts to meet 

### a supplementary refrIgerator support-thevalidityofthesehigherin- need. Due to the relatively InsJgnifIvestment estimates have notbeen sub- cant and narrowly focused market mitted to DOE. Further. the industry share of these imports. it does not hasmade substantialprogress towards appear that domestic firms meeting producinghigh efficiency models. and the target wlll be adversely affected. DOE estimates that 50 to 70 percent DOE wlll continue to monitor market of the models currently produced in- behavIor and developments over time elude foam Insulation. Based on all for any effects ormovements generatavailable data. DOE has reviewed the ed from within or without the target investment analysis andfinds no basis program. for changingtheoriginal estimates. A simllar comment stated that beThe total costs incurred at the time cause of the costs associated with of implementing the design options meeting the domestic target, It will be

are highly Variable depending upon & more difficult for U.s. producers 

### to company's current facilities and the sellproducts overseas. DOE notes that additional objectives it wishes to manufacturers may still ship products achieve. However, other investments outside the U.s. that do not contain which may be undertaken at the time the energy-saving deVices resulting of the design option implementation from the targetprogram. Further, it Is such as new plant. increased capacity. clear that the energy Ehortage and automated equipment and 

### a. product conservation psychology Is a world. redesign for greater consumer appeal wide phenomenon with energy prices

are variable and discretiorufry. and are at evenhigherlevels abroad than they not included in the investment re- are in the U.s. It follows that appli· quired to implement the design opo**an~** which can save signifIcant tions. amounts of energy may find ready

8. Interaction of Design Options. markets throughouttheworld. Comments Indicated that the aggre- B. 

### Freezers. DOE has determined gated effects of individual design op- that an efficiency improvement target tions on the energy consumption of & of 28 percent for freezer& Is the maxIrefrigerator-freezer are not additive. mum improvement which Is 

### technoNBS has reevaluated the selected logically and economically feasible. design options and now agrees that. Analysis of the comments received 

### 15141

showed that Interactions between design options reduced the aggregate energy savings from 23 percent to 22 percent, and reduced the efficiency improvement target from the proposed 30 percentto 28 percent.Table2 summarizes the final efilciency target andassocIated energyfactors.

T.uILE 2.-FreezerEnerwEfflCienC1/ ImPTO"t'ement Target

EIler1D" 1D'72 ener&:Y 1980 enenl7 eUld!.'Jl!;7 tactarcubIc 1actcrcubIc: lmpnn-ement teet/ldlo-ntt. teet/kllinratt**~ (~)**  hours/c:;cle<24 homs/c:;cle(24 hr.l hr.l

1.4'7 9.5'7

1. 

### Retail Price Increase Due To Design Option 

### Implementation. Commenta sotated thattheDOEretallprice Increase of $38.25 for freezers. a. pro- ductionweightedfigure resultingfrom 

### the desIgn optionimplementation. was too low. Since there was 

### a singlehearIng for refrigerators. refrigerator· freezers. and free£ers it was not clear in every fmtance whether the com- ments applied 

### to one or both product categories. The design option which generated the most testimony, foam Insulation. Is the key design option in both products so that the price in-

, crease Is slmllar for both. The commenters estimated 

### a cost increase. of $20 to $60 for the addition offoam. in- &ulatlon alone. DOE estimated 

### a price Increase ofalmm $30 forfoam insulation. which is below the median point of the range suggested by the com- ments ($40). ThIs difference of $10 is not In thl.S case economicallY significant.Further.no e\1dence was submitted to indicate that a $60 price in

### crease 

### w.a.s more likely than a $20 in
### crease.

When the DOE estimated price in-

crease of $30 for foam lnsulation is production-weIghted it reduces to $17 per unIt. ThIs production-weighted price of $17 

### was used in determining the $38.25 productIon-weighted price Increase for. this product. Therefore. theDOEpriceIncreasefor freezers re- mains at$38.25.

2. 

### Inre3tment. DOE's estimated investment requirement to implement the design options 

### was $825.000 per firm. or $6.7 millIon for the Industry. Commentsindicatedthatthisestimate

was too low. A range of $8 million 

### to $48 millIon perfirm was cIted as being

more reallstIc. However, detalled 

### cost breakouts to support the validity of 

### these higher investment estimates havenotbeensubmitted to DOE. Further. the industry has made substantial progress toward producing high efficIency models, and DOE estimates

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 70-TUESDAY. APRJL 11, 1978

## 15142 RULES AND REGULATIONS

that over 50 percent ofthemodels cUr- TABLE 3.-DishwasherEnergy E//icienC1/ per fill probably ex.ceeds that required rently produced include foam insula- Improvement Target for an acceptable performance level. tion. Based on all available data, DOE By improving fill controls, the schedhas reviewed the investment analysis Energy 1972 energy 1980 energy uled quantity of waterperfill could bo and finds no basis for changing the efficiency factorloadsl factorloadsl reduced because there would be no original estimates.

_**~~~~~~r::;e~\)** kllowatthours kllowatthours need to provide salety margins to proThe total costs incurred at the time tect againstlow pre!!Sure conditions. of implementing the design options 25 0.241 0.301 DOE agrees with the original NBS hi hI i bl

. estimate of a 3.9 percent energy saVare g ,y var a e depending upon a . ingS from improved fill controlll. company s current facilities and the 1. Energy Factor. One**m~ufacturer** ...Therefore, there will be nO revision to additional objectives it wishes to s?ggested a**~eed** for three dishwasher the production.weighted energy sav- ,sIZe categones and three related achieve. However, other investments energy factors, rather than the one ingsfor this design option. Which may be undertaken at the time size category and one energy factor 3. Elimination of One Rinse Cycle. of the deSign option implementation proposed by FEA. This suggestion was Som& comments indicated that pJ. such as new plant, increased capacity, based on the fact that there is some though the estimate of energy sl!.vinfls

, derived from the elimination of one automated equipment, or product re- current production of compact dish- rinse cycle was reasonable, the result design are variable and discretionary,

### =~e~~p:i~/~::~~~th~:h~h:: would be a decrease in washing perlorand are notincluded inthe investment manufactured in the future. Although mance. NBS has determined that the required to implement the design op- the energy factor and the utility of resulting energy savings outweigh tho
t t d . slight decrease in performance. NBS ions. ' compac mo els 15 markedly different believes that a sUght reduction in tho 3. Material Requirements. Several from the standard size dishwashers, washing performance will not cause compactS represent a very small share comments indicated that shortages in f th k t d th f th is consumers to rewash the dishes or to o e mar e , an, ere ore ere use a more energy intensive dishwn"h. polyurethane foam insulation materi- no need to calculate a separate energy

..... als would ninder achievement of the factor for compact dishwashers even ing mode. Furthermore, recent design targetby 1980. Ifmanufacturers ofre- though separate energy factors were changes to improve water flltration calculated for other product categO- and to reduce the amount of residual frigerators and refrigerator·freezers ries. water carryover from one fill to an.
were to incorporate foam insulation The same manufacturer also stated other can compensate for a slight rointo all their products by 1980, th t th 1972 f t d te duction in performance. Therefore, a e energy ac or e r- there has been no revision of the ri.tS demand for polyurethane foam would mined by DOE is in error, citing pro- increase by about 10,000 tons, accord- duction-weighted energy consumption percent production-weighted energy

. data supplied by AHAM to NBS. Fol- savings attributed to thfls design ing to DOE eStimates. 

### As a result, ti lowing .the hearing, AHAM has sup- op on. deinand for the material currently 'plied DOE with revised baseline data 4. Change in Geomelrv. Several com· being used for insulation, fiberglass, reflecting DOE's final test procedures ments indicated that this design would decreaSe by an equivalent for dishwashers. DOE has Wled this option was not fenslble. No technical amount. Based on available data, DOE

. data to recalculate the 197:;1 energy evidence or analysis in support of this factor at0.2.41 loads/kWh. claim was provided, however. One believes that all these adjustments in 2. Improved FiU Controls. One man- manufacturer stated that the best material supplies are within the scope ufacturer stated that no energy Sav- available technology requires about 14 of the respective supplier ,industries ings would result from improved fill gallons of water per cycle to maintain and that implementation of insulation controls. No supportive data was pro- washing performance. One commenter design options would not be hindered vided to SUbstantiate this statement, said that he did not know how to due to supply constraints provided however, and another manufacturer reach the 1980 target, which is equiv- stated a position in support of the alent to a level of about 12.5 gallons, that**petrole~,** a key. ingredient in NBS estimateusedbyDOE. without degrading product pedorpolyurethane foam, remains in ade- Test data collected in NBS laborato- mance. DOE has reviewed and conquate supply. ries indicate. a maximum fill variation firmed its previous detennlnatlon of

4. Energy Factor. The method for of up to 16 percent between cycles on technolOgical feasibll1ty. In addition. caiculating the energy factorfor freez.. one machine. Variation from one ma- DOE has learned that there is atleast

,

. chine to another under varying oper- one major dishwasher manufacturer
ers was modified in the final test pro- ating pressures may be even greater_ with a standard model now nvnUable cedures for freezers, 10 CFR NBS tests of the flow rate of a single Which uses less than 12 gallollG of 430.22(b)(4) (42 FR 46120, September solenoid type valve varies almost lin- water per cycle. Therefore, there has 14, 1977). Although the target-pre- earlyfrom 1.6 gallons perminute at 25 been no revision of the estimated scribed today is not affected by this pounds per square inch (psi) to 1.79 energy savings for this design option. gallons per minute at 125 psi. Similar- D. Clothes Drvers. DOEl has determodification, both the 1972 and 1980 ly, tests conducted on a dual solenoid mined that an efficiency improvement production-weighted energy faCtors valve revealed a flow rate that varied target of 8 percent for clothes dryers have been adjusted to reflect the linearly from 1.14 gallons per minute isthe maximumimprovementwhich Is modification. at 25 psi to 1.31 gallons per minute.at technologically and economicnlly fea· 75 psi. The flow vs. pressure curve re- sible. Analysis of the comments remained essentially flat between 75 pSi ceived indicates that in the proposal and 125 psi. /

_ FEA overestimated the energy savings C. Dishwashers. DOE has determined thatthe proposed efficiency improvement, target of 25 percent for dishwashers is the maximum improvement which is technologically and economically feasible. Table 3 summarizes the final efficiency target and associated energy factors. Since there is a significant variation of the design options. The energy savin the flow rate for varying operating ingS have been reduced from 10 perpressures, manufacturers schedule the cent tQ 7 percent. and the efficienoy quantity of water per fill to produce improvement target has been reduced acceptable performance level at lower from 11 percent to 8 percent. Table 4 operatmg pressures. Under higher op- summarizes the final efficiency target eratingpressure, the quantity ofwater and associated energy factors.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO.**70-TUESD~Y,** APRIL 11, 1978

### RULES AND REGULATIONS

TABLE4.-ClothesdT31erenergyefficiencyimpTOrement target

1972 energy Percentof EnergyeUiclency consumptlonx10 u consumpUon energy

x 10u Btu savings

Clothesdryen; 15.70 Gas 4.91 Electrlc_ 10.79

• E;nergyfactor Inpoun_ds perkilowatt-hour.

1. Gas-Fueled Clothes Dryer Standing Pilot. FEA data shows that 38 percent ofthe 1972productionhadstanding pilots. One manufacturer stated that the number was significantly lowerbutprovidedno alternative data. The 38 percent number was provided toFEA inAHAM's reportto FEAentitled "Design/Operating Characteristics Survey" dated October 22, 1976. NBS accepted this data and since no otherilata was available itwas usedto



### 1972 Base Year i9Pro.ementtarget In 1972' 1P80' percent

7 8 15 18 1.93 2.28 4 4 2.M 2.75

establish the target.

_

2. Reestablish Base Year Data and Recalculate the Energy Factor. Testimony stated that the gas dryer base year energy consumption should be 2,684,400 kWh rather than 2,611,900 kWh. Since this datawas notavailable atthe time of theNBS base yearanalysis, andrepresents a broaderindustry base than that analysis, DOE agrees thatitispropertorevise the 1972base year energyfactor asfollOWS:



### Energy Reported Base Year Field Usage'- Moisture Factor 

### x Adjustment Factor Consumption 

# =Energy consumption x

= 2/ 684,400 kt·1h 

### x 1.18 

### x 1.104

::: 3,497,022 kWh



### Gas Dryer 1972 Energy Factor = 

### (clothes load) 

### x (number of loads) 1972 Base Year Energy Conswnption

= 7 

### Ibs/load 

### x 966,400 loads 3,497,022 kt'1h

= 1.

### 93 Ibs/kt1h

The 1.18 field usage factor and the 1.104 moisture-removal factor are multiplied by the 1972 baseline energy consumption value to provide data consistency between the AHAM test procedure and thefinal DOE test pro- cedure. Additional information concerning the moisture removal factor 15 available inthe "ApplianceEnergy Efficiency Improvement Target for Clothes Dryers" document dated March 16, 1977; which is onfile at the

- DOE Freedom of Information Office.

Further information concerning the field usage factors is available in the final testproceduresfor clothes dryers. (42 FE 46145, September 14, 1977). This revision requires no change in the target because the improvement
was based on NBS testing of 1972 models, and therefore is independent ofthebase yeardata.

3. Automatic Dryness Control. Several commenters stated that automatic termination of drying when the clothes reached a predetermined dryness would reduce overdrying and save energy when compared to timed drying. Currently, DOE does not have informationthatwould enableitto 

### estimate energy savings for this option, and so has not incorporated thls conceptintothetarget.

4. Addition 

### 0/ Insulation. All of the commenters disagreed with the NBS estimate of the 5 percent energy savIngs associated with the addition ofinsulation to the interIor of the electric clothes dryer cabinet. Industry estI

## 15143

mates of such energy savings varied from zero to 2 percent. The 5 percent savings was based on NBS testiDg of
an older clothes dryer which had a lower dryer efi1ciency and more space forinstallinginsulation.

SubsequentNBS testingindicates an energy savings improvement of approximately 2 percent to 3 percent v.1th reference' to a 1972 baseline. Basedupon this testdata, NBSrecommended, and DOEhas accepted, a productIon·weIghted energy savings of 2 percent from the addition of insulation 

### to the interior cabinet of clothes dryers.

5. Electric Heater Element Improvement. Several commenters voiced opposition to theinclusionofthis design option in the target, and one commenter challenged the economicfeasibUlty of the option but failed to provIde data to support this claIm. DOE has redewed and confirmed Its previous determination of economic feasibUlty. Furthermore, several comments indicatedthatthe designoptionisfeasible and one manufacturer has already incorporated an improved heatingelementinproduction.

E. Room. Air Conditioner. DOE has determined that an effIciency 'improvement target of 28 percent for

room air conditioners isthemaximum which is both technologically and ec0- nomically feasible. Analysis of the comments received showed thatinthe proposal FEA overestimated the energy savings of the design options. The energy savings were reducedfrom 23 percent 

### to 22 percent, and the efficIency improvement target has been reduced from the proposed 

### 30 percent to 28 percent. Table 5 summarizes the final efi1ciency target and the associated energyefficiencyratios.

TABLE 5.-RoomAfrC01lditi01lerEnergy EfficlenC1/Improrement Target

EneliY dfldcllcy Improvement t&riet (percent)

28 Ilf12enero- 1990energy ellideneyratiO' eUIcIencyraUo Btu/watt-hour Btu/wiLtt-hour

6.% '1.94

1. Credit/orFan Switch. Arguments

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 70-TUESDAY, APRJL 11, 1978

### 15144

were presented against including the fan switch credit because neither government nor industry hasbeen able 

### to quantify**~curatelY** the resulting energy savings. Due 

### to theuncertainty

over the amount of credit 

### to be given for this feature, DOE agrees that an appropriate test method for evaluating the'energy savings of 

### a fan switch must be developed before including the credit in the target. DOE .Is currently investigating methods 

### to evaluate this feature accurately and until such a reliable measure exists, this design option has been eliminated fromthefinaltarget.

2. Baseline Efficiency Data. Most comments stated that the 1972 baseline energy efficiency ratio of 6.51that
was submitted to FEA by AHAM should be adjusted to reflect DOE's final test procedure for room air conditioners. Upon requ.est by DOE, AHAM submitted new baseline data which accounted for the discrepancy between the name plate values which
were used in industry rating proce- dures and actual results oftests which
were conducted by an independent laboratory in 1972 room air conditioners and which reflect DOE test proce- dure requirements. After making sOme minor changes to the methodology used by AHAM to aggregate the data, DOE has revised the 1972 baseline energy efficiency ratio for room air conditioners downwardto 6.2.

Because the original FEA analysis for energy savings of individual design options was based ontheprevious 1972 baseline energy efficiencyratio of 6.51, DOE has revised the energy savings upward for improved compressor effi-

, ciency from 5 to 8 percent, and for improved cycle efficiency from 10 to ·12 percent. These revisions reflect the improvementS necessary to move from

an energy efficiencyratio of"6.2 to one of 7.94 and ttl.maintainthe 1980 target improvement at the level which is the maximum technologically and economicallyfeasible.

3. Sales Forecasts. Some comments stated that DOE sales forecasts ap- peared too optimistic in comparison with those of industrial associations and individual companies. Afterreview of current sales trends, projected housing starts, and, other economic variables, DOE has revised the sales forecasts for several product categ(}o rIes. For room air· conditioners, the DOE sales forecast has been revised dovmward from 6 million units to about 4 million units for 1980. Although past trends and forecast data indicated that room air conditioner RULES AND REGULATIONS

sales would recover from the 1974- 1975 slowdown in economic activity, it
now appears that a structural-shift in demand awayfrom room aircondition- -ers, in favor of central air conditioners, has occurred since the slack period, making previous forecasts out of date. DOE has found that central air-conditioning systems have become


### a standard feature tln many new and

.existinghomes, thus limiting potential markets for the room air conditioners.

This revision does not alter previous conclusions concei-ning the economic feasibility of the proposed target for thisproduct. A lower level offorecasted shipments. proportionately reduces bothtotalpurchase costincreases and total operating savings. The result is a similarnetbenefitto consumers.

4. Retail Cost Increase Due To Design Option Implementation. A number of comments indicated that FEA's estimated retail cost increase due to the implementation of suggest- ed design options was understated. Only one commenterprovided detailed informatiqn, which suggested a perunit cost figure of $64.93 for the implementation of all suggested design options as compared to FEA's estimate 'of $60.26 in 1980. The variance between these two estimates, only $4.67 (or 8 percent), is small enough to conclude that there is no significant difference between them in terms of an assessment ofeconomic feasibility.

5. Investment. DOE's estimated investment requirement to implement the design optionS was about $625,000 perfirm or $8 million for the indust.ry, Comments indicatedthatthis estlmnte

was too low. A range of $1 million to $3 million per finn was cited 

### as being

more realistic. Detailed cost breakouts to supportthe validity of thesehigher investment estimates have not been submitted to DOE. Further, the two manufacturers with the highest market share already have IBrge productive capacities for high efficiency products. Based on all available datil., DOE has reviewed the investment analysis and findS no basis for chang- ingthe original estimatf:'s.

The total costs incurred at the time of implementing the design options

are highly variable depending upon a company's current facilities and the additional objectives it wishes to achieve. However, other investments which may be undertaken at the tlme of the design option implementation such as automated equipment and prodU:ct redesign are variable and dis· cretionary, and are not included in the investment required to implement the design options_

F. Television Sets. DOE has determined thatthe proposed efficiency improvement target of 79 percent for television sets is the maximum which is technologically and economically feasible. Table 6 summarizes the final efficiency target and the associated

.energy factors. There were no comments on the pro- posed energy efficiency improvement targetfor televisions.

.

TABLE6.-Televisionsets energy efficiency improvement target

1972 energy consumptionx 10" Btu Percentof energy savings Energy elllclenoy Improvementtarget In percent 1972'

Television recelvers

____._.: Monochrome

......__.....____• Color._

...___________ • ,

I Energyfactor Inpercent. 16.'10 • 4.83 11.87

H. Humidifiers. DOE has' determined that no improvement in the efficiency of humidifiers is feasible. Comments showed that allhumidifiers that could economically be equipped

. with htIIilidistats are already so

equipped. Becausethe inclusion ofhumidistats was previously determined by FEA to be the only.feasible improvement, the pro;posed energy efficiency target of 24 percent is reduced to zero_

1. Humidistats. The majority of commenters agreed that humidistat control of most humidifiers is necessaryin orderfor thehumidifiers to op44 65 35 '19 186 54 •

..........u

............**u~.u** .......**~'** ..U

..4

. 35 100 65 100

erate properly and efficiently, However, several comments indicated that 

### it would be difficult to redesign certain central system humidi!iers to**maJ~e** them operable using humidistat controls. Most of these humidifiers would fall into a group Of what commenters have called "uncontrollable" humidifi· ers, or those witJl. a very low capacity (typically about 6 gallons per day or "less). Itwas pOinted out that these low

capacity units are not likely to cause overhumidification and therefore roquh:e no humidistat. These units rep· resent about 30 percent.of total humidifier shipments. DOE agrees with

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 70-TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 1978RULES' AND REGULATIONS

these comments and has determined possIble changes in demand. Industry ·that equipping such units with hu- implied that an increase in demand of midistat controls would not be 

### eco- 30.8 percent is not possIble. DOE benomicallyfeasible. lIeves that thelow end of the estImatOf the remaining 70 percent of the ed range, or 

### a. reduction in demand of iIiarket, nearly 45 percent are shipped 4.4 percent, is the most reasonable 

### es-
< withhumidistats leaving about 25 per- tImate of the effects of these design cent of 

### total humidifier shipments changes. However, asnotedin thepro- which are "controllable" but which posed rulemaking, DOE does not beare shipped without humidistat.con- lIeve that this drop in demand, 1! It trols. While it would be technological-**~** does occur, will adversely affect the ly feasible 

### to equip this remainIng economicfeaslbIllty ofthetarget. group with humidistats as they leave 2 Baseline Data.. Comments indicatthe factorY, retail and end-use consId- ed' that the 1975 baseline energy erations dictate thatthis isnot an

### eco- factor of 2.27 pints per kWh which nomically**.~able** course of**~tIon.** was presented in connection with the ThesehUl1lldifiers areshippedWIthout proposed energy efficIency "improve-**h~distats** because of**~ferent** elec- ment target was lnaccurate. The retrlcal v:oltages prevalent m 

# fl.eld**ap~ll-** sults of a survey performed by 

### a. third cations, and they are equipped WIth party showed that the 1972 produchumidistats**~t.**thetime ofinstallation. tIon.weIghted energy factor was 1.965**~** Dehumtdf,fiers.**D~E** has deter- pIntslkWh. DOE and NBS recognized D?IDed**~hat** for dehUl1lldifiers an em- that the 1975 baseline data. presented clencr

.Improvement tar&:et of 19 per- inconnectionwiththeproposed target**ce~t** IS the maximum which is techno- represented 

### a. small sample of basic 10gxcaJ1.Y and economically feasible. models and didnotreflect productionAnalySIS of.the comments received weIghtlng. Therefore,thenew 1972 ba-**sh~wed** thatm theproposalFEAover- selIne data reflecting 

### a broader data**est~ted ~he**  energy savings of the base and productlon.welghting has desIgn optIOns. The energy savings beenaccepted.

were reduced from 2.2.percent 

### to 16 The.energy efficiency Improvement percent, and the effICIency improve- targef for dehumidifiers requires no ment target has been reduced from modificatIon as 

### a. result of the change the proposed 28 percent**~** 19 percent. 

### to the 1972 baseline because the est!- Table 8 SummarIZeS the fmal efficien- ' cy target and the associated energy mates ofenergysavings resultingfrom factors incorporating various design options

. were derived using anannIytlcal model
TABLE S.-DehumidifierEnergyEfficiency which didnot accountforvariations in ImproVement Target design options ofproducts asmanufacturedin 1972. Thisprocedure was used Energy efficiency 'improvement target(percent) 1972 energy 1980 energy due 

### to the lack of information on defactorpints/ factor pints/ humidifiers available to NBS and kilowatthours kilowatthoura DOE. No allowance was made for any

19 1.965 2.338

1. 

### Investment. Comments by indus

### trY representatives stated that the investment for one design option, improved compressors, would be about $100,000 per firm·compared to the FEA estimate of $16,000 per firm. Other comments by manufacturers also statedthatthe capitalinvestment for another design option, improvement of condenser heat transfer, would be**clo~** 

### to $75,000 per firm, compared 

### to tlie PEA estimate of $10,000 perfirm. design options already incorporatedin existing models when the target was calculated and the target was therefore independent of the base year data..



### 3. Compressor J!otor EJ/icfencu. Those commenting stated that the 

### estimatedenergy savings associated with Improved compressor motor efficiency
weretoo high.

It was further soggested that time remaining for the implementation of this option was insufficient inlight or the unavailabIllty of high efficiency compressor motors. No substantiation ofthese assessments was offered, however. DOE has contacted varIous seg

## 15145

ments or the industrY and has been unable to confirm thathigh efficiency compressor motors would notbe'availableby 1980. Therefore.DOEdoesnot have sufficientbasis tojustifymodify- ingthe energy savings associated with this desIgn option.



### 4. Fan Motor Efficiencu. Comments indicated that the adoption of permanent split capacitor fan motors in place of shaded polefan motors isimpractical because the increased production costs compared 

### to potential energy savings showed that this option was not economically feasible. Comments further indicated that energy savings of 1 percent could be obtainedbymodifyingshadedpolefan motors. After review of data on both increased 

### cost and value of resulting energy savings, DOE had determined thattheuseofpermanentsplitcapacitor mot.ors Is not economically feasible. DOE now recommends that the energy savings associated with fan motor effIciency should be reduced from 5 percent to 1 percent. The targethasbeenadjustedto

### reflectthis change.



### 5. Insulate Interchanger. Comments indicated and NBS now agree; that the distance between evaporator and condenserin

### a dehumidifierIs so small that Insulation of a heatinterchanger would be impracticaL Therefore, this design optionhasbeen eliminated.

6. Condenser 

### Heat Tran3/er. Comments**sta.t~** that the energy savings resulting from Improved condenser heat transfer should be reevaluated. DOE has reviewed the original estiDUlte of energy savings of this design option and hasfound no newinformation which justifIes modification of the originalaJl.alysls.

J. Central Air Conditioner$. DOE has determined that for central air conditioners an effIciency improvementtarget of 21 percent is the Iilaximum improvement which is technologicalJ.y and economIcalJ.y feasible. Analysis of the comments received showed that the practical limitations
or the implementation of the design option for Improving the compressor fan motor reduced the energy savings from 20 to 17 percent, andreducedthe effIciency Improvement target from theproposed 25 percentto 21 percent_ Table 9 SllIDDl8lizes the final efficiency target and the associated energy efficiency ratios. DOE has reevaluated its estimate based ·on information supporting the comments andhas revised its estimate upward to reflect the new information. This revised level of investment remains economically feasible because it appears that firms can undertake this higher investment level when compared 

### to :Previous levels of investment for the industry. The Increased investment will have a negllble effect

ontheprice.ofdehumidifiers. TABLE 9.-CentralaircondftfonertnergtJdflcienevimprorement target

.

One comment questioned the upper bound of FEA's estimated range of CentralaIrcondlUoners (aggregate),

____ _ Singlepaekage

___ _ Splltsystetemm

____ _ 1975 enerey Percentof

eonsumpUon eneno'

x 10"Blu 1I&\i!lp

18.82 3.01 15.81 17 1t 18 EnUUeU1detlCT !mpw.-ementt&riet In pe=t

21 16 22

'SeasonalenergyerrtclencyraUo inBrltWtthemu1unitsperwatt-haUlS.

,

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 70-TUESDAY, APlUL 11, 1978 1975'

6.5 6.2 6.8 1980'

8.0 7.2 8.1

## 15146 RULES AND REGULATIONS



### 1. Investment. Comments statedthat Since units of this size orlargermake ally declined. The decline Is widely

a total of $100 million would be up a major portion of total central air held to have been a result of substan· needed by industry to implement conditioner sales, the production· tialincreases in appliancemanufnctur· design. options necessary to achieve weighted energy 'savings resulting ing productivity during that period. In the proposed target for this product, from this design option decreased sig- 1967, however, the CPI for appliances rather than the $7 million estimated nificant}y.,DOEhasrevisedits original began a moderate increase, and escn· by FEA. Further comments, however, energy savings estimate to reflect a 1 lated sharply duringthe 1974 and 1975 indicated that the additional expendi- percent produ9tion-weighted energy inflationary periods. Since then, the tures directly attributable to the im- savings due to improving the condens- rate ofincrease has tapered off consld· ' plementation of targets would be con: erfan efficiency. erably and recent projections indIcate t $100 milli It that the rate of prIce increases be· siderably

.less han on. III. GENEa.u. COMW;.NTS REGARDING THE tween 1975 and 1980 will bethree per. should be noted that industry has cent or even less. DOE is basIng its been working on efficiency improve- ANALYSIS current price increase projections on ments over thepastseveral years. This A. 

### Projected Shipmentsfor 1980. In two well-known,macro economic simu. effort has already resulted in more several instances, REA'sprojections of lations which take into account a energy-efficient models reaching the the number of shipments for various number ofeconomic variables in arrlv. retail market. Production facilities al- products in 1980 were criticized. Most

.ing at their price forecasts. Both ready exist for the manufacture of of the comments concerning this part macro economic simulations nre in larger condenser evaporator coils, ofFEA's economic analysis considered agreement that the annual rate of which accounts for nearly 80' percent the projections to be too high. DOE retailprice increases for appllnnces baof the total investment requirement reviewed these projections for each of tween 1975 and 1980 will be three per. ·forFEA's suggesteddesign**options~** the products discussed in this**~otice** cent orless, comparable to the original It was also stated in the'comments and revised theprojections in orderto estimates made by FEA. DOE has that the larger evaporator coils canbe account more fully for the effects of' found no evidence to supportchanging utilized in smaller capacity central air the 1974-1975 recession and the un-

- the earlier estimate of three percent conditioners to improve efficiency. In**~ally** slqwrecovery thatlias**ensue~.'** per year for the rate of price increase this instance, a complete redesign, re- The downward revision of 1980 appli- appropriateforhotne appllances. tooling, and the addition of new pro- ance shipments was found to have no Even if the rate of appllnnce price duction facilities would not be neces- significant effect on the economic increase proves to be greater than the sary in order to improve the efficien- impact of the target becausei;he at. estimated three percent the exactrate cies of a considerable number of units tendant costs and benefits were re- of appllance)'rice Increase is not as produced.Because the targets applyto duced coi:nmensurably as a result of important as the relationship between those units with a capacity of 65,000 this revision. The revised forecasts fuel price increases and appllancc Btu's or less, it is likely that the sub- also have a'minimal effect on the neg- price increases. Since the outlook fs stitutions mentioned above could be ative impacts described in Stage IV of for fuel prices to Increase at a greater made for most, ifnot all, of the units the economic analysis section of the rate than. appliance prices there will covered under thetargetprogram. proposed target notice (42 FR 35657, be larger monetary savings over time

The FEA estimated investment July 15, 1977). These impacts relateto resultingfrommore efficient products. figure was based on an evaluation of employment, investment require- Thus, any appliance prIce Increases ro. the state of the manufacturing indus- ments, and price increases affecting suIting from implementation of try at that time, the efficiency levels low income groups. The effects are energy.savlng design options can be in 1980 Which would result from cur- minimal because the revisions still in· expected toberecoveredbyconsumers rent expenditures on investment, and dicate some growth· from current at an accelerating rate because of in. the additional expenditures by indus- levels ofshipments. creasingfuel prices. As longas thIs re. try necessary to industry to meet the In addition, reduced 1980 shipments lationship exists there will he a net efficiency target. DOE has reviewed have a negligible impact on retail ap- benefitto consumers. the Investment analysis and hasfound plianceprices. Two factors leadto this 'C. 

### ElasticitvEstimates. Several com. no evidence'to support changing the conclusion. First, the primary causes ments suggested that the elasticIty es. investment estimate. of such a price increase wouldbe varl- timates used by FEA were incorrect.



### 2. Implementation Time. It was able,costs suchas materials and labor, Detailed analysis, assumptions, or al. stated that the group of selected and investment generally represents a ternative elasticities were not submIt. design options could not be imple- very small percentage of any price in- ted In support of the comment. DOE
mented in less than three to five crease related to changes in design. has reviewed the relevant economlo years. Many of these improvements Second. the tD.vestment will be spread factors used in the elasticity cnlculn. have been under development for sev- over all of the products produced tions and has found no bl!.Sis for eral years. NBS and DOE have deter- during the useful life of the capital changingthe elasticities. mined, after careful consideration of equipment needed for the design D. 

### Projected Price ofEnergy. Com. these comments, that the proposed option so that reduced shipments in ments were also received on FEA's two-year lead time for implementation 1980havelittleeffect. projectedprice of energy in 1980. DOE remains feasible. B. 

### Rare ofPrice Increase. The rate has reviewed the estimated future



### 3. Condenser Fan Motor Efficiency. of price Increase used by FEA to pro- prices ofresidenti!ll electricity, natural Comments indicated that -production- ject current appliance prices to 1980 gas, and fuel oil. For electricity and weighted energy savings due to more was thiee percent compounded annu- natural gas, the price estimates have efficient condenser fan motors were ally. ThIs annualrate was criticizedby been revised upward by approximo.tely much less than the original FEA esti- " industry representatives as being too '1 percent. This revision has a nogUei· mate because permanent split capaci- low. For a. period of approximately ten ble effect ontheeconomic analysis. tor motors are already used on units years prior to 1967, the Consumer E. 

### Product Sa/ely and Testing. Com· with capacities above 24,000 BtU/hr. Price Index (CPI) for appliances actu- ments Indicated that the time remainFEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 70-TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 1978ing before 1980 is too short to allow for the necessary testing required to meet electrical and other safety standards. These comments further stated that because many manufacturers do not have their own testing facilities. independenttesting and safetylaboratories would have to be utilized, which could cause delays innewproductcertification. Other comments. however, indicatedthatmanufacturers wouldbe working with the testing laboratories in the design and prototype development stages.· thereby spreading the necessary testing overtime. Itwas also stated that most testing facilities could easily be expanded and operat-

, inghours increased in order to accommodate increased demands for testing. In light of these comments, DOEdoes not believe product testing will' hamper the implementationof targets bythe manufacturers.
<Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Pub. L. 94-163. as amended by Pub. L. 94-385; Federal EnergyAdministration Act of 1974. Pub. Is. 93-275. as amended by Pub. L. 94- 385; Department of Energy Organization Act,Pub. L. 95-91; E.O. 11730,a9 FR23185.)

In consideration of the foregoing, Part 430 of Chapter 

### n of Title 10. Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as set forth below to establish efficiency improvement targets fornine appliancetypes, effectiveMay 15,1978.

Issued in Washington, D.C., April 5, 1978.
WILLIAM S. HEF'FELFINGER, Directoroj Administration.
L Part430 ofChapter

### n ofTitle 10, Code of Federal Regulations, is

_ amended by adding a Subpart C, to readasfollows:

Subpart C-Energy Efficiency Improvement Targets

Sec. 430:31 Purposeandscope. 430.32 Energy efficiency inprovement tar- 'gets. ;) AUTHORITY: Energy Policy and Conserva· tionAct. Pub. L. 94-163. as amendedbyPub. L. 94-385; Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974. Pub. L. 93-"275. as amended by' Pub. L. 94-385; Department ofEnergy orga· nization Act. Pub. L. 95-91, E.O. 11730. a9 FR23185. Subpart C-Energy Efficiency Improvement Targets

§ 430.31 Purpose and scope.

This subpart contains energy efficiency improvement targets required to beprescribedby theDepartmentof Energy pursuant to section 325(a) of' theAct.

. §430.32 Energy efficiency improvement "targets. (a) The energy efficiency improvement target for refrigerators and reRULES AND REGULATIONS

, frigerator-freezers shall be a 39 percent increase in the energy eilicIency of the total number of refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers manufacturedby allmanufacturersincalendar year 1980 when compared wIth the energy efficIency of the total number of refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers manufactured by all manufacturersincalendaryear 1972.

(b) The energy efficiency improvement target for freezers shall be n 28 percent increase in the energy efficIency of the total number of freezers manufactured by all manufacturers in calendar year 1980 when compared with the energy efficIency ofthe total number of freezers manufactured by all manufacturers in calendar year 1972.

(c) The energy efficIency improvement targetfor dishwashers shall be a. 25 percent increase in the energy eillciency of the total number of dishwashers manufacturedby all manufac-**ture~** In calendar year 1980 when compared with the energy e[!fciency of the total number of dishwashers manufactured by all manufacturers In calendaryear 1972. '

(d) The energy efficIency improvement targetfor clothes dryers shallbe

an 8 percentincrease inthe energy efficiency of the totalnumber ofclothes dryers manufactured by all manufac· turers in calendar year 1980 when compared with the enemy efiiclency of the total number of clothes dryers manufactured by all manufacturers in calendaryear 1972.

(e) [Reserved] (f) The energy efiiclency improvement target for room air conditioners shall be 

### a 28 percent increase In the energy efficiency of the total number ofroomairconditionersmanufactured by all manufacturers in calendar year 1980 when 1!ompared wIth the energy efficIency ofthetotalnumber ofroom air conditioners manufactured by all manufacturersincalendaryear 1972.

(g) (Reserved] (h) The energy efficiency improvement target for television sets shall be

a '19 percent increase in the energy efficiency of the total number of televi-· sIan sets manufactured by all manufacturers in calendar year 1920 when compared with the energy efIlclency of the total number of television sets manufactured by all manufacturers in calendaryear 1972.

.

(I> [Reserved] (j) [Resen'ed] (k) The energy effic,lency**Impron~­** menttarget for humIdifiers shall**b~** 

### a. 

## o percent change in the energy efiiclency of the total number of humIdifiers manufacturedby all manufacturers in calendar year 1980 when compared with the energy efficIency of the totalnumberofhumIdifiersmanufactured by all manufacturers in calendaryear 1972. 

### 15147

(1) The energy efficiency imprO'.,"ement target fordehumIdifiers shallbe


### a 19 percentincrease inthe energy efficiency of the total number of dehumldlflers manufactured by all manufacturers in calendar year 1980 when compared with the energy efficiency of the total number of dehumidifiers. manufactured by allmanufacturers in calendaryear 1972.

(m) The energy efficiency impro\"ement target for central 

### fur condition
### ers shall be 

### a 21 percent,increase in the energy efficiency of the total number of central air conditioners manufactured by all manufacturers in calendar year 1980 when compared with the energy efficiency ofthe total number of central air conditioners manufacturedby all manufacturers in calendaryear 1972.

(0) [Reserved]

£FRDoc.78-9497Filed4-6-78;9:34 am]

[6210-01] TItle 12-BanJcs and BanJcing

CHAPTER II-FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

SUBCHAPTEI A-80AlD OF GOVEINOlS OF THE FEDERAL RESER.VE SYSTEM



# - [RegulationY:DocketNo.R..{J083] PART 225-BANK 

### HOLDING COMPANIES

Correction
AGENCY: Board of Governors of the FederalReserve System. ACTION: Correction.
SUMMARY: ThIs document corrects a previous FEDERAL Rl:GIsrERdocument.
EFFECTIVEDATE:April4, 1978.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert E. Mannlon, Associate General Counsel, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. WashIngton,D.C. 20551.202-452-3274-
In FR Doc. 78-4053 appearing at page 6214 of the Issue for Tuesday. February 14, 1978, the last paragraph of footnote 7 should have read, "Orders is:med under section 2(g)(3)

nre publlshed in the Federal Reserve 'Bulletin'."

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,April3, 1978.

TmODOm:E.ALLIsON,

Secretaryof theBoard.
[FR Doc.. 78-9542Filed4-10-78;8:45 am}

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 70-TUESDAY, APllL 11, 1971