# ...

..



# -

# . - THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1978



# · PART II



# DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY



# •

WATER HEATERS, HOME HEATING EQUIPMENT (NOT INCLUDING

- FURNACES), KITCHEN

RANGES AND OVENS, CLOTHES WASHERS, 

# AND FURNACES

.
Final Energy Efficiency

Improvement Targets



# I

### 47118

[3128-01-M]


### Title 

### lo-En•l'IY



### CHAPTER II-FEDERAL 

### ENERGY ADMIRISTRATION 1 • 

### PART 430-ENERGY CONSERVATION

. PROGRAM FOR APPUANCES



### Energy Eff"aciency Improvement Targets for F"1Ve 

### Types of Appftances

AGENCY! DepartmentofEnergy•. ACTION: Finalrule.
SUMMARY:

## nusrule prescribes final energy efficiency improvement targets for water heaters, home heating equipment <not Including furnaces>, kitchen ranges and ovens. clothes washers, and furn.aces. Energy efficiency improvement targets a.re one element of the consumer product effi· ciency program 

### required by the EnergyPolley and ConservationAct.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 13, 1978. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James A. Smith <ConsumerProducts Efficiency Branch>. Department of Energy, 20 Masachusetts Avenue NW•• Room 2248. Wa.shington, D.C. 20545, 202-376-4815. Jim Merna <Media Relations>, 12th and Pennsylvania Avenue NW.• Room 3104, Washington. D.C. 20461, 202-566-9833. William J. Dennison <Office of Gen· eral CounseD, 12th and Pennsylvania Avenue NW.• Room 7148, Wash· ington.D.C. 20461, 202-566-9750.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. BACKGROUNl> On October 1, 1977, the Department ofEnergy <DOEl assumed the authority of the Federal Energy Adml.nistra· tion CFEA> for the energy conserva- tion program for a.ppllances. pursuant to section 301 of the Department of Energy Orga.niza.tioi:t Act <DOE Act> (Pub. L. 95-91>. The energy conserva- tion program !or appliances was established by FEA pursuant 

### to title Ill, part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act <Act> <Pub. L. 94-163). Section 325 of the Act, 

### as amended by section 161 of the Energy Conserva· tion and Production Act <Pub. L. 94- 385l requires that energy efficiency imp;ovement targets**b~** prescribed for

•EditorialNote.It iscontemplated that ch. II iNill berenamedata. future da.te to reflect the fa.ct that it contains regulations ad.min· · istered by the Department of Energy, ID· eluding regulations of the a.pplia.nce pror.a.m a.nd otherregulations a.dministered by the.Office of Conservation a.nd Solar Appli• catior.s. 

### RULES AND REGuμTIONS


### .certa.l.D. tJ'J)e& of covered applla.Dcel. tJ'l)eS manufactured In 1980 as com· spedficaJJr.

. pared with the aareaate energy effi·



### <

1> Re.friprators and 

### refriaerator- clenc7 of those prodUet types ma.nu· freezers. 

### factured in 19'12.

. <2> Freezer.s. All described 

### earlier, section 325 

### re-

<3> Dishwashers. quires tbat the aareaate enera effi: 

## <4> ClothescfrJ'ers. 

### clmc:v improvement for product types <5>Waterheaters. 

### <l> thrOUl'h ClO> be at lea.st"20 percent US>

### Roomair-conditioners. above the 1972 base year efficlency• <7> Home

### hea.t1nc equipment.. not

### ID· POu.r of the tarcets prescribed 

### toda.Y cludine

### furnaces.. 

### fall within thJa category. These four



### <B> Television

### sets. 

### tarcets. when combinedwiththeother <9> Kitchenraneesand

### ovens.

. six pertinent tarcet.s prescribed on ClO> Clotheswashers. April5, 1978. amount

### to a 26.4-percent Cll> Humidifiersand dehumidifters. energy efficiency improvement for Cl2> Central

### air-conditioners. prOducttypes <1> through <10>. 

### so that 

## n3> Pu.maces. · the 20-percent aggregate .requirement DOE hereby amends title 10, chap-. of

### seetion 325 ismet. ter

## n. Pa.rt 430, CodeofFederal

### Reau· As. envisioned by the 

### Act. the appll· lations.. 

### to prescribe energy efficiency 

### ance program is responsible for en- improvement targets for water heat-. couragtng manufacturers to produce,
ers, home heating equipment <not in- and consumers 

### to purchase. signifi· eluding furnaces>, kitchen ranges and cantly more efficient appliances by

ovens. clothes washers, and fumacea. 1980. The Act sets forth two interreA target for turna.ces was proposedby lated strategies for accomplishing this FEA on September 23. 197'1 <42 FR,.. objective.

·52426, September 30, 1977>. and a Thefirst ls 

### to establishvoluntary ef· public hearing was held on November ficiency improvement targets repre8, 1977. Targets for the other four senttng aggregate industry-wide levels product types covered by today's rule-

-of efficiency improvement to be makingwere proposed byFEAon July achieved by 1980.·As an incentive for 8, 1977 C42 FR 36648, July 15. 197'1>. the Industry 

### to reach these targets. a a.nd public hearings were held August reporting and monitoring system will 16-19, 1977. Final efficiency targets be established to track industry pro·

·for all otherproducttypes listedabove gress. In the event that achievement

were previously issued on April 5, 1978 of any target appears unlikely, this <43 FR 15138, April 11, 1978>. system will require DOE to initiate a...-i

The ts.rget.s for product 

### types Cl> ·adniinistratlve proceeding to prescribe through <10> above are required by a mandatory minimum efficiency section 325 

### to be designed 

### so that. if standardfor theproduct in question. met."'the aggregate energy efficiency The second strategy entails develop· of all such products which 

### are manu- ment of a labeling program to require factured in 1980 will exceed the aggre- tha.tmanufacturers label ea.ch product

· gate energy efficiency ofall such prod· with energy information to allow con·

ucts manufactured In 1972 by the sumer comparisons. The Federal maximum percentage improvement Trade Commission <FTC> is charged which DOE determines 

### to be economi· with.responsibility for establishing la.· cally a.nd technologically feasible, but beling rules and administering the la· which in any case is not less than 20 beling program. percent. Targets for products ell) In conjunction with issuance of the through Cl3l a.re required 

### to be de- labeling rules, a consumer education

· signed 

### so as to achieve the maximum effort will enhance consumer aware·

improvement in energy efficiency de· ness of the labels a.nd create a better termined by DOE to be technological· understanding of the information pro· ly andeconomically feasible by 1980. vided on the labels. This is intended

### to

Analysis leading 

### to the establish· encourage comparison shopping and ment of the targets was accomplished to enhance consumer demand for the in three stages. First, potential energy more efficient products. As 

### a conse- efficiency improvement design options quence, it is anticipated that manufac· for each product type were identified .turers will be influenced·to expedite and then analyzed to determine efficiency imprO\·ements for their va.r- whether they were technologically ious product lines to meet market feasible. Theenergy savings of individ· demand. ual design options were combined 

### to In order to support these dual stratpro\1de 

### a single target for each prod- egies, section 323 of the Act requires uct

.. In the second stage, the economic that DOE develop test procedures for feasibility of the energy efficiency 

### tar· each covered product for the determi· gets calculated in the first stage was nation of estimated annual energy evaluated. In the third stage the lndi· costs and at lea.st one other measure vidual product type target.s for prod· of energy consumption which -will ucts (1) through <10) were combined to assist consumers in ma.king purchasing determine the aggregate energy effi. decisions. The test procedures, when ciency improvement of those product applied 

### to· indi>1dual manufacturers'

FEDEUJ. lEGIST!Jl, ·voL 43, NO. 19&-THUlSDAY, OCTO&e 12, 1971 

### i

## •

productlines.

# wm provide comparable 

### data

### on a ftriety 

### of eDel'l7

### cha.racter· 1stlcs of 

### all product.a covered by a 

### stven test procedure. The PI'C bas 

### ·proposed 

### that manufacturers applJ' the 

### test procedures 

### to provide test-re

### Jated data

### for FTC_product labels 

### and 

### for representations 

### reca.rdlr:l.c enera conaumptlon. 

### Test procedure 

### desicn must·be ftexible enough 

### to allow for t.ecbnoleaica.1 variation 

## am.one differ

### ent product lines. :ret standardized enough 

### to assure that each 

### manufacturer's product line will be subject to the

### same measurementcriteria.

An 

### outline of the 

### provisions of subparts 

### A. 

### B. and 

### C of part 

## no which have so far beenestablished. tncludlng the provisions in today's rulema.king, 

### taa8follows:

SubpllrtA-Generall'nwWoM

Sec.

,,. 430.1 Purposeand &e0pe. U0.2 Definitions.
Subparta-TestPrec:ed.,....

430.21 Purpose andscope. 

### uo.22 Test procedures for mea.sures or
enemconsumption.
<a> Retrill;era.t.or& andrefrigerator-freezers. (b)Freezer&.
(C)Dishwashers. (d) Clothes dr)'er&. <el Waterheaters. (f)Roomair-conditioners. <g> Unventedhome heatingequipment. Chl Television sets. 

### m Kitchenranges and ovens. UlClothes wa.shers. Cltl Hum.idifiers. ClJ Dehumidifiers.

. <ml Central air-concUtloners. <nl Furna.ces. <ol Ventedhome heating equipment. 430.23 Unlts to be tested (Reserved]. U0.24 Representa.tioN regarding measures ofenergyconsumption.• Cal Refrigerators andre!rigerator-f:r;eezers. <bl Freezers. <cl Dishwashers. JdlClothesdryers. <elWaterheaters. (flRoom al.r-concUtloners. (g)Unventedhome heatingequipment. <hlTelevision sets. 

## mKitchenrangesandovens. Cj>ClothesWBShers. (ltlHumidifiers. 

## mDellumiclifiers. <ml Central air-conditioners.
tnlFu.rn.a.ces. to)Vented homeheating equipment.

APPE!i1lICES TO StrBPA.P..T B A.ppendiix Al-Uniform test method for measuring the energy consumption of

•DOE Is currently proposing to delete f 430.24 and to esta..bli;sh. a new §**~30.23.** in ordej t.o prescribe stat1St1ca.l sampling proVl· siom applicable to any testL'l.g required under the Actrelating to representa..tlons re- -specting the energy consumption of, or cost ofenergyconsumedby appliances and rela.t· tng to the labeling of appliances (43 FR 40192, Sept. 8, 1978). 

# tUw AND UGULATIONS



### electric**~** and electt'ic refril· era&or·freer.era.



# • • • • 

# •**~x** B-t1D1form

. 

### test metbOd ior 

### meuurl.DC the 

### enerv consumption of !reeserL Appendix C-'Dnllorm 

### test method for 

## meuurmc the 

### enerv· comumption of dlahwuben.. Appendix D-tJDllorm 

### test method for 1lleuurinr the enero consumption of clot.besdr7en. .Appendix E-t1nlform test method for 

## measurmr the 

### enerv conauinr>tion of -.terbsten. • .Appendix P-'Dnllorm test method for measuri1lr the enern comumption of
roomair-colld.ltlonera. Appendix O-On11orm test met.hod for measuring the enern consumption of unventedhomeheati.naequipment. .Appendix B'.-'Onllorm test method for mea.surtnc the enercY consumption of televisionset£.

. .Appendix 1-'0nllormtestmethod for meas- uring tbe energy consumption of con- ventional ranaes. conventional coolting &ops. conventional ovens. mJcrowave

ovens. and microwave/convention 

### ranees. Append.ix J-'Oniform test methodfor meas- uringtheenergy consumption ofclothes wa.shers. A.ppendi.x Kl-Unllorm test method for measuring the energy consumption of centralsystemhumidifiers. Appendix K2-Uni!orm test method for measuring the energy consumption of

room humidifiers. A.ppend.ll: L-Uniformtestmethodfor meas-

. wing the enel'iY consumption of dehumidifiers. A.ppendix M-Uniform test method for measuring the energy consumption of central &Ir-conditioners. .Appendix N-Uniform test method for measuring the energy consumption of furnaces. A.ppendix 0-Uniform test method for meBSurtng the energy consumption of ventedhome heating equipment.
Subpalt C-lrutrty Efficiency lmprove-nt Targeh

430.31 Purposea.nd scope. '30.32 Energy etflciency improvement ta.I'· gets. <al Refrigen.tors and refrigerator.freez.

ers. Cbl Freez.ers. 

### <cl Dishwashers. <dl Clothesdryers. Ce>Waterheaters. <f> Room airconditioners. (gl Home heating equipment <not including !urna.ces).

. Chl Television sets. W Kitchenranges andoveru;. (j)Clotheswashers. Ckl Humidifiers. .(l> Dehumidifiers. "<m> Central a.ir-cond.ltioners. 

### <nJ Furnaces.

ll. FINALTARGET DETERMINATIONS AND DISCUSSION-OF Col'l.!JIU:N'l'S
After careful consideration of the oral and written comments received in 

### 47119

response

### tothepropo&ed targets, DOE 

### ta today prescribq the 

### following 

### tarsets (proposed tareets which di!fered from the targets prescribed today are noted 1nparentheses>:

Ql'lsureaIn pen:ent.J

Wll&erbeaten -· 13 m-ebiat.1J1a llQlllpmeot <not lllellld·

IDl''-l 11 (131 ICltcblmn.ZllW a.pd

- •to {$4) ClotbellW'Uben IS < 41l
"""- lO (23)



### Ka.Jor comments received rep.rding these targets 

### are summa.rized

### and dis· cussed 

### below. To avoid 

### confusion in the diacussion of comments, 

### "DOE" is 

### used throughout even though activi- -tlea prior to October 

### 1, 1977, rega.rding thJa rule were conducted by FEA. 

### For
& detailed explanation 

### of the 

### technololical and economic methodologies used to arrive at the targets, refer to the Fl:l>DALREGIS'I'EB.S ofJuly 

### 15. 1977 <4.2 FR 36648, July 

### 15, 1977> for the first four product 

### types listed above and September 30, 

### 197'7 C42 FR 52426, September 30, 

### 1977> for 

### furnaces. Revised economic 

# and technical backeroundpapers

### a.s well 

### a.s a microeconomic 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 o'f. 8 a..m. a.nd 4:30 p.m.,MondaythroughFriday.

A. WATER HEATERS
DOE has determined that the proposed efficiency improvement target of 23 ·percent for water heaters is the maximum improvement which is tech· nologically a.nd economica11y feasible. Table l summarizes the final efficiency improvement target a.nd associated energy factors.



### 1. On/offswitchesfor electric water 

### heaters. A comment suggested that DOE should include, in its list of design options for electric water heat·
ers, 

### a. switch which would a.llow the

user to turn the waterheateron or off at will. Also suggested was a variation of this design option which would allow the on/off sv>'i.tch to b€ located away from the electricwaterheater.

NBS has investigated the energy saving potential of an on/off sv.itch. often referred to as a "vacation sv,.itch," for water heaters. The results of that investigation show that such a S'llitch provides no significant energy savings unless the water heater is turned off for an extended period

. ,such as several days_or more. Because suchlong "off" periods a.re not typical of national water heater usage pat· terns, DOE is presently unable to estimate the potential energy savings, ii any, of this design option, or 1.o draw any conclusions regarding its useful-

nessa.nd feasibility. ·

ffOElAI. UGtSTB. VOt.. C3, HO. 191-THUlSOAY, OCTO&El 12, 1m
\

### 4'1120

WaU!rheatm_.--···------ Elrctric Gu**·~~~-~~--~~ OU-~~~-~------~**  l'Jl.f 

# •••


# ....

Lt 

### IUW AND- IEGUJ,A.TIONS

.,

11 lS

.. 20 

# .., 23. 11' 211 

# • IO


# .. • 

# .. II 

# .·

### .

. 

# . 2. 

# oa tDett:r 'hffter e:r:emption

### /'/'Ori& DOE. after**~** 

## um matter. target&. 

### Comments from on 

### water finds tha.t 

### the 1.3-percent 

### eneru &&\'• heater manufacturers requested 

### that ·
. on water hea.ters be exempted from 

### 1n&B associated

### withthe·Improvedheat thetatvetprogram onthe ground

### that transfer design option for oD water
a +0 -twould result in th.e deteriora- ' hea.ten can in fa.et be achieved by re-

._•- designing the flue baffling of 

### eentertion of the on water heater industry. nue 

### type oB water heaters alone. FurComments cited the**small·busin~** ther, DOE finds 

### that the specified natureoftheonwaterhea.terindustrJ' energy savings 

## can be achieved wtth

### and expressed concern aboU:t 'the in· out redesigning the 

### combustion ch.am.· dustrY's ability to undertake the nee- bers of

### any oil 

### waterheaters.Since no essa.ry investment to improve efficien" 

### information was received

### which would 

### cy. mbsta.ntia.te 

### a contrary conclusion.**DO~** is awa.re that many on wa.ter DOE believes that this design option heater manufacturers are small busi- may feasibly be implemented by 1980.

nesses which 1aclt extensive research and development facilities and re- 4. hl.nla.tio1i**imJ»"O~** oraddi-

sources. DOE is also aware that some 

### tions. Some comments stated that individual manufacturers may have

. water 

### heater ma.nufacturer21 

### a.re curlimited access to the investment cap!- rently receiville shipment.a ol imulatal**nee~** for the implementatioc tion from suppliers on a fixed a.Ilotof the energy-saving design options. ment basis and that manufacturers However, ba..sed on currently available 

### a.re unable 

### to procure additional insuinformation. DOE ha.s determined that certain of the design improve- la.tion. Comments further stated that
ments applicable to oil wa.ter heaters because of these constraints. ma.nu!ac·


### ca.n be implemented by 1980, and tha.t turers of water heaters will be unable the oil water heater industry is able to ·.to achieve the 8-percent energy savunderta.ke the investment necessary

### to in.gs which DOE attributed to this ch design aption and. hence. would be implementthese design a.nges. unable to meet the 1980 energy effi.

3. 

### Improved heat transfer for oil 

### water heaters. Some comments stated that,in order to improve heat transfer for oil water heaters. combustion chambers and flue-ways would have to

. be redesigned, requiring extep.sive en- gineering and testing programs. These comments stated that the leadtime for the implementation o! .this desigD option would be at lea.st 5 years, rather tha.n the 1 yea: estimated l';iy DOE.

In the case o! on water heaters,

. DOE analysis indicated that only center-flue type oil water heaters offered a potential for saving energy through improved heat transfer. DOE determined that redesign. o! the nue baffling of this category of oil wa.te!' heaters would yield a 3.8-percent energy suings for these water ID:!aters. alone. Since only 35 percent ofthe oil· water heaters produced in 19'72 Wen! cf the center·fltre type, the production-weighted energy savings for all oil water heaters attributable to improved heattransfer Is 1.3 percent. ciencytarget.
DOE has evaluated the availability of various types of insulation materi· a.ls which may be used to insula;te water heaters. Whlle water heater manufacturers have apera.ted under

some form ef alloca.tion system with regard to the purcha.se of insulation materials. ft a.ppea.rs that su!ficient supplies of the appropriate kinds of insulation will be available so as not to jeopardize achievement of the target in 1980. A major producer of water heater insulation hu indicated to DOE that the increa..sed demand which- could result from the implementation of this design option can and will be metby insulationmanufacturers. Recent analyses conducted by independent industry experts support this view. DOE concludes that sufficient supplies of the appropriate kinds 

### of insulation materials will be available to water heater manufacturers and that no change in the energy sa»ings associated v.ith this**desi~** option_is warranted. One comment. aunestedtba.t the.in· 

### ci:eased or improved insula.tion design option would require a 

## redeSian of

## on ·water heater inaulation 

### Jacket.a. TbJs 

### comment stated thit.t the implementa

### tkmofthis

## destcn optionwould

### constl-**~** & major

### ch&nle Inprpdw:tion. 

### reQUfrinc a leadtime of 5 years rather 

### than

### the2 7e&l'S estimated.by**DO~**

DOE fiDda 

### that 

### aome on

.

### wat.er beater 

### manufacturers would have to 

### ndeaisl:l the Jacket.a 

### ef oil water

## heat. 

# en to accommodate &ddltioml iD.su)a. tion 

## material If 

### thef choose to in

### creasetheamountof

### insulationrather 

### than

### touse**~** improved quality of in· sul&tion 

### to achiue the 8-percent



### eneru savings associa.ted with the increased or improved insulation design option. DOE does not, however, have any basia for modifyi:ag 

### this design option for oilwater heaters. especially in view of the fact that the 

### same design option 

### can be implemented by 1980for gasandelectricwaterheaters.

An additkmal 

### comment expressed

concern about the possible fire hazard posedby theme of foam insulation in water heaters, and a.bout foam iosula.· tkm ahrinka.ge over time. The 8-per· cent energysavings whichDOEusociated with the increased or improved insulation design option for water heaters 

### was not predicated on the use of foe.m insulation. DOE find& that



### ·thiS energy savings ca.n be achieved by increasing the thickness of the insulation presently used in some water heaters or through the use of 

### a.n insulation material other than foam which has a lower thermal conductivity per unit thickness tha.n that currently used on oil water heaters. DOE does not find the possible unsuitability of foam insulation for water heater applications to be grounds for modifying this design option.

.

5. 

### Heat traps 

### Jot oil 

### water heaters. Comm.enters generally agreed with DOE's estimate that the heat trap**des~** option could yield a 1-percent production-weighted energy saVings, but stated that the leadtime associat· ed ;i;.ith this design option would be 5
years in order that appropriate field design evaluations coUid be made. DOE has determined that the adoption of the beat trap design option involves only a change in the configuration of the inlet a.nd outlet water supply piping of oil water heaters. It does not necessitate the redesign of any aspect of oil water heaters because heat traps can be readily attached to the inlet and outlet water supply pipe connections of present models. Therefore, DOE finds tha.t it is feasible to implement the hea.t trap

FEDD.AL IEGISTB.. VOL. 43, NO. 198-THURS4>A.Y, CXTO&El 12.**1~71**

## •

auLE5 AND UGULAnoNS

feature 

### mto.the design 

### of oil 

### water nation. 

### of the pilot 

### In LP-ps 

### -.ter heatersby 1980.

- . beaters. 

### DOE did not 

### Jdentlf7 tbe



### 6. 

### Ivnition S11•tem tmp10t:ie11Umt

### /or elb:nina.tion of pilots 

### In either 

### LP 

### or 

# oa toater 

### h.ecz.ten. Comments 

### ques- naturalp.s

### waterbeaters

### asanenercY tloned DOE's

### estimatethat2.0

### percent efflcie.ncy 

### .improvement 

### desi8D option. 

### ofthe

### totalenergy consumedby 

### a.noD and 

### the tarret for water 

### beaters does 

### water beater could be 

### saved by. Im· 

### not include 

### the ellmlnation of tbe 

# provmc the fgnjtion Q'St.em. 

### 'Opon pilot. · 

### reenmina.tionof Its

### teehnlcal

---·-- 8. 

### Coat 

### increcua. One 

### commenter

..........,...., ·lt&tedtba.t

### the prtce lncreaae associa.t

### forthis design 

### option.DOE finds that ed 

### with 

### produc:lnr more enern-effi·


### a mathematicalerrorledDOE

### to

### over- -'-t

......... _ 

### 1

# .u-- th 

### estimate the energy 

### sa.vinBS a.ssocia.ted 

# h:.t::,**d'~uid**

# :c s'ist:sa: ·withthedesignoption.DOEnow

..finds • per

### unit. DOE believes

### tba.ta 

### tla'ure of that 

### a.lthouah the design option ca.n 19 

### to $10.15 per 

### unit is 

### most likely. 

### achieve a. 38-percentsavtnp In eleetri· Even

### at the commenter's bii'hest esti- 

### .ca.l energy 

### consumption. it will 

### result mated price lDcrease 

### of $35 excludins 

### 'In only a. 0.3-percent 

### reduction In the theheat**~** deatan

### option,theimple- 

### total enern consumption of 

### an oil menta.tion ofa.11 design 

### optionsfor p.s 

### '1111.terheater.Thelifetimecost savings water beaters would be economically aasocia.ted with this 

### energy savings is 

### feasible beea.use 

### of the sigril!ica.nt estima.ted 

### to be $9 

### tn current dollars. a.mount ofene1:10' savings**a.ttri~uta.ble** 

### The estimated increase 

### tn the reta.il 

### tothemoreefficientdesignoptions.

B. BOJBHEATING EQl1IPJa.:lfT, Jl'OT .IllCI.trDilfG J'Olll!(ACZS

DOE has 

### determined that for home heating equipment <not Including fur· 

## naees> a.n efficiency improvement 

## 47121

target of 

### 11 percent 

### ts the ma.ximum Improvement wbicb Is 

### technologically and 

### economically feasible

. .Analysis of the comments and 

### Information re- eelved 

### In response 

### to the proposa.l re- sulted In 

### an 1ncrease 

### of the possible ener.11' avtnp 

### for cas·fueled vented heat.erafrom the proPQSed 12 percent 

### to H 

## percent. and 

### thus Increased the efficiency 

### .improvementpercentagefor all vented 

### hea.tel'IS from the proposed 13 percent 

### to 15 percent. There were 

### uo changes 

### made 

### to the proposed enercY savings 

### for on-fueled vented beaters. 'Onvented home heating equipment la 

### considered 100 percent efficient 

### at the point of use, 

### a.nd the ma.ximum 

### feasible efficiency improve· mentforunventedheaters is

### therefore O

### percent. Unvented heaters were mis

### takenly excluded from the calculation of the ta.rcet for home heating equipment <not Including furnaces> 

### tn the proposal. Recalculation of the ta.rget 

### to Include unvented heaters has 

### re- sulted in 

### a reduction of the ta.rget from 15 percent

### to 11 

### percent.Table 2 summarizes 

### the final efficiency improvement ta.rget and 

### the associated energy factors for home heating equipment<not includingfurnaces>. cost of oil water heaters With this 

### design option is 

### zero. since the cost 

### of the new ignition system is 

### estimated 

### to be the same 

### a.s that 

### of the ignition system it would replace. No new tool· tng

### costs orincreases

### tnlabor 

### costsa.re projected. Therefore, while DOE's claim

### of a 2-percentenergy sa.vlngsfor 

### lliis design option was 

### erroneous a.nd has been corrected 

### to 0.3 

### percent, the design option will 

### sa.ve energy and is 

### cost-effective. TA.BU: .2.-HO'lnl!Heating Equipment <Not Including Fu1'1UM:es> Ene1V11 Efficiency Improvement Target



### Table 1 

### reflects the reductionin the aggregate energy savings !or oil water heaters (from 19 percent to 17 

### percent) attributa.ble 

### to reducing the energy sav:illgs 

### a.ssocia.ted vrtth the ignition system improvement design· ·option from 2.0 percent

### to .0.3 

### percent. The indi\1dual oil water heaterenergy efficiency improvement percentage a.nd 1980 energy 1a.ctor values which



### a.re presented in ta'ble 1 

### were reduced from their propased values for•the

same reason; !rom 23 percent.to 

### 20 percent in the 

### case of efficiency improvement, and from 56.6 percent to 

### 55 percent 

### tn the case of the 1980 energy factor. These changes had 

### a negligible effect on the aggregate energy savings 

### a.nd the final energy ef. ficiency improvement target for water beaters because oil water beaters 

### ac- count 

### for a very sma.11 sh.a.re of 

### the water heatermarket.

Further comments concerning this design option stated that a new ignition system would require extensive testingto insurethat it

### would notpose
a reliability problem. After a.na.lysis, DOE has determined that there is 

### no
reason to presume at this time that the improvedignition systems currently

### being developedfor oil-fueled appli-

ances cannot be adequately tested for .relia.bility prior to incorporation into productionunitsby 1980.

7. Pil.ot elimina.tioTL. 

### onecommenter objected 

### to a.ny 

### energy efficiency improvement design option for water heaters which would call 

### fo_r the elimiBamehea.Ungequipment\a.ggregatel-·-- Ventec! home hea.tlbl equiJ:lmeot <ac·

srec&tel.

Gu heater-•.----·----····· Oil he&ter

--....-····-·-·-····--·-······--·- 'Uovented]lome heatingequipment.-:... 111'!2 "llern'consumptaanx 10 12

Btu

S8.67 ll0.63

%2.40 11.23 8.04

1. Electric ignition and reduced pilol 

### One comment stated.that only a small 

### number of gas-fueled vented beaters would ever be sold with electric ignition because most heaters 

### tn this 

### sategory a.re not amenable

### to con- nection ·with an electrical supply. The propasa.1 anticipated that half 

### of the forced air 

### gas.fueled vented heaters,

or 11 

### percentof all ga.s 

### vented beaters, could be equipped with electric ign.i· ti



### on. Basedondatasubmitted. bythe com-

.menter, DOE has reduced the number

of gas-fueled vented heaters to be «!Quipped withelectric ignitionfrom 11 

### J)ercent to 

### 9percent. This represents a decrease in

### the estim.ate ofthepopuia· tion of forced air 

### gas.fueled vented bea.ters from 22 percent to 18 percent ofall

### gas-fueledvented heaters.

This commenter also statedthat the retail price increase of $45 for electric ignition cited 

### tn the proposal wa.s too low. A $100 to 

### $125 price tncrease was suggested. but no substantiation of this estim.ate 

### wa.s pro\ided. After care- ful teview 

### of the reta.ll price increase Energy Energy efficiency 111'1'2 en.,,-gy 1980 i!nergy
11&VineS lmprov.,. factor !actor <pereent> mentt&rget <percentl (percenu

10 16

14 11 0 (percentl

11 u

16 12 0 ' -nouun-•-••••-••0••••••••-••••••

53 4.l 100 61.3 4.5.e 10-0



### estimate and after consideration of the fa.ct tha.t furnaces are currently being sold 

### "With a similar electric igni

### tion for 

### a premium of $60, DOE 

### has revised its

### retail price estimateupward 

### to $60. A 

### price increase of $60. which 

### translates to 

### a production-v;eighted priceincrease of $5.40, has been determined by DOE to be 

### economically feasible. The payback period to the con-
sumer for purchasing a unit with electric ignition is 

### estimated to be 6h 

### yea.rs.

As 

### a.n alternative to 

### electricignition, manufacturers might also reduce pilot inputinorder

### to eliminatesome of the energy waste associated with the con- tinuously burning pilot. Preliminary cl.a.ta 

### 'Submitted by NBS have shown energy savings from r.educed pilot input

### to be about 5 percent for all 

### ga.s· fueled vented heaters. compared 

### to 1 percent for electric ignition in those products which are amenable to elec· tric ignition. Data. regarding this option a.re presently insufficient, however, 

### to determine its feasibility for purposes of the targetprogram.

### 47122

2. 

### Improved.hea.t 

### tra:n:l/er. 

### One com- menter stated th&t the bnproved beat 

### transfer desicn 

### option ii 

### not .feasible for cravtty gu.tueled wall 

### lieatera. The reason liven for UUs Y1ew 

### was that. forced convection. Implicit Inthis aesign 

### option, 1s 

### not economicalb' feasible Inlight ofthecost offlttinc such units for connect.ion with 

### an electrical 

### supply. DOE acrees with 

### Ulla·point and bas also determined that 

### Im.proving heat 

### transfer by dera.tirl& tbe 

### burner and reb&f!li.ng the 

### heat ex· chanceralso does DOt

### appeartobe

### feasible 

### since gravity 

### ci.rcula.tion must be maintained In theae units. Therefore. DOE haseli.min&ted cravitY p.s-fueled wa.ll heaters from the productionweighted energy savingfor this design option. A.a a result, the productionweighted enel'8'7 savings for tmproved heat transfer In &1l gas.fueled vented heaters has been reduced from the proposed 'l.6 percent

### to4.9 percent.

3. 

### Stadt dam:;ier. In the proposal DOE estimated that 18percent of gas. fueled vented heaters and 15 E>ercent of oil-fueled vented heateris would In· corporate electric stack. dampers ·In 1980 production. Comments objected to the inclusion of the stack damper design option in the target because they doubted the economic feasibility of equipping relatively inexpensive home heating equipment with costly electric stack.dampers.

The final target ls based on the ap. plication of less expensive thermal stack dampers for gas-fueled vented heaters. These thermal dampers, with their relatively low cost and independence from electrical supply requirements, a.re considered by DOE 

### to be

. applicable to all gas-fueled vented heaters except those with direct vem. systems. At the time of the proposal there was doubt

### a.s tot.he feasibility of incorporating thermal dampers in 1980 production because little work had been done on a national safety standard for thermal dampers. Since the time of the propased rulemaking suosta.ntial progress has been ma.de on
a national sta.ndaxd 

### tor thermal dampers and DOE anticipates that this design option

### ca.n be implemented ir.the 1980production.

Because thermaI dampers l.l'e typicallvloose fitting, comparedto electric dani:pers. DOE's technical analysis has led to a. reduction in the estimated energy sa•inil! attributed 

### to a sta.ck damper from the proposed 13 percent for the tighter fitting electric damper
to the final 9 percent for the thermal .da.-nper. However, the final procfue. tion-weighted energy savings Is now 7.7 percent for gas.fueled vented heat-

ers. rather tha.n the proposed 3.5 percent. because it is technologieally and economically fea.sibtt! to a.pply the thermal damper 

### to a.ll gas-fueled vented heaters except those with direct vent systems. 

### IULES 

## A.HD IEGULATIOltS

NBS believes the applicability of tbermal dampers 

### to oll·meled be&tera la questionable atnce carbon deposita ma7 render the damper lnopera.ble. Therefore, 

### the electric stack·damper 

### Option rema.1ns 

### u prepcieed 

## for on. fueledventedbeaters. ·

4. 

### Ba.sel.tni data. One commenter statedthatthe

### annualusace estimates u1ied upon 

### bJ' DOE 

### were "•ereb' 

### ruesstim&t.es'' and that. 

### more data should be 

### accumulated in 

### order 

### ta refine these 

### eattmat.ea. B'owevw, the 

### linnuaJ. 

## usace data submitted by this


### aa.me commenter la in close agreement withtheNBSestimatesreliedupon bJ DOE. Por this

## reason. DOE continues 

### toaccepttheNBSfigures,

5. 

### Lo10-income grouJN, 

### One 

### commenter stated that low-income group& would not be able 

### to purchase the

more efficient but more expensive home heating appliances contemplatedbytheproposedta.rret.

DOE accountedfor thepossible ner· ativeimpactonlow-income purchasers in the proposed ta.rret for home 

### hee.ting equipment by production-weight.- ing the indJvidual design options inCluded in 1980 shipments, and believes that. the production-wefghtin&' 

### insures that low-income purchasers, who &e· count for 42 percent of the mark.et, will have available for purchase more efficient home heating equipment at minimal increases in price. In re- searching the issue of low-income con-
sumers DOE assumed that low-income persons purchasing a.pplia.nces were**homeo~"llers** rather than renters. a.nd DOE therefore used the 1976 annual housing survey, published by the Bureau of Census a.nd theDepartment of Housing a.nd Urban Development. to determine the portion of the home heating equipment ma.rket tha.t. falls into the low-income category. The 1976 Burea.u of Census definition for the annual poverty level income of a fa.mily of four is $5,&15. In determin· ing lov1-income h&meowners DOE included families wh<i ea.med uP to $7,000. This ha.s been done 

### to account for those homeowners who earn more tha.n the poverty level ineome, but might still encounter financial diffi.. culties when faced with a substantial increase intheprice of a.n essential appliance. 6. 1980 ahtpment 

### atima.tea.. One

emmnemer QUaSt.i.oned the accuracy of 

### DOE'S estimates of 1980 ab.lpments of 

### sas-fUeled Tented home heatingequip. 

### ment. After reriew of pest lndustrf ahl.pmenta, both before anda.ft.er 19'12, 

### DOE believea Uiat 

### \be base year of 19'12 

### was anunusually 

### strona yea.r for the home heating 

### industn'. The hiltorlcal trend indi.cates that replacement demand in 1980 will be closer 

### to 500,000 units.. 

### rather than the 700,000 unitspreviouslyfiirecast by DOE. The lower shipment forecast of 500,000 units in 1980 does 

### not affect the 

### eco- nomic feasibWty of the ta.rret for

## easfueled vented home beaten beca.uae the attendant**~** and benefits were 

### reduced commensurately

### u a result of this revision. The revised forecast also baa a minimal effect on the negative impact& described in stage 

### rv of the economic anaJySia section of the proposed**~et** not.ice <42 FR 3565'1, July 15, 197'1).

C. JU'?Citlllf JlUllGl:S 

### .um OVP& DOE has determined that an ef!i.. ciency improvement t.arcet of 40 

### per· 

### cent for kitchen ranges and ovens ii the maximum improvement which ii technologically and economically feasible. Analysis ol the comments re- ceived indicates that in the propcsal DOEoverestimated the energy saving:& of several of the design options. As 

### a result of this analysis, the estimated aggregate energy savings has been a.dj'asted from 39 percent to 29 percent, and the efficiency improvement target has been adjusted from the proposed 64 percent to 40 percent. Table 3 

### sum· ma.rizes the f"ma.l efficiency target and associated energy factors.

1. Baseline data tor 191Z. Several· comments questioned the 

### accuracy of the 1972 energy consumpth.m baseline data used in arriving at the proposed target. The initial NBS target recor:rr mendations used the best available data and estimates for the 1972 ba.se period. In February 1978, the Associ· ation of Home Appliance Manufactur-

ers <A.HAM) furnished DOE with re- vised 1972 ba.se year energy consumption and efficiency data. for conven· tiona.1 electric ovens, cooking tops, and ranges. These new data generally COD· firmed the estimates in the proposal. Since these data reflect the final DOE 

### test procedure ealculatiorm, however. this new material ha.ii been used to adjust the 1972 base year energy con- sumption.

Energy 1972 enem· Ene?"gy e!flcieoey 19'12 ene!T,Y 1980**~** cco.sump- sa:nng:s tiOZl**~** lt)**~=** ( pe!'Cent) Eltu

Kit.<:hens n.rt&'e!I ando""""···-··-··-··-·····-·· :n..24 29

De<:tric

## rangest""e?:I&....-.------ 11.43 3 

### Rs.ni:es-···---·-------··- 7.37 3 Coot.ing

### tops·····-·---·--··--··---·· .M 0 Ovens

................_________._ .12 4 Ou

## r.ulll"S/.,,..,m--·--·---- 23..71 3lj. 

## Rang""----·-···-···-- 22-0.l 38 Cooltini;

### tops---···-···----·- .113 t:?
Oven:!

### ····-·•••+•HOOOO•--·-···-··-·....-····--··-- .11'1 !5 

### r.uerowaveovens-·----··- .!D 5 imPro•e- .t:actor h.etor
ment t.arpit 'P<!.-l lpercenl.J

(percent)

«r



### ·--·-··-·- 3


## -·-···----·--··- 3 (3.S'T H.69 0 HJK H.8'1 

# • 12..99 13.S: 11:1 ------•HH-•••H•+•••• 62 l2.4.3 20.12 T2 21.40 3!.80 65 3.M 5.41 5 311.00 39.9-0

FEDHAi lEGlsnl, VOL 43, NO. 198-THUtSDAY, OCTOHl 12. 191! 

# ..

### Por :pa-fueled 

### eotnentiumJ 

## cwens.**~anal** 

### Standard tAJIS-Z21.l-lt'14 

### eoold!l.c tops. 

### and 

### ra=es, the 

## 1m and 

### Its 

### amendment AMB-Z21.la-1t'lt. base 

## :rear enero eonsamption 

### md .ection l:"O. 

### 'Ibis standard makes no eoot:.ing eftlclencY data 

### have been

### re- dillUnction

### betweeafbe

### afet:rrequtre.. "lbled baaed 

### an NBS-. 

### ana.l7sis el 

## mea.a of

### Jcnlt1ob**~** 

### deflisned for American 

### Gu 

### Assoelation Research 

### me with propa.ne &nd 

### tbOle 

### deslcned Report No. 1110 and additional 

### cat& for

... With mtlll'al .-. JDtchen fllrn1sbed 

### In 

### .Jan1.1&1:'1' 11'1'8 

### bJ the 

### Gas l1IJlCeS md

### ovem areCillr1'mUJ' 

### manu· -Appllanee JlanuJ'ad;urel'Aasocla.tion. fitd;ured Wbich &ft CUUietUble bell'<> ehanl'e In the f'iD&1 

### .tllZft.et fur**~** mtanl lllS and propane and 

### kitchen n.ng-es anclcwem....,..,. nlqUired w:bicb Ulo 

### bu'e eiect.ril: iptt,ion de-



### • a nsJlt

### orthebaellael"f!'Villiom. 

### "rices.

-

. 2. B'Mf'f1J

### /fl.elm. Tbe m.ethod of

### ea.1- Seven.I 

### wta eaDed 

### attention eulatini the eneru factor 

### for ldtcben to the po&libltity t.bat etiin.im.tioll of r&llCe& 

### and oYeDS 

### wu modified 

### In the C:b.e 

### ltandiDc pilot la '&hoae oirens and f'ina1 test procedures fer 1dtchen

_.......__. 

### --es snd 

### ovens. 10 CPR 4JICl.22CfX4> 

### nnges _......._ lty low-Income 

### eon-

•

- llDDE!n would be undul7 bardemome. 

### <4:3 FR20106.111&7 10, 11'18>.

### Aithougb 

# n 

# w• ctaimed that Jo1le!' iDcome the 

### tarret prescribed 

### today is 

### not af- 

### groups tend to purchase 

### lower Priced fected by this 

### mOdification. both the

- n.ngm which 

### l'elluire 

### no electricaf 1'72 and 1980 t!J::l:t!!'l'Y 

### factors listed iD 

### power 

### for operation ln 

### some cues, table 

### 3 haw been adjusted to reflect lo'li-income

## houaebalds either 

### have no the changes In the 

### final test proce- electrica.l aenic:e 

### or a.re located in dures.

### Themodlfica.tions

### tothe**en~** 

### remote areas with Ulldepead&b.le elec

## r.et.or.**~** noted abo'9e. arediscussed m .1irical senice.. It was 

### f&!so noted that deta.Il 

### m ti:e &echnk::a1 background UM? 

### use 

## or dectric 

### ignition cook! re

### paper for kitchen ranges and O¥e!1S Quire additional wiring in 

### scme homes available in the 

### DOE Preedom 

### of In- to 

### "'r°"1de 

### a.n elearic&l. 

### ouu.et**~-** the**wrmaU~omce. ~**  -r

3. Elimi1uitum 

### of ,,t,a.n.ding piloU. ra:oge &t a 

### castofa.bout $1.iO. One manufacturer**~d** that the ..t..fter review af the eomrnents ICld elimina.tion of standing pilot lights analysis

## or existingmarltet data. DOE 

### from gas 

### ranges would 

### save 33 

### to 40 

### has determined tha.t the design option 

### percent of the total 

### energy consumed for elect.ric ignition in

### natural l'U and t>y these appliances. rather than the IP.gas ranges which reQUire no elec· 4'T..percent savings estimated by DOE. tnca.l power for operation i& not eco- Ba.sed upon its**~'1l** measurements·of l)O(ll.ically**feasi~** for low-Income 

### coo- t.he p(lot energy consumption of typi- sumen.. Based on DOE estimates of cal gas**~s.** a.nd eva.luatkln of da.ta. the number oflow-Income households.. from 

### the American Ga.s Association

.households ll.ithout Pf"operb· k>ca.t.ed l&bora.t.ories and other sources, NBS ·electrical ouUets.. a.nd the DUmbe.r of has detenni.ned that the previous esti- households with poor or DO electrical mate w&'i 

### too high. bat that a 40..per- service.DOE has found it nece.ssa:ry t.o centenergy savings is attainable. DOE reduce the production-weighting of accepts this0etermination. the design option !or the ellm.ination

Several CO!llinents requested that of**sta.n~g** pilot on gas ranges and the target be adjusted to permit pi1ot ovens by l<l percent, from 19() percent lights for th-Ose products which are to 90 percent. Th.iS in turn. reduces fueled by propane. These conunents the production-weighted ene:t"ln' sanng suggested that electrle ignition deviees from 40 

### P7rcent to 36 pereent 

### tor this

are unsafe for sueh produets because design optton. propane, being heavier than air.**~'ill** 4. 

### Reduction of

### excessflue ga,s 

### los$eS. tend to collect in low places. with a Several comments a.ddressec:! the risk ofexplosion. Itwas also suggested design option 

### toreduce excess nue gas that the use of matches 

### to Hght losses. In the proposal DOE esti.m.ated burners**~** those oc-..--asions in whi-ch th.at 100 percent of l!raO s.hlpment.s t.M eleetrk ignition is not open.tianal, could incorporate this design option. presents a safetyproblem. One manufacturer commented that it

The Am1't'ie&n Oas Association 

### tests couldnot a.chieve 

### the projected energy**ga:s..f~led** kitchen ranges and ovens. sa">i.ngs because excess flue gas losses including those having electrical !gni- had already been reduced on its prodUon systems, and cert!.fH!s that such uct.sprior to 1972. DOEnou· !irids that pToduets comply with na.ttt:ina.l safety

. excess flue losses bad alre.ad• been stand&rds

### -as**specifi~d** inthe American sufficiently reduced for 16 percent of



## • 4:'1123



## an ca.s J"aQgeS manufactured In 1972. As 

### a consequence, .the 1972 

### produc

### tkm-weidltlnl for this design 

### option bas been IDcreased from 0 

### to 16 

### percent. and thus.theprodllction-weig:hted eDe'l'U avlnp Is CDTTeSPOUd.lngiY 

### lower. · •



### <. Commmts fram 

### mu:facturers also stated that this design cpd.an, which DOli: estln:latecl would resuJ:t 

### m an mefl7

### •viDIBaf• perceat. iB 

### tecbno

### kJsicaUS" iD.feulble for ovens smaller t.baD 1ltanda.rdsi2Je ovens md for Clt'ens 1ltlicb 

### imx>rt>Ora.te 

### a broiler In the J8&ln oven 

### cavit1 treferred to as •du&J. 

### ClniC1'-tne

### onm"inthe hearing

### comments>. Manufacturers fmther cta.tmed 

### that the JneJ:uslon of -du.a.I e&VitJ-type 

### cmm.s" as part .of this iarpt cuuld came tbetr elimina.tlao from the ma.rt.:etplace. DOE reiterates that the efficiency i.tn.provemeot 

### t.arc'et for ldt.chen ranges and 

### ovms is mpplicable·not 

### to s:&rticular un.iu but to the aa:rep.te 

### energy efficiency- 

### of all unit.I.· and :DO adjustment to the target ha.s been made 

### as a result of this 

### comment. It should be Doted, 

### however. Ulat 

### even

.if 

### the deSig:D optio!:t bad been determined to be lechtlolog:lcalb**illfeasib~** for tbeprod.- 

### vets in question.. DD cha.nge would rauk in the !.in&l i&rget for k.iU:hen l'.ll.Zll'es and OV"em 

### beca.wse these prod

### ucts occupy sach a sm.&.ll percentage of Ulle marUt...

In t.be proposa..l the energy savings fo1" reducing excess 

### flue gas losses was ba.sed on. the carbon dioxide (CO,.l leYels measured in tbe 

### flue cases during ma.i:ntena.nce 

### of oven temperature. During tbe :revie10· a.nd a.na.lysis process, NBS discovered 

### trus method at**~ement** to be in. -erros:..._NBS has reexamined t.he cond.itions under which the CO. should be measured. and bas determined t.hAt the average CO. content should be measured duri.nc hea.tup, when tbe bu.'"ller i:s OD cootinuousJ.,. rat.her than during temperature ma.inteoa.nee, when the burner is OD oo.J.y intermiUeotly. Thi:s cha.Dge inthemet.hod of measurement has·reduced the e..-riergy**.s~:wings** for 

### re- doction <>! excess flue gas losses for
gas ranges from 4 percent to 2 percent.

One commenter, the Gas Appliance ManufacturersAssociation. questioned DOE's initial esti."'!late of the invest· ment requtrements needed to implement this same design option, suggest· ing that the true f1gure woo.ld be



# 1

## 4712.

$200,000 per manufacturer rather than

### zero, as suuested by DQE.

### DOE accepts the GAMA estimate of capital investment. which tran.slates 

### to 

### a · ret.all price increase of $3 

## Per unit. This level of investment remains 

### economically fea.sible in 

### lli'ht of the investment capability or the industry, and theneglilible demand impactof a $3 

### priceJncrease.

5. ImJITO'f'edinnZction. 

### Oneconsum-
er questioned the avallabWty of ac1d1-

. tional inSUlation material in 1980. 

### DOE has investip.ted tbJs matter and has concluded that in 1980 the fibe?'B· lass industrY will be able 

### to meet all foreseeable 

### needs of applla.Dce 

### manu- facturers.

.

Inthep:ropasal.DOE estimatedthat insulation could be improved in 100 percent of the non-self-cleaning ovens· by increasing either the quantity or the quallty of insulation material. Comments indicated. and DOE now agrees, that replacement of fiberglass insulation with higher quality l.D.sula· tion would not be technologically fea· sibleby 1980.

Several comments further stated· that in certain in.stances manufactur-

ers would be unable, without retool· ing, to increase the quantity of in.sul&· tion in their products. 

### NBS has 

### :reviewed these comments, as well 

### as additional available information, and concludes that 30 percent of the non- self-clea.ning ovens 

### are amenable to. greaterinsulationwithoutretooling.

Comments further indicated that ID certain instances where retooling was necessary, the capital investment would be economically prohibitive. Ac· cording to NBS estimates, 70 percent of non-self-cleaning ovens would re- quire retooling in order to improve inirulation substanti&.lly. After reviewing the industry structure. DOE hasdetermined that it would be economically feasible for manufacturers having 10 percent or more of the market share
to retool in order to increase insulation. Firms of this size account for approximately 70 percent of the market for kitchen ranges and ovens. This 70-. percent market share for large ma.μufa.cturers. multiplied by the '10 percent of non-self-cleaning ovens for which retooling would be necessary in the first place, yields approximately 49 percent of non-self-cleaning ovens which could feasibly be improved ifre- tooling were undertaken. Added to the 30 percent of non-self-cleaning ovens· which ca.n beimproved 'lltithoutretool· ing, this design option is economically feasible for approximately '19 percent of the non-self-cleaning ovens manu- factured in 1980, compared to the 100 percent previously proposed by DOE. The production-weighted energy sav- ings for this design option is proper-. tionately reduced from 6 percent to 5 percent. 

### IWS A.ND REGULATIONS

8. AcUu.rtment 

### ofen.eTf/11 

### aavin.0$ due to 

### aa.tetJJ regulation.& ID the proposed ta.rsets the 

### estimated percent;aae of enerBY savings 

# for electric kitchen 

## rmses and ovens included a l..percent 

### adjustment because of

### desilD changes 

### made by manufacturers since 19'12 

### to meetvarious

### new safety

### requirements. One commenterrequestedthat

### a simi

### lar ad,tu.stment be made for p.s tit.ch·

en 

## rmses and ovens. No information


### was pri>vtded relating totheimpactof



### newsafetyrequirementsupantheeffi. eieney of ps 

### :ranres and ovens since 19'12, and information available 

### to DOE indicates that the impact of new safetyrequirementsforpa

## rmses and

ovensisneglilibleintermsofthefin&l _target.

. •

-

'1. Rangu andoiien.s in mobilehOma end recmitional whiclea. One commentrequested that recreationalvehi· cle ranges and ovens beexcludedfrom the target program, because they are not used in residences, and are subject 

### to entirely different 

### consumer usage patterns. The**co~ent** also requested that ra.nges in mobile homes be ex· cluded because such unit:.S are subject to regulations promulgatedby the Department of Housing and Urban Development

## <HUD>.

Ranges and ovens used inrecreational behicles and in mobile homes fall within the definition of "Kitchen Ranges and Ovens" in 10 CFR 430.2 <43 FR 20108, May 10, 1978> and 

### are therefore included in the target program. Further. DOE. inprescribing an energy efficiency improvement target, does not consider it relevant that the products 

### are regulated for purposes other than energy efficiency by 

### anotherFederal agency.

D. CLOTBJ:S WAS:e:J:R!.
DOE has determined that an efficiency improvement target of 35 percent for clothes washers is the maxi-

mum improvement which is technologically and economic&.lly feasible. Analysis of the comments resulted in lowering the estimate of the energy sa>ings for one design option related to reducing the water temperature of the wash cycle. Consequently, total energy savings have been reduced from 32 percent to 26 percent, a.nd the efficiency improvement target has been reduced from 47 percent to 35 percent. Table 4 summarizes the final energy efficiency improvement target a.nd associatedenergy factors.

Tuu4..-ClothesWasherEnergy Efficiency ImprovementTa.rget

Ene1117 efficiency improvement ta.riret (percent>••..._.,.._.--•.••.•--············-··-·---·······- 35 1972 energy factor <c-ubie feet/ltilowa.tthour>

..-··--··---··-·······-·-·····-············- 0.65 1980 energy f&CU>r <c-ubu:: !eet 1kilowatthour>-···-··--·-·---·····-···--··--·-·-·- 0.88 

## . 

## '

l. 

### .Raubm.Wion 

### ofba.seline data. A comment by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers 

### <AliAM> statedthe need

### torecalculate the 19'12 baae J'e&I' enerBY consumption. be
### cause DOE's·final 

### test procedures for clothes washers

### a.re different from the 

### test procedures used 

### to establish the 19'12 base year data cited by DOE. 

### AB.eU4 offered 

### to supply new data to reestabuati the 

### base 

### yea.r eneru con- sumption accordin( 

### to the 

### final 

### test procedures for clothes 

### washers. The clothes washer target is based on tbJa

new data. Changes between the proposed andfinal testprocedures also

### re- quired reestablishing the 19'12 base year enerBY factor in terms of cubic feet perkilowatt-hour, but this enero factor revision did· not affect the enerBY efficiency improvement target.

Another industry comment suggested that the baseline energy consu.mp.. tion data should reflect a 100-percent efficiency for water heating. This ha.s been the method used by DOE to cal· culate the baseline consumption. Details of the baseline calculation a.re provided ID the technical background paper for clothes washers available in the DOE Freedom of In!onnation Office.

2. 

### Eliminate warm rime. One com- ment stated that more motor torque would be required to agitate clothesin cold water, suggestingthe need for the de:velopment of higher torque motors at increased costs. but no supporting evidence was provided to support this claim. Testing by NBS has revealed no evidence of a.ny measurable variation of motor torque as the temperature of the rinse water is changed from warm 

### to cold. Therefore. no revision to the energy efficiency improvement target his been made 

### as 

### a. result of 

### this com- ment.

One comment stated that some cus- tomers who a.re accustomed to warm water rinsing may not accept clothes washers Without this feature. However, most of the comments agreed that DOE's estimate of the energy s&\ings resulting from elimination of the

warm rinse option is reasonable a.nd a.chlevable. There were no major con-
cerns over any significant reduction in performance 

### as a result of using all cold water rinses, and laboratory test data confirms that there are no significant performance diiferences between warm and cold rinses. Further, DOE believes that government ILild in· dustry consumer education efforts v.ill mitigate any potential negative con-
sumerreaction to this design option.

3. 

### Redu.ce wann water**w~h.** tem

### pera.tu.re setting. One energy saving option proposed by DOE for clothes washers was a 40/60 water mixing valve which would pro>ide warmwater by combining 40 percent hot witter with 60 percent cold 'W'ater. Industry

FEDEUI. l!GISTEl. VOL. 43, NO. 19'-THUlSDAY, 

### oaoaet 12, 1971 

## •

## •

repreaentativesexJ)l'eaedconcernthat 

### Uie reduced 

### wash/water temperature 111ould produce mW'tisfadOZTwa.ahabillly performance &D.d would reduce 

### 'bacterial ellm!ilat!on, which is Impor

### tant In 

### winter months In

### resicms with 

### colder cll.ma.tes. In addition. 

### comments in:luested that 

## consumers might llti· llze

### a hotwaterwash cycle

### moreoften. 

### ·because t.he 

### new 

### warm mix 

### might appearcoot

### tothetouch.

Subsequl!Dt

### amJ.ntsbyDOE

### indicated that due 

### to the n.riabllity of 

### cold 'Water 

### tnlet temperatures,"tbe 

### 40/90 'l&lveCOU:ld produce unaccepta.ble perl'orma.Dce in the colder regions of the 

### countrJ.Therefore. DOE 

### recommends


### a warm water 

### mtrture of 60 percent hot water and 50 percent cold 

### water. DOEbelieves tha.t this will provide 

### ac- cept.able rear-round performance

. .and that consumer usage patterns will 

### not be altered signific&ntlY 

### as a result of this de.sign 

### optJ.on. Currently available t.o.fonna.tion indica.tes t.hat the i.Dclu- &Um o! 

### a. 50/50 

### valve will not .significantly affect a washer's ability to

·remove bacteria. ·

The energy sa.vings attributed to this design option ha.s been recalculated 

### to reflect 

### a hot/cold water mix ratio of 50 percent hot and 50 percent cold.. The revised 

### producU-On-weighted energy savings has been reduced from 

### a.o percent in the proposal 

### to 2.3 

### per11'1'5 l!fll!.-U consump. Ciof:l> 10 u**~u**

Furn"""" 11..'ldballers·····················-·····---·· 147.3 

### a... boiJen a.NI**~-············-··--** 1%2.7 Oil """"""'and fu:ni.a.ces..•••

----------- 21..6

1. Improt•ed heat transfer. Some 

### comments questioned the fea.sfbility of

• impro;ingthe hea.t transfercharacteristics of furnaces a.nd boilers by 1980. These comments stated that such improvements might require the relocaUon of fan and safety controls, a.s '1i·ell

u a complete redesign of UM: heat ex· ch.anger. DOE agrees that a ma.jor re- design o.f the heat exchanger section wotild not be feasible by 1980. Bowev· 

### e-, in the proposal DOE intended th.at improvement in the heat tra.ns!er o! furnaces be achieved in 1980 without mch redesign, by derating the burrierinput a.nd baffling airflow through the heat exchanger section. DOE believes that this design option remains both 

### technologica.llr and economicallY feasible for &ll furnaces and boilers, except as noted in para.graph 6 below.

2. 

### Pott>er lntmer. In the proposal IXJE estimated**that~** 

### pereent of gas furna:ces eoukl 

### incQrpo:ra.te power 

### centfort;bisdeaieD opt.ion.

### The**~** 

### avinP redlictk>D in tb1s 

### cue is \le:l"f 

### 1arce becaule manf of the products produced

### In 

### 1miDcorporated

### a 

### 50/50 

### nlve and there 

### will be 

### no sav:lnp at: trlbutable 

### to tb1s 

### desicn option for 

### theseproducts In 1980.

S.J'l'DfDCS
.DOE has determined tb&t 

### an effldency**fmprt>~ement** ta.r&'et of 20 per

### cent for 

### tu:maces 1s

### them.a.xtmum improvement which is technoloa:ically and economically feasible. Am.J.;vsis of the 

### comments recehed showed tb:at practical Iimita.tiom of the tmplemen-**~** of the clesign option

### c:allin&" far lmprmed beat transfer of 

### cut iron 

### boilers reduced 

### the aggregate 

### enern •TiDi:S for ps and oil boilers from 5 kl LO percent.. .Purtber. the aarep.te energy a.rings for the improved heat transfer and electric ignition design 

### options was t'educed by 15 percent from fl.3 

### to 7.fl 

### percent 

### to account for pote11tial 

### nep.tive impacts on 

### low· 

### lncome consumers resultio.g from ret.a.il price increases.. 

### Consequently. the 

### efficiency improvement target for furnaces has been reduced from tbe proposed 23 

### percent to 20 percent. Ta.ble 5 summarizes the final efficiency improvement ta.rg1rt and the 

### a.ssi:>ciated a.nntral fuei utilization efficien

### eies.

n 18.e 

# • En<"ru 1975 &ru1ual l.980 annual**efficie~** fuel**~ ~-e-**  utiliza.t.ian lltilEat.ion ....,.,t 1.1.rse• et!icie!lle'Y efficiency <pen:enLl (percent) (percent!

20 :t2 11 -00000000

___**nO•o•HO~OO** U.5 '1'5.0 T4 11.4

burners 1n 19iro production and that the remaining production could incor· po..-ate -stack dampers. Both or these design options 

### are effective for mini· 

### mlzini off-cycle 

### lasses. Severa.I 

### oom- 

### menters stated 

### tha.t inclusion of the power burner design option iil 1980 products was not feasible. One com- menter believed that power burners could be tncorpora.ted 

### m some furnace designs by lSSO but that large-scale implement-a.Uon of power bume.""S was not practicable.

.After review of the comments a.od 

## fUrther a.na.lYiiis of the issue. DOE has modified the production-weighting for power buroen and**st~k** dampers a.nd

DOW estimates tha.t 20 perceot of gas. fired furml.ces could**ha~** power -89 

### percent conl<f incorix;rate stack burners by 1900 while the remaining dampers. Itshould be emphasl'2:ed that 

### the exact 

### m.tx of these two design opUom is not b:npoJ1;ant because diUer

### mt. mi:l:es of these·two design options ID 1980 production will al.so result in 

### achieYement

### ofthe

## ta.rcet.



# a. stackdamJ)a:. 

### Somecomments In

### dicated &bat

### theeatima.ted

## enern sav

# mo for stack dampen ccmtaiDed in 

### the proposed

## ta.raet was not 

### consistent with ftlues obta:l:Ded**~** 

### usinC tbe DOE famace test procedures. DOE 

### bu

### enJuated 

### IDdu.stZT test datadeveloped in a.ccordaDce 1l'ith the DOE t.est proeedu:res for furDace.s and boilers. bowever, a:od has found close 

### acreem.ent 

# between the 

### lnc:lustrJ' da.ta and the nlaes of energy •vings dted bJ DOE

### irithe proposed

### meroef:tlciener lmp:ravement**~et.** 

### .

The proposed target 

### was based 

### oh Incorporation of the electrical-type stack damper in 1980 production. Additional studies conducted by NBS concludethat thermal and mechanical stack 

### dampen

## wm also be available 

### as design optioDs for furnaces manufactared In 1980. Therefore, DOE has Included 

### In the final 

### efficiency target 

### a production-weighted mix of 60 percent elec:trical or mecha.nle&l stack dampers and 20 percentthermal sta.ck dampers. This modification does not affect the final ta.rget for gas

### furn.aces.

Another 

### comment stated that the

· energy savings for a sta.ck damper

would 

### vary pepending

### on turna.ce loca· 

### tion inside 

### or outside 

### the structure being heated. The basic premise for determining the energ-y savings of

. sta<:k dampers for indoor furna.ces is that both the heat trapped in the furnace beat exchanger, and the reduced 

### &tr infiltration through 

### the fu."T!ace/ chimney system. contribute to reducing 

### the**~t** load 

### on the 

### furnace system. If

### a furna.ee il5 

### an outdoor unit

OT' cne intended for insta.Ilation tn an tmhea.ted 

### area, such 

### a.s an attic or cn.wlspa.ce, 

### there is n<> incentive for manufacturer.;; to install stack dampers· because the DOE furnace 

### test procedure does not credit 

### energy savtngs for a. st.a.ck d11.mper installed on aueh 

### s. !urna.ee. Therefore, the final target reflects a.ppliea.tion of staek d1!.mpers on indoor furnaces onlr.

4. Electric ig'Tiition.. One commenter stated that the energy savings of electric ignition dences. as calculated by the proposed DOE furnace test procedures. did not agree with

### the estimates ofsuch energy savings in the proposed target. Calculations of energy sa·.-ings !or electric ignition using the final DOE furnace test procedures pub

### lished on May 10, 1978 (43 FR 20147) yield energy savings of about 6 percent. which is also the tra.sis !or the energy savings for electric ignition in todar'sfinal**effic~encr** target.

## 47126

5. Bcue 11ea.r d.a.ta. 

### Some comments criticized the fact that the 1975 baseline annual fuel utilization efficiencies for furnaces and boilers published tn the proposed eneJ'O' efficiency im-' provement tareet for furnaces 

### were only estimates. and werenot based

### on test data. Since the publication of the proposed target, new base year data

. ha.ve been obtained which are based
on 

### test data using f1nal 

### DOEtest pro. cedures for

. furnaces 

### and boilers. Thesedatawere used

### to revise the baseline annual fuel utllization efficiencies of furnaces and boilers. The 1975 base year figures 

### are giyen in Table 

### 5-Pum.ace EneJ'O' Efficiency Im· provement Target. These values have been used 

### to derive the target for 1980 annual fuel utilizationefficiencies.

6. 

### Invutment. In the proposal DOE estimated that the investment neces- sary to meet the target was between $120,000 and $137,000 per manufactur·

er. Several comments indicated that the ma.&'Ilitude of the investment 

### was much larger a.nd would be economical· Iy prohibitive. Of major concern 

### to manufacturerswereDOE's investment estimates for improved heat transfer andpowerburners.

After review of the comments and analysis of additional information DOE now estimates tha.t total invest- · ment is $157,000 for each furnace and steel boiler manufacturer and $72,000 for each ca.st ironboilerma.nufa.cturer. The major portion of total investment

·consists of the two design options mentioned above: Improved heat transfer and power burners. As noted in paragraph 1 above, DOE ha.s made

no change regarding the energy sav- ings to be derived from improving heat transfer for furnaces and steel**boil~rs.** a.nd the investment associated with this design option remains at $85,000 per firm. For cast iron boilers, improving heat transfer would have requ.\red



### a.n investment of between $1 million and $1.6 million per manufacturer. This level of investment ha.s been determined to be economically infeasible for ca.st iron boilerma.nufa.cturers, a.nd the production-weighting of the heat transfer design option ha.s been low· ered to reflect this determination. This change in production-weighting reduces the energy savings of the design option for gas and oil boilers from 5 

### to l percent. a.nd contributes tg the reduction in the final efficiency improvement target summarized in table 5. 

### RULES AND REGULATIONS

targethasbeenrevised

### to $157,000 per fl.rm <$'12,000 for cast 

### Iron boiler

### manufacturers>. direct investment 

### undet· taken by fUrnace manufacturers could be 

### a.s low 

### a.s $105,000 <$20,000 for cast 

### iron boiler manufacturers> • 

### ..because In 

### many cases a portion of 

### the Investment would be incurred by 

### manufacturers' suppliers. This level of invest

### ment for furnace manufacturers 

## re-

. ma.ins economicalb'feasible. '1. Reta.U price. One comment ind!· cated that the target 

### for furnaces would increase prices to 

### a level that would be burdensomefor low- 

### to mod· erate-income consumers. In reviewing the possible retail price increase that would result from the implementation

. of the design options, DOE has found

that considerable burden could be placed on· low-income groups. The average price increase for lower priced
gas and on furnaces could exceed 69 percent and 56 percent, respectively. DOE has found it necessary 

### to reduce by 15 percent the production weights for the improved heat transfer design

· option for gas and oll furnaces, a.nd

the electric ignition design option for
gas furnaces, in order 

### to minimize the potential negative impacts on lowincome consumers. The change in production weights reduces the aggregate energy savings for these two design options from 9.3 to 7.9 percent and

. contributes to the reduction in the

final efficiency improvement target summarized intable 5.

8. Elasticity. One comment questioned DOE's estimate of possible 1980 demand changes resulting from more costly but moreefficientboilers. Based

on new information supplied by the boiler industry, DOE has revised

· downward the pr:evious forecast of a

demand increase resulting from achievement of the energy improvement target. The possibility of shifts in demand forboilersis con.strained by the predominantly replacement-Ori· ented market for these products, the essentialnature of heating equipment, and the limited substitutability of other forms of central heating. DOE

now estimates that projected den:ia.nd for boilers will remain relatively con- stant, and that this steady demand supports the economic feasibility of the target.

9. LP-ga:s**turna.c~.** One comment recommended that the design option

· for electricignitionbe eliminated from

the target for furnaces fueled by LP· gas. Several reasons were given for this recommendation. Some areas a.re not served by electricity, and in some
areas where electric service does exist there a.re often periods of extended in· terruption. Underthese conditions the In the proposal, the design option for power burners was assumed to require no nev; investment. After reeva· luating this**questiori~** DOE**no~·** esti· mates that new investment of approximately $20,000 per manufacturer is likelytobe necessary.

Although total investment for all design options supporting the furnace · inability of the electric irn.ition to function properly results in health and safety hazards. The pilot acts as a safety factor in LP-gas furnaces be· 

# cause. unlike gas -ranges, furnaces cycle on and off by thermostatic control,andfailure oftheelectrici&'Ilition mlchtnotbe readilydiscoverable.This does not present

## aproblem in natural gasfurnacesbecausenaturalpsisless likely 

### to**com~ct** around the furnace andislessenergyintensive.

DOE has modified the production weights

### ·tor the electric ignition design option to exclude LP-gas fum.a.ces. Due

### tothtfveryama.ll marketfor these products, however, there 1s no result-

. In& change in the overall energy sav-

ings for the ·electric ignition design optionorthetargetforfurnaces.

This rulemaking complies with**DOE'~** Interim prodecures for implementing Executive Order 12044. enti· tled "Improving Government Rerula· tions."

.An economic impact statement in· eluding the .five targets prescribed today was prepared and is a.va.ilable in the 

### DOE Freedom of Information Office.
<Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Pub. L. 94-163, as amended by Pub. L. 94-385; Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974.. Pub. I.. 93-275, as amended by Pub. L. 94- 385; Department of Energy Organlzatlon Act. Pub. L. 95-91;E.0. 12009, 42.FR46267.l

In consideration of the foregoing. pa.rt 430 of chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations. is amended 

### as set forth below to establish efficiency improvement targets for five appliance types, effective November 13, 1978.

Issued L'l Washington, D.C., October 5, 1978.

WU.LIAM P. DAVIS, DeputyDirectorof Administration.

§430.32 [Amended]

1. Section 430.32 is a.mended by adding paragraphs (el, (gJ, cil, (jJ, and <nl, toread asfollows:



## • • • <el The energy efficiency improvement target for water heaters shall be

a 23-percent increase in the energy efficiency of the total number of water heaters manufactured by all manufacturers in calendar year 1980 when compared with the energy efficiency of the total number of water heaters manufactured by all manufacturers in calendar year 1972.



## • • <gi The energy efficiency improvement target for home heating eQuipment <not including furnaces> shall be



### a.n 11-percent increase in the energy efficiency ofthetotal numberof home heating equipment units <not includ· ing furnaces) manufactured by all manufacturers in calendar year 1980 when compared v;ith the energy effiFEOElAL REGISTll, VOL. 43, NO. 191-THURSDAY, OCTO&El 12, 1971 

## •

•·'



## ....



# .........

...:.: 

# -

- 

## ·aws AND UGULATIONS**~** of the total 

### number of 

### home 

### beatinC equipment 

### units 

### <not IDclwf. 

## me fum&ces> 

### :manufactured by all 

### manufacturers.Jncalendar

### 1ear

### 19'11. efficiency of the total 

### number of clothes wuhens 

### manufactured by all 

### manufacturers 111 calendar yea.r 

### 1980 when compared 

### with 

### the energy effi· cieney of the total 

### number of clothes



### · • · •

.• • • Whera:manufacturedbyallU.annfac·
Cl> 

### The ene!'IY efficiency Improve. 

### turers111calendaryear

### l9'12.


### ment 

## ta.raet for kitchen ranees and • • • • 

# • ovens 8hall

### be a tO-percentfDcrease 

### 111 · t.b.e elle!'IY efficiency of the total 

### <n> 

# The eDe!'IY effieieney tmprove- 

### number of ldtchen 

## ranees and 

### ovens menttarcetfor furnaces 8hall 

### be a 20- 

### manufaduredby all 

### manufacturers 111 percent iDcrease in 

### the eneru effi· ·calendar ;year 1980 when compared 

### cleneyofthetotal

### numberoffurnaces with

### the enerueffieieney ofthetotal 

### manufactured by all manufacturers in 

### number of kitchen ranges and 

### ovens calend&r year 1980 when compared 

### JD&nufactured by all 

### manufacturersID with the 

### eneraefficleney ofthe total 

### calend&ryear 1912. · number of furnaces 

### manufactured by



## ·<J> The energy efficiency improve- all 

### manufacturers μi 

### calendar year ment target 

### for clothes washers shall 1915. ' be 

### a 35-percentIncrease 

### lil the enei-eY CPRDoc.'l8-ia688Piled 10-11-'lB: 8:45 amJ

fiOEUL lEGISTEI. VOL. 4a, NO. 198-THUUDAY, OCT08El 11. 1971 

## 47127

I

# I