C-RM-78-002 COMMENT 01

... . . 

-. 

- 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 
C-RM-78-002 COMMENT 01

47118 

[3128-01-M] 

Title lo-En•l'IY 

CHAPTER II-FEDERAL ENERGY 

ADMIRISTRATION1 • 

PART 430-ENERGY CONSERVATION 

. PROGRAM FOR APPUANCES 

Energy Eff"aciency Improvement 

Targets for F"1Ve Types of Appftances 

AGENCY! Department of Energy •. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: nus rule 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 

Energy Polley and Conservation Act. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 13, 

1978. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 

CONTACT: 

James A. Smith <Consumer Products 

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 

of Energy <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-

385 l requires that energy efficiency 

imp;ovement targets b~ prescribed for 

•Editorial Note.It is contemplated that ch. 

II iNill be renamed at a. 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 other regulations 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> Clothes cfrJ'ers. clmc:v improvement for product types 

<5> Water heaters. <l> thrOUl'h ClO> be at lea.st "20 percent 

US> Room air-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 combined with the other 

<9> Kitchen ranees and ovens. . six pertinent tarcet.s prescribed on ClO> Clothes washers. April 5, 1978. amount to a 26.4-percent 

Cll> Humidifiers and dehumidifters. energy efficiency improvement for 

Cl2> Central air-conditioners. prOduct types <1> through <10>. so that n3> Pu.maces. · the 20-percent aggregate .requirement 

DOE hereby amends title 10, chap-. of seetion 325 is met. 

ter n. Pa.rt 430, Code of Federal 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 proposed by lated strategies for accomplishing this 

FEA on September 23. 197'1 <42 FR,.. objective. · 52426, September 30, 1977>. and a The first ls to establish voluntary 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 

making were proposed by FEA on 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 other product types listed above 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 standard for the product 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.t manufacturers label ea.ch product · gate energy efficiency of all 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 and economically 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. The energy 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 
C-RM-78-002 COMMENT 01

• 

product lines. 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-reJated 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 different product lines. :ret 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 no which 

have so far been established. tncludlng 

the provisions in today's rulema.king, 

ta a8 follows: 

Subpllrt A-General l'nwWoM 

Sec. ,,. 

430.1 Purpose and &e0pe. 

U0.2 Definitions. 

Subpart a-Test Prec:ed.,.... 

430.21 Purpose and scope. uo.22 Test procedures for mea.sures or enem consumption. <a> Retrill;era.t.or& and refrigerator-freezers. 

(b) Freezer&. 

(C) Dishwashers. 

(d) Clothes dr)'er&. 

<el Water heaters. 

(f) Room air-conditioners. 

<g> Unvented home heating equipment. 

Chl Television sets. 

m Kitchen ranges and ovens. Ul Clothes wa.shers. 

Cltl Hum.idifiers. 

ClJ Dehumidifiers. . <ml Central air-concUtloners. 

<nl Furna.ces. 

<ol Vented home heating equipment. 

430.23 Unlts to be tested (Reserved]. 

U0.24 Representa.tioN regarding measures of energy consumption.• 

Cal Refrigerators and re!rigerator-f:r;eezers. 

<bl Freezers. 

<cl Dishwashers. 

Jdl Clothes dryers. 

<el Water heaters. 

(fl Room al.r-concUtloners. 

(g) Unvented home heating equipment. 

<hl Television sets. 

m Kitchen ranges and ovens. 

Cj > Clothes WBShers. 

(ltl Humidifiers. 

m Dellumiclifiers. 

<ml Central air-conditioners. 

tn l Fu.rn.a.ces. 

to) Vented home heating 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 Act relating to representa..tlons re- -specting the energy consumption of, or cost 

of energy consumed by 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.bes dr7en. 

.Appendix E-t1nlform test method for 

measurmr the enerv conauinr>tion of 

-.ter bsten. • 

.Appendix P-'Dnllorm test method for 

measuri1lr the enern comumption of room air-colld.ltlonera. 

Appendix O-On11orm test met.hod for 

measuring the enern consumption of 

unvented home heati.na equipment. 

.Appendix B'.-'Onllorm test method for 

mea.surtnc the enercY consumption of 

television set£. . .Appendix 1-'0nllorm test method 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 method for meas- uring the energy consumption of clothes 

wa.shers. 

A.ppendi.x Kl-Unllorm test method for 

measuring the energy consumption of 

central system humidifiers. 

Appendix K2-Uni!orm test method for 

measuring the energy consumption of room humidifiers. 

A.ppend.ll: L-Uniform test method for 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 

vented home heating equipment. 

Subpalt C-lrutrty Efficiency lmprove-nt 

Targeh 

430.31 Purpose a.nd scope. 

'30.32 Energy etflciency improvement ta.I'· 

gets. 

<al Refrigen.tors and refrigerator.freez. ers. 

Cb l Freez.ers. 

<cl Dishwashers. 

<dl Clothes dryers. 

Ce> Water heaters. 

<f> Room air conditioners. 

(gl Home heating equipment <not including !urna.ces ). . 

Chl Television sets. 

W Kitchen ranges and overu;. 

(j) Clothes washers. 

Ckl Humidifiers. 

.(l> Dehumidifiers. 

"<m> Central a.ir-cond.ltioners. 

<nJ Furnaces. 

ll. FINAL TARGET DETERMINATIONS AND 

DISCUSSION -OF Col'l.!JIU:N'l'S 

After careful consideration of the 

oral and written comments received in 

47119 

response to the propo&ed targets, DOE 

ta today prescribq the following tarsets (proposed tareets which di!fered 

from the targets prescribed today are noted 1n parentheses>: 

Ql'lsurea In pen:ent.J 

Wll&er beaten -· 13 

m-e biat.1J1a llQlllpmeot <not lllellld· 

IDl''-l 11 (131 

ICltcblm n.ZllW a.pd - •to {$4) 

Clotbell W'Uben IS < 41 l """- 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>DAL REGIS'I'EB.S of July 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 backeround papers 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., Monday through Friday. 

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/off switches for 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 water heater on 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 electric water heater. 

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 

such long "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- ness a.nd feasibility. · 

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

\ 
C-RM-78-002 COMMENT 01

4'1120 

WaU!r heatm _.--···------ 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 with the· Improved heat 

the tatvet program on the ground that transfer design option for oD water 

a +0 -t would 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 

nature of the on water hea.ter industrJ' energy savings can be achieved wtthand expressed concern aboU:t 'the in· out redesigning the combustion ch.am.· 

dustrY's ability to undertake the nee- bers of any oil water heaters. 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~ or addi- 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 

implement these 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 of the 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 

heat transfer Is 1.3 percent. 

ciency target. 

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 met by insulation manufacturers. 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. aunested tba.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 implementatkm of this destcn option would constl- ~ & major ch&nle In prpdw:tion. reQUfrinc a leadtime of 5 years rather 

than the 2 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 increase the amount of insulation rather 

than to use ~ 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 oil water heaters. especially 

in view of the fact that the same 

design option can be implemented by 

1980 for gas and electric water heaters. 

An additkmal comment expressed concern about the possible fire hazard 

posed by the me of foam insulation in 

water heaters, and a.bout foam iosula.· 

tkm ahrinka.ge over time. The 8-per· 

cent energy savings which DOE usociated 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 
C-RM-78-002 COMMENT 01

• 

auLE5 AND UGULAnoNS 

feature mto. the design of oil water nation. of the pilot In LP-ps -.ter 

heaters by 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- natural p.s water beaters as an enercY 

tloned DOE's estimate that 2.0 percent efflcie.ncy .improvement desi8D option. 

of the total energy consumed by a.n oD 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.tion of Its teehnlcal ---·-- 8. Coat increcua. One commenter ..........,...., ·lt&ted tba.t the prtce lncreaae associa.tfor this design option. DOE finds that ed with produc:lnr more enern-effi· 

a mathematical error led DOE to over- -'-t ......... _ 1 .u-- th 

estimate the energy sa.vinBS a.ssocia.ted h:.t ::, d'~uid :c s'ist: sa: 

·with the design option. DOE now . .finds • per unit. DOE believes tba.t a tla'ure of 

that a.lthouah the design option ca.n 19 to $10.15 per unit is most likely. 

achieve a. 38-percent savtnp 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 the heat ~ deatan option, the imple- total enern consumption of an oil menta.tion of a.11 design options for p.s 

'1111.ter heater. The lifetime cost 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 of ene1:10' savings a.ttri~uta.ble 

The estimated increase tn the reta.il to the more efficient design options. 

B. BOJB HEATING 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.era from the proPQSed 12 percent 

to H percent. and thus Increased the 

efficiency .improvement percentage for 

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· 

ment for unvented heaters is therefore 

O percent. Unvented heaters were mistakenly 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 including furnaces>. 

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 or increases tn labor costs a.re projected. Therefore, while DOE's 

claim of a 2-percent energy sa.vlngs for 

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 reduction in 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 heater energy 

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 heater market. 

Further comments concerning this 

design option stated that a new ignition system would require extensive 

testing to insure that it would not pose a reliability problem. After a.na.lysis, 

DOE has determined that there is no reason to presume at this time that 

the improved ignition systems currently being developed for oil-fueled appli- ances cannot be adequately tested for 

.relia.bility prior to incorporation into 

production units by 1980. 

7. Pil.ot elimina.tioTL. one commenter 

objected to a.ny energy efficiency improvement design option for water 

heaters which would call fo_r the elimiBame hea.Ung equipment \a.ggregatel-·--

Ventec! home hea.tlbl equiJ:lmeot <ac· srec&tel. 

Gu heater-•. ----·----····· 

Oil he&ter --.... -····-·-·-····--·-······--·- 'Uovented ]lome heating equipment .-:... 

111'!2 "llern' consumptaanx 1012 

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 percent of all ga.s vented beaters, 

could be equipped with electric ign.i· 

ti on. 

Based on data submitted. by the com- . menter, DOE has reduced the number 

of gas-fueled vented heaters to be 

«!Quipped with electric ignition from 11 

J)ercent to 9 percent. This represents a decrease in the estim.ate of the popuia· 

tion of forced air gas.fueled vented 

bea.ters from 22 percent to 18 percent 

of all gas-fueled vented heaters. 

This commenter also stated that 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> ment t&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 ignition for a premium of $60, DOE has 

revised its retail price estimate upward 

to $60. A price increase of $60. which 

translates to a production-v;eighted 

price increase 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 6 h 

yea.rs. 

As a.n alternative to electric ignition, 

manufacturers might also reduce pilot 

input in order to eliminate some 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 target program. 
C-RM-78-002 COMMENT 01

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 In this 

aesign option, 1s not economicalb' feasible In light of the cost of flttinc 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· 

chancer also does DOt appear to be feasible since gravity ci.rcula.tion must be 

maintained In theae units. Therefore. 

DOE has eli.min&ted cravitY p.s-fueled 

wa.ll heaters from the productionweighted energy saving for 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 to 4.9 percent. 

3. Stadt dam:;ier. In the proposal 

DOE estimated that 18 percent 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 1980 production. 

Because thermaI dampers l.l'e typicall v loose fitting, compared to 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. 

fueled vented beaters. · 

4. Ba.sel.tni data. One commenter 

stated that the annual usace 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 

with the NBS estimates relied upon bJ 

DOE. Por this reason. DOE continues 

to accept the NBS figures, 

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 contemplated by the proposed ta.rret. 

DOE accounted for the possible ner· ative impact on low-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 the Department 

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 in the price 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 heating equip. 

ment. After reriew of pest lndustrf 

ahl.pmenta, both before and a.ft.er 19'12, 

DOE believea Uiat \be base year of 

19'12 was an unusually 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 

units previously fiirecast 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 

DOE overestimated 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 

cco.sump- enem· sa:nng:s 

Ene?"gy e!flcieoey 19'12 ene!T,Y 1980 ~ 

tiOZl ~ lt) ~= ( pe!'Cent) 

Eltu 

Kit.<:hens n.rt&'e!I and o""""···-··-··-··-·····-·· :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.uerowave ovens-·----··- .!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! 

.. 
C-RM-78-002 COMMENT 01

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 betweea fbe afet:r requtre.. 

"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 are Cillr1'mUJ' manu· 

-Appllanee JlanuJ'ad;urel' Aasocla.tion. fitd;ured Wbich &ft CUUiet Uble bell'<> ehanl'e In the f'iD&1 .tllZft.et fur ~ mtanl lllS and propane and 

kitchen n.ng-es ancl cwem....,..,. nlqUired w:bicb Ulo bu'e eiect.ril: iptt,ion de-

• a nsJlt or the baellae l"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 FR 20106.111&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. The modlfica.tions to the en~ remote areas with Ulldepead&b.le elecr.et.or. ~ noted abo'9e. are discussed m .1irical senice.. It was f&!so noted that 

deta.Il m ti:e &echnk::a1 background UM? use or dectric ignition cook! repaper 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 cast of a.bout $1.iO. 

One manufacturer ~d that the ..t..fter review af the eomrnents ICld 

elimina.tion of standing pilot lights analysis or existing marltet 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 of low-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 

cent energy savings is attainable. DOE reduce the production-weighting of 

accepts this 0etermination. 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 excess flue ga,s los$eS. 

tend to collect in low places. with a Several comments a.ddressec:! the 

risk of explosion. It was also suggested design option to reduce 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 safety problem. One manufacturer commented that it 

The Am1't'ie&n Oas Association tests could not 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.s prior to 1972. DOE nou· !irids that 

pToduets comply with na.ttt:ina.l safety . excess flue losses bad alre.ad• been 

stand&rds -as specifi~d in the American sufficiently reduced for 16 percent of 

• 

4:'1123 

an ca.s J"aQgeS manufactured In 1972. 

As a consequence, .the 1972 productkm-weidltlnl for this design option 

bas been IDcreased from 0 to 16 percent. and thus. the prodllction-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 •viDIB af • perceat. iB tecbnokJsicaUS" iD.feulble for ovens smaller 

t.baD 1ltanda.rd si2Je 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" in the 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 tbe prod.-

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 products 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.i tions 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 in the met.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 

Manufacturers Association. 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 
C-RM-78-002 COMMENT 01

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 the neglilible demand impact of a $3 price Jncrease. 

5. ImJITO'f'ed innZction. One consum- 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. . 

In the p:ropasal. DOE estimated that 

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· 

sible by 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. 

greater insulation without retooling. 

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 has determined 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 if re- tooling were undertaken. Added to the 

30 percent of non-self-cleaning ovens· which ca.n be improved 'lltithout retool· 

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 of en.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 

meet various new safety requirements. 

One commenter requested that a similar ad,tu.stment be made for p.s tit.ch· 

en rmses and ovens. No information 

was pri>vtded relating to the impact of new safety requirements upan the effi. 

eieney of ps :ranres and ovens since 

19'12, and information available to 

DOE indicates that the impact of new 

safety requirements for pa rmses and ovens is neglilible in terms of the fin&l 

_target. . • -

'1. Rangu and oiien.s in mobile hOma 

end recmitional whiclea. One comment requested that recreational vehi· 

cle ranges and ovens be excluded from 

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 promulgated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development <HUD>. 

Ranges and ovens used in recreational 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. in prescribing an 

energy efficiency improvement target, 

does not consider it relevant that the 

products are regulated for purposes 

other than energy efficiency by another Federal 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 associated energy factors. 

Tuu 4..-Clothes Washer Energy Efficiency 

Improvement Ta.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 of ba.seline data. A 

comment by the Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers <AliAM> 

stated the need to recalculate the 19'12 

baae J'e&I' enerBY consumption. because 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 and final test procedures also re- quired reestablishing the 19'12 base 

year enerBY factor in terms of cubic 

feet per kilowatt-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 clothes in 

cold water, suggesting the 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- sumer reaction to this design option. 

3. Redu.ce wann water w~h. tempera.tu.re setting. One energy saving 

option proposed by DOE for clothes 

washers was a 40/60 water mixing 

valve which would pro>ide warm water 

by combining 40 percent hot witter 

with 60 percent cold 'W'ater. Industry 

FEDEUI. l!GISTEl. VOL. 43, NO. 19'-THUlSDAY, oaoaet 12, 1971 

• 
C-RM-78-002 COMMENT 01

• 

repreaentatives exJ)l'eaed concern that 

Uie reduced wash/water temperature 

111ould produce mW'tisfadOZT wa.ahabillly performance &D.d would reduce 

'bacterial ellm!ilat!on, which is Important In winter months In resicms with 

colder cll.ma.tes. In addition. comments 

in:luested that consumers might llti· 

llze a hot water wash cycle more often. 

·because t.he new warm mix might 

appear coot to the touch. 

Subsequl!Dt amJ.nts by DOE indicated that due to the n.riabllity of cold 

'Water tnlet temperatures, "tbe 40/90 

'l&lve COU: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. 

DOE believes 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..'ld ballers·····················-·····---·· 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;ing the hea.t transfer characteristics 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 

cent 

avinP 

for 

redlictk>D 

t;bis deaieD 

in 

opt.ion. 

tb1s cue 

The 

is 

~ 

\le:l"f 

1arce becaule manf of the products 

produced In 1m iDcorporated a 50/50 

nlve and there will be no sav:lnp at: 

trlbutable to tb1s desicn option for 

these products In 1980. 

S. J'l'DfDCS 

.DOE has determined tb&t an effldency fmprt>~ement ta.r&'et of 20 percent for tu:maces 1s the m.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 efficieneies. 

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. It should be emphasl'2:ed that 

the exact m.tx of these two design opUom is not b:npoJ1;ant because diUermt. mi:l:es of these ·two design options 

ID 1980 production will al.so result in 

achieYement of the ta.rcet. 

a. stack damJ)a:. Some comments Indicated &bat the eatima.ted enern savmo 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 data developed 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 iri the proposed mero ef: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 

conclude that 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 percent thermal 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 

of such energy savings in the proposed 

target. Calculations of energy sa·.-ings 

!or electric ignition using the final 

DOE furnace test procedures published 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's final effic~encr target. 
C-RM-78-002 COMMENT 01

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 were not 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 DOE test pro. 

cedures for . furnaces and boilers. 

These data were 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 utilization efficiencies. 

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 

manufacturers were DOE's investment 

estimates for improved heat transfer 

and power burners. 

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 iron boiler ma.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 boiler ma.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 

target has been revised 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 investment 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 burdensome for 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 in table 5. 

8. Elasticity. One comment questioned DOE's estimate of possible 1980 

demand changes resulting from more costly but more efficient boilers. 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 for boilers is con.strained by 

the predominantly replacement-Ori· 

ented market for these products, the 

essential nature 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 electric ignition be 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. Under these 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 

likely to be 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, and failure of the electric i&'Ilition 

mlcht not be readily discoverable. This 

does not present a problem in natural 

gas furnaces because natural ps is less 

likely to com~ct around the furnace 

and is less energy intensive. 

DOE has modified the production 

weights ·tor the electric ignition design 

option to exclude LP-gas fum.a.ces. 

Due to thtf very ama.ll market for these 

products, however, there 1s no result- . In& change in the overall energy sav- ings for the ·electric ignition design 

option or the target for furnaces. 

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. FR 46267.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, 

Deputy Director of 

Administration. 

§ 430.32 [Amended] 

1. Section 430.32 is a.mended by adding paragraphs (el, (gJ, cil, (jJ, and 

<nl, to read as follows: 

• • • 

<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 of the total number of 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 

• 

• 
C-RM-78-002 COMMENT 01

·' 

.... 

......... ... :.: 

- -

·aws AND UGULATIONS 

~ of the total number of home 

beatinC equipment units <not IDclwf. 

me fum&ces> :manufactured by all 

manufacturers.Jn calendar 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 :manufactured by all U.annfac· 

Cl> The ene!'IY efficiency Improve. turers 111 calendar year l9'12. 

ment ta.raet for kitchen ranees and • • • • • ovens 8hall be a tO-percent fDcrease 111 · t.b.e elle!'IY efficiency of the total <n> The eDe!'IY effieieney tmprove- number of ldtchen ranees and ovens ment tarcet for furnaces 8hall be a 20-

manufadured by all manufacturers 111 percent iDcrease in the eneru effi· 

·calendar ;year 1980 when compared cleney of the total number of furnaces 

with the eneru effieieney of the total manufactured by all manufacturers in 

number of kitchen ranges and ovens calend&r year 1980 when compared JD&nufactured by all manufacturers ID with the enera efficleney of the total 

calend&r year 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-percent Increase lil the enei-eY CPR Doc. 'l8-ia688 Piled 10-11-'lB: 8:45 amJ 

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

47127 

I I