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 

amended in the following reSpects: 

§ 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 amended to read as follows:. 

§ 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 all conditions 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 

Deputy Administrator, Veterinary Services, 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 poultry will be dIsseminated 

to the livestock or poultry of the 

United States. 

(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 properly issued and endorsed in 

accordance with regulations in Part 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 on the United St!!-tes 

health certificate, or a paper containing the information shall be attached 

to the certificate that accompanies 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 

covered by said certificate. -

• • • • • 

§ 92.34 [Amended] 

3. In § 92.34(c) the last two sentences 

are deleted. 

(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; a8 FR 19141.) 

RULES AND R.EGULATIONS 

It does not appear that further 

public participation in this rulemaking proceeding woUld make additional relevant information available to the Department. This amendment of the 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 of livestock or poultry into the 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 

are impracticable 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 of April, 1978. 

Non:.-The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this 

document does not contain a. major proposal 

requiring preparation of an Inflation 

Impact Statement under Executive Order 

11821 and OMB Circular A-107. 

PIERRE A. CHALoux, VMD, 

Deputy Aaministrator, 

Veterinary Services. 

[FR Doc. 78-9544 Filed 4-10-78; 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 of Appliances 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

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 central air conditioners. Energy efficiency improvement targets are one element 

of the appliance efficiency program required by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 15, 1978. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 

CONTACT: 

'EDrroRIAL Non:.-It Is contemplated that 

Chapter II will be renamed at a future date 

to reflect the fact that it contains regulations a.dministered by the Department of 

Energy, including regulations admlnlstered 

by· the Office of Conservation 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 of the 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) Water heaters. 

(6) Room air conditioners. 

(7) Home heating equipment, not in· 

cluding furnaces. 

(8) Television sets. 

(9) Kitchen ranges and ovens. 

(10) Clothes washers. 

(11) Humidifiers and dehumidifiers, 

(12) Central air condItioners. 

(13) Furnaces. 

DOE hereby amends Part 430, Chap. 

ter II of Title 10, Code of Federal 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 the product types 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 

product types (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, 1978 
325 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 maximum per- _ 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 

achieve the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency' determined by DOE 

to be technologically and economically 

feasible by 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 energy savings of individual design options were combined to 

provide a single target for each product. In the second stage, the economic 

feasibility of the energy efficiency, targets calculated in the first stage was evaluated. In the third stage the individual targets for products (1) through 

(10) we.re combined to determine the 

aggregate energy efficiency .improvement of these product types manufactured in 1980 as compared with the aggregate energy efficiency of the same product types manufactured in 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 been re- ceived from the Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). 

Since four- of these products are in cat- . 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 

The first is to establish voluntary efficiency improvement targets representing aggregate Industry le\'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 standard for the product In question. The second strategy entails develop.-

ment of a labeling program to require 

that manufacturers label each product with energy lnIormation to allow con- sumer comparisons. The Federal 

Trade Commission (FTC) is charged 

with responslblllty for devising labeling rules and administering the labeling program. 

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 of the lnIormation pro- vided on the labels. This is Intended to 

encourage comparison shopping and 

to enhance consumer demand for the more efficient products. Al; a conse- quence, it is anticipated that manufacturers 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 Act mandates 

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 covered product which will assist consumers in making pruchasing decIsIons. The test procedures, when ap.- plied by Individual manufacturers to 

their product lines, will serve two purposes: (1) To provIde test related data 

for FTC mandated product labels and 

for representations regarding energy 

consumption; and (2) to provide 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-GSNERAL PROVISIONS 

Sec. 

430.1 Purpose and scope. 

430.2 Deffnitions. 

StJBpAR'r B-TEsr PRoammn:s 

430.21 Purpose and scope. 

15139 

Scc430.22 Test procedures for messures of 

energy consumption. 

Cn) ReIrigerators and refrlgerator·freezers. 

(b) Freezen. 

Cc) DIshwashers. 

Cd) Clothes dryers. Ce) Water heaters. 

en Room aIr condltloners. 

• • • 

(h) TeJe\1slon sets. 

• • 

(j) Clothes washers. 

(k) HumIdIfIers. 

(1) Dehumidifiers. 

• 

• 

• 

(m) Central air condltioners. 

• 

• 

430.23 Units to be tested £Reserved]. 

430.24 Representations regarding measures of energy consumption. 

Cn) Refrigerators and re!rlgerator-!reezers_ 

(b) Freezers. 

(c) DIsh'ilo"1\.Shers. 

Cd) Clothes dryers. 

(e) Water heaters. 

CD Room air condltloners. 

• • 

(h) TelevisIon sets. 

• • 

(j) Clothes washers. 

(k) HumIdIfIers. 

(1) Dehumidifiers. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

em) Central air condltloners. 

.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 

Clothes Dryers. 

Appendix E-UnIlorm Test Method for Me~ the Energy Consumption of 

Water Heaten.. 

Appendix P-UnIlorm Test Method for 

J.(euurlng the Energy Consumption of 

Room AIr Conditioners. 

• • • • • 

Appendix H-UnIlorm Test Method for M~ the Energy Consumption of 

TeJc\1s1on Seta. 

• • • • • 

Appendix J-UnIlorm Test Method for Measuring the- Energy Con.sumptlon of 

Clothes Washers.. 

Appendix Kl-UnIlorm Test Method for 

Measuring the Energy Consumption of • Central System Humidifiers. 

Appendix K2-UnIlorm Test Method for 

Mea.sunng the Energy Consumption of 

Room HumIdifiers. 

Append.ix L-UnIlorm Test !lethod for 

!leuurlng the Energy Consumption of 

DehumIdifiers. 

FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL 43, NO. 70-TUESOAY. APRIL 11. 1978 
Appendix M-Unifonn Test Method for 

Measuring the Energy Consumption of 

Central Air Conditioners. 

Sec. 

,SUDPART C-ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

IMPROVEMENT TARGETS 

-430.31 Purpose and scope. 

430.32 Energy efficiency improvement targets. 

(a) Refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. (b) Freezers. 

(c) Dishwashers. 

(d) Clothes dryers. (e) [Reserved] 

(f) Room air conditioners. 

(g) [Reserved] 

(h) TelevisIon sets. 

(l) [Reserved] 

(j) [Reserved] 

(k) HumidifIers. 

(1) Dehumidifiers. 

(m) Central air conditioners. 

(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 

noted in parentheses):' -

'"RefrIgerators and refrigerator-freezers-39 

percent (47 percent). 

Freezers-28 percent (30 percent). Dishwashers-25 p·ercent. Clothee dryers-8 percent (11 percent). 

Room air conditIoners-28 percent (30 per- cent). 

Television sets-79 percent. HumIdIfiers-O percent (24 percent). DehumIdIfiers-19 percent (28 percent). 

Central air conditIoners-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 background papers as well 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, Federal Building, 12th and Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, D.C., between the hours of 8 a.m. and 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. 

A. REFRIGERATORS AND REFRIGERATORFREEZERS 

DOE has determined that an efficiency improvement target of 39 percent for refrigerators. and refrigerator- 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 percent to 39 percent. Table 1 

summarizes the final efficiency target and associated energy factors. 

TABLE I.-Refrigerator and RefrigeratorFreezer Energy Elficiency Improvement 

Target 

Energy 1972 energy efficIency factor cubIc 

Improvement feet/kllowatt 

target (percent) hours/cycle (24 hrs.> 

39 • 3.80 

1980 energy 

factor cubIc 

feet/kllowatt 

hours/cycle (24 

hrs.) 

&.28 

1. Timing. Comments stated that in· 

sufficient time remained to develop and produce new product lines that incorpQrate 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 

safety certification organizations. It should be noted, however, that 

the targets only establish guidelines for the percentage increase of the 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 elicited at the hearing revealed that numerous improvements in efficiency have 

already been implemented, so that the 

1977 ,production-weighted energy factor exceeds the 1972 baseline efficiency. Furthermore, recent study conducted by the National Bureau of 

Standards (NBS) shows that 98 of 336, 

or 29.2 percent, of the refrigerator 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. For these 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 

target by 1980. If manufacturers of refrigerators 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 

and Federal authorities have Indicated 

an inclination to limlt or ban the use 

of Freon-ll, a critical material for the 

manufacture of polyurethane fonni. 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· scribed today. 

3. Elimination of automatic defrost. 

Some comments indicated that auto· 

matic defrost should be elimlnated in 

order to save the energy consumed by this feature. DOE has 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 at this time. 

4. RollOut Shelve$. Roll out shelves 

were suggested as a possible design option to reduce the amount of time 

that the refrigerator door is 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 be consumed because of the 

extra time required to roll out the 

shelf and the fact that the refrigerntor door must be 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 which might 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 stated that FEA'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- from 47 percent to 39 percent. 

menters estimated a cost increase of 9. International Competition. A 

$20 to $60 for the addition of foam 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 nies who produced abroad and sold relprice increase was more likely than a atively few units In the U.s. His com- $20 increase. ment pointed out that the foreign proWhen the FEA estimated price in- ducer would be In 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 used in deter· products destined for the U.s. market. 

mining the $45.20 production-weighted leaving the rest of his production un- price increase for this product. There- affected. Because ·only a portion of the 

fore, the DOE estimated price increase 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 product line, 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 costlion per firm or $7.5 million for the in- spreading, It was ctmtended that for· 

dustry. Comments indicated that this eign producers would 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 to U.s. producers. 

cited as being more realistic. One com- At present. refrigerator imports are pany stated it h8.d spent $27 million to focused in the small or compact refrIg· 

implement one design. option-foam erator varl,ety which are designed to 

Insulation. Detailed cost breakouts to meet a supplementary refrIgerator 

support-the validity of these higher in- need. Due to the relatively InsJgnifIvestment estimates have not been sub- cant and narrowly focused market 

mitted to DOE. Further. the industry share of these imports. it does not 

has made substantial progress towards appear that domestic firms meeting 

producing high 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 or movements generatavailable data. DOE has reviewed the ed from within or without the target 

investment analysis and finds no basis program. 

for changing the original 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 sell products 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 target program. 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 even higher levels 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 throughout the world. 

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 percent to 28 percent. Table 2 

summarizes the final efilciency target 

and assocIated energy factors. 

T.uILE 2.-Freezer Enerw EfflCienC1/ 

ImPTO"t'ement Target 

EIler1D" 1D'72 ener&:Y 1980 enenl7 

eUld!.'Jl!;7 tactar cubIc 1actcr cubIc: 

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 that the DOE retall price 

Increase of $38.25 for freezers. a. pro- duction weighted figure resulting from 

the desIgn option implementation. was too low. Since there was a single hearIng 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 of foam. in-

&ulatlon alone. DOE estimated a price 

Increase of almm $30 for foam 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 increase w.a.s more likely than a $20 increase. 

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. 

the DOE price Increase for 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. 

Comments indicated that this estimate was too low. A range of $8 million to 

$48 millIon per firm was cIted as being more reallstIc. However, detalled cost 

breakouts to support the validity of 

these higher investment estimates 

have not been submitted 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 of the models cUr- TABLE 3.-Dishwasher Energy 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 water per fill could bo 

and finds no basis for changing the efficiency factor loadsl factor loadsl 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 against low 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 ings for 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 not included in the 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 

target by 1980. If manufacturers of re- 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 at 0.2.41 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 estimate used by DOE. 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 factor for freez.. one machine. Variation from one ma- DOE has learned that there is at least , . 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- early from 1.6 gallons per minute 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 is the maximum improvement which 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 that the 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 erating pressure, the quantity of water and associated energy factors. 

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 70-TUESD~Y, APRIL 11, 1978 
RULES AND REGULATIONS 

TABLE 4.-Clothes dT31er energy efficiency impTOrement target 

1972 energy Percent of Energy eUiclency 

consumptlonx10 u consumpUon energy x 10u Btu savings 

Clothes dryen; 15.70 

Gas 4.91 

Electrlc_ 10.79 

• E;nergy factor In poun_ds per kilowatt-hour. 

1. Gas-Fueled Clothes Dryer Standing Pilot. FEA data shows that 38 percent of the 1972 production had standing pilots. One manufacturer stated 

that the number was significantly lower but provided no alternative data. 

The 38 percent number was provided 

to FEA in AHAM's report to FEA entitled "Design/Operating Characteristics Survey" dated October 22, 1976. 

NBS accepted this data and since no 

other ilata was available it was used to 

1972 Base Year 

i9Pro.ement target 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 data was not available 

at the time of the NBS base year analysis, and represents a broader industry base than that analysis, DOE agrees that it is proper to revise the 1972 base 

year energy factor as follOWS: 

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 the final DOE test pro- cedure. Additional information concerning the moisture removal factor 15 

available in the "Appliance Energy Efficiency Improvement Target for 

Clothes Dryers" document dated 

March 16, 1977; which is on file at the - DOE Freedom of Information Office. 

Further information concerning the 

field usage factors is available in the 

final test procedures for 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 of the base year data. 

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 

information that would enable it to estimate energy savings for this option, 

and so has not incorporated thls concept into the target. 

4. Addition 0/ Insulation. All of the 

commenters disagreed with the NBS 

estimate of the 5 percent energy savIngs associated with the addition of insulation to the interIor of the electric 

clothes dryer cabinet. Industry estI15143 

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 

for installing insulation. 

Subsequent NBS testing indicates an 

energy savings improvement of approximately 2 percent to 3 percent 

v.1th reference' to a 1972 baseline. 

Based upon this test data, NBS recommended, and DOE has 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 the inclusion of this design 

option in the target, and one commenter challenged the economic feasibUlty 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 

indicated that the design option is feasible and one manufacturer has already incorporated an improved heating element in production. 

E. Room. Air Conditioner. DOE has 

determined that an effIciency 'improvement target of 28 percent for 

room air conditioners is the maximum 

which is both technologically and ec0-

nomically feasible. Analysis of the 

comments received showed that in the 

proposal FEA overestimated the 

energy savings of the design options. 

The energy savings were reduced from 

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 energy efficiency ratios. 

TABLE 5.-Room Afr C01lditi01ler Energy 

EfficlenC1/ Improrement Target 

EneliY 

dfldcllcy 

Improvement 

t&riet (percent) 

28 

Ilf12 enero- 1990 energy 

ellideney ratiO' eUIcIency raUo 

Btu/watt-hour Btu/wiLtt-hour 

6.% '1.94 

1. Credit/or Fan 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 has been able to 

quantify ~curatelY the resulting 

energy savings. Due to the uncertainty 

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 

from the final target. 

2. Baseline Efficiency Data. Most 

comments stated that the 1972 baseline energy efficiency ratio of 6.51 that 

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 of tests 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 downward to 6.2. 

Because the original FEA analysis for energy savings of individual design options was based on the previous 1972 

baseline energy efficiency ratio 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 efficiency ratio of" 6.2 to one 

of 7.94 and ttl. maintain the 1980 target improvement at the level which is the 

maximum technologically and economically feasible. 

3. Sales Forecasts. Some comments 

stated that DOE sales forecasts ap- peared too optimistic in comparison 

with those of industrial associations 

and individual companies. After review 

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 away from room air condition-

-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 . existing homes, 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 

this product. A lower level of forecasted shipments. proportionately reduces 

both total purchase cost increases and 

total operating savings. The result is a 

similar net benefit to 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 commenter provided 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 of economic feasibility. 

5. Investment. DOE's estimated investment requirement to implement 

the design optionS was about $625,000 

per firm or $8 million for the indust.ry, 

Comments indicated that this estlmnte 

was too low. A range of $1 million to 

$3 million per finn was cited as being 

more realistic. Detailed cost breakouts 

to support the validity of these higher 

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- ing the 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 that the 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 

target for televisions. . 

TABLE 6.-Television sets energy efficiency improvement target 

1972 energy 

consumption x 10" 

Btu 

Percent of 

energy 

savings 

Energy elllclenoy 

Improvement target In 

percent 

1972' 

Television recelvers ____ ._.: Monochrome ...... __ ..... ____ • Color._ ... ___________ • , 

I Energy factor In percent. 

16.'10 • 4.83 

11.87 

H. Humidifiers. DOE has' determined that no improvement in the efficiency of humidifiers is feasible. 

Comments showed that all humidifiers 

that could economically be equipped . with htIIilidistats are already so 

equipped. Because the inclusion of humidistats 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 necessary in order for the humidifiers 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). It was 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, 1978 
RULES' 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 benomically feasible. lIeves that the low 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- < 

with humidistats leaving about 25 per- tImate of the effects of these design 

cent of total humidifier shipments changes. However, as noted in the pro- 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 economic feaslbIllty of the target. 

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 that this is not an eco- factor of 2.27 pints per kWh which 

nomically .~able course of ~tIon. was presented in connection with the 

These hUl1lldifiers are shipped WIthout 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. the time of installation. 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- in connection with the proposed target ce~t IS the maximum which is techno- represented a. small sample of basic 

10gxcaJ1.Y and economically feasible. models and did not reflect productionAnalySIS of. the comments received weIghtlng. Therefore, the new 1972 ba- sh~wed that m the proposal FEA over- selIne data reflecting a broader data est~ted ~he energy savings of the base and productlon.welghting has 

desIgn optIOns. The energy savings been accepted. 

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 of energy savings resulting from 

factors incorporating various design options . were derived using an annIytlcal model 

TABLE S.-Dehumidifier Energy Efficiency which did not account for variations in 

ImproVement Target design options of products as manufactured in 1972. This procedure was used 

Energy 

efficiency 

'improvement 

target (percent) 

1972 energy 1980 energy due to the lack of information on defactor pints/ factor pints/ humidifiers available to NBS and 

kilowatt hours kilowatt houra DOE. No allowance was made for any 

19 1.965 2.338 

1. Investment. Comments by industrY 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 stated that the capital investment 

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 per firm. 

design options already incorporated in 

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 estimated energy savings associated with 

Improved compressor motor efficiency 

were too high. 

It was further soggested that time 

remaining for the implementation of 

this option was insufficient in light or 

the unavailabIllty of high efficiency 

compressor motors. No substantiation 

of these assessments was offered, however. DOE has contacted varIous seg15145 

ments or the industrY and has been 

unable to confirm that high efficiency 

compressor motors would not be 'available by 1980. Therefore. DOE does not 

have sufficient basis to justify modify- ing the 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 pole fan motors is impractical 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 

obtained by modifying shaded pole fan 

motors. After review of data on both 

increased cost and value of resulting 

energy savings, DOE had determined 

that the use of permanent split capacitor 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 

target has been adjusted to reflect this 

change. 

5. Insulate Interchanger. Comments 

indicated and NBS now agree; that 

the distance between evaporator and 

condenser in a dehumidifier Is so small 

that Insulation of a heat interchanger would be impracticaL Therefore, this 

design option has been 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 has found no new information which justifIes modification of 

the original aJl.alysls. 

J. Central Air Conditioner$. DOE 

has determined that for central air 

conditioners an effIciency improvement target 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, and reduced the 

effIciency Improvement target from 

the proposed 25 percent to 21 percent_ Table 9 SllIDDl8lizes the final efficiency target and the associated energy efDOE has reevaluated its estimate ficiency ratios. 

based ·on information supporting the 

comments and has 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 

on the price.of dehumidifiers. 

TABLE 9.-Central air condftfoner tnergtJ dflcienev improrement target . 

One comment questioned the upper 

bound of FEA's estimated range of 

Central aIr condlUoners (aggregate), ____ _ 

Single paekage ___ _ 

Splltsystetemm ____ _ 

1975 enerey Percent of 

eonsumpUon eneno' x 10"Blu 1I&\i!lp 

18.82 

3.01 

15.81 

17 

1t 

18 

EnUU eU1detlCT 

!mpw.-ement t&riet In 

pe=t 

21 

16 

22 

'Seasonal energy errtclency raUo in BrltWt themu1 units per watt-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 stated that Since units of this size or larger make 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 subs tan· 

needed by industry to implement conditioner sales, the production· tial increases in appliance manufnctur· 

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.,DOE has revised its original began a moderate increase, and escn· 

by FEA. Further comments, however, energy savings estimate to reflect a 1 lated sharply during the 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 of increase has tapered off consld· ' 

plementation of targets would be con: er fan 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 be three 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 the past several years. This A. Projected Shipments for 1980. In two well-known ,macro economic simu. 

effort has already resulted in more several instances, REA's projections of lations which take into account a 

energy-efficient models reaching the the number of shipments for various number of economic 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, of FEA's economic analysis considered agreement that the annual rate of 

which accounts for nearly 80' percent the projections to be too high. DOE retail price increases for appllnnces baof the total investment requirement reviewed these projections for each of tween 1975 and 1980 will be three per. ·for FEA's suggested design options~ the products discussed in this ~otice cent or less, comparable to the original It was also stated in the' comments and revised the projections in order to estimates made by FEA. DOE has 

that the larger evaporator coils can be account more fully for the effects of' found no evidence to support changing 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 slqw recovery that lias ensue~.' per year for the rate of price increase 

this instance, a complete redesign, re- The downward revision of 1980 appli- appropriate for hotne 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 exact rate 

cies of a considerable number of units tendant costs and benefits were re- of appllance)'rice Increase is not as 

produced. Because the targets apply to 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, if not all, of the units the economic analysis section of the rate than. appliance prices there will 

covered under the target program. proposed target notice (42 FR 35657, be larger monetary savings over time 

The FEA estimated investment July 15, 1977). These impacts relate to resulting from more 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 to be recovered by consumers 

rent expenditures on investment, and dicate some growth· from current at an accelerating rate because of in. 

the additional expenditures by indus- levels of shipments. creasing fuel prices. As long as 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- benefit to consumers. 

the Investment analysis and has found pliance prices. Two factors lead to this 'C. Elasticitv Estimates. 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 would be varl- timates used by FEA were incorrect. 

2. Implementation Time. It was able,costs such as 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 

men ted 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 changing the elasticities. 

mined, after careful consideration of equipment needed for the design D. Projected Price of Energy. 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 1980 have little effect. projected price of energy in 1980. DOE 

remains feasible. B. Rare of Price 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 annual rate was criticized by 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 on the economic 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, 1978 
ing 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. 

independent testing and safety laboratories would have to be utilized, which 

could cause delays in new product certification. Other comments. however, 

indicated that manufacturers would be 

working with the testing laboratories 

in the design and prototype development stages.· thereby spreading the 

necessary testing over time. It was also 

stated that most testing facilities 

could easily be expanded and operat- , ing hours increased in order to accommodate increased demands for testing. 

In light of these comments, DOE does 

not believe product testing will' 

hamper the implementation of targets by the manufacturers. 

<Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Pub. 

L. 94-163. as amended by Pub. L. 94-385; 

Federal Energy Administration 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 FR 23185.) 

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 for nine appliance types, effective May 

15,1978. 

Issued in Washington, D.C., April 5, 

1978. 

WILLIAM S. HEF'FELFINGER, 

Director oj Administration. 

L Part 430 of Chapter n of Title 10, 

Code of Federal Regulations, is _ amended by adding a Subpart C, to 

read as follows: 

Subpart C-Energy Efficiency Improvement 

Targets 

Sec. 

430:31 Purpose and scope. 

430.32 Energy efficiency inprovement tar-

'gets. ;) 

AUTHORITY: Energy Policy and Conserva· 

tion Act. Pub. L. 94-163. as amended by Pub. 

L. 94-385; Federal Energy Administration 

Act of 1974. Pub. L. 93-"275. as amended by' 

Pub. L. 94-385; Department of Energy 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 be prescribed by the Department of 

Energy pursuant to section 325(a) of' 

the Act. . 

§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 manufactured by all manufacturers in calendar 

year 1980 when compared wIth the 

energy efficIency of the total number 

of refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers manufactured by all manufacturers in calendar year 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 of the total 

number of freezers manufactured by all manufacturers in calendar year 

1972. 

(c) The energy efficIency improvement target for dishwashers shall be a. 

25 percent increase in the energy eillciency of the total number of dishwashers manufactured by 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 

calendar year 1972. ' 

(d) The energy efficIency improvement target for clothes dryers shall be 

an 8 percent increase in the energy efficiency of the total number of clothes 

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 

calendar year 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 

of room air conditioners manufactured 

by all manufacturers in calendar year 

1980 when 1!ompared wIth the energy efficIency of the total number of room 

air conditioners manufactured by all 

manufacturers in calendar year 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 

calendar year 1972. . (I> [Reserved] 

(j) [Resen'ed] 

(k) The energy effic,lency Impron~­

ment target for humIdifiers shall b~ a. 

o percent change in the energy efiiclency of the total number of humIdifiers manufactured by all manufacturers in calendar year 1980 when compared with the energy efficIency of 

the total number of humIdifiers manufactured by all manufacturers in calendar year 1972. 

15147 

(1) The energy efficiency imprO'.,"ement target for dehumIdifiers shall be 

a 19 percent increase in the 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 all manufacturers in 

calendar year 1972. 

(m) The energy efficiency impro\"ement target for central fur conditioners 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 of the total 

number of central air conditioners 

manufactured by all manufacturers in 

calendar year 1972. 

(0) [Reserved] 

£FR Doc. 78-9497 Filed 4-6-78; 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 

- [Regulation Y: Docket No. R..{J083] 

PART 225-BANK HOLDING 

COMPANIES 

Correction 

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System. 

ACTION: Correction. 

SUMMARY: ThIs document corrects a 

previous FEDERAL Rl:GIsrER document. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 4, 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, April 3, 1978. 

TmODOm: E. ALLIsON, 

Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc.. 78-9542 Filed 4-10-78; 8:45 am} 

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