## Friday September 7, 1979



# Part V 

# Department of Energy

W'1'ater Heater; Final Rule Amending Test Procedures Friday September 

## 7, 1979



# Part V


# Department of Energy

\".'ater Heaters; 

### Anal Rufe Amending Test 

### Procedures

### 52632 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 175 / Friday, September 7, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY hour.Recovery rate was a measure of This measure, sometimes referred to as the rate at which a water heater could "recovery capacity," accounted for the 10 CFR Part 430 heat water. Both ofthese measures were combined effect of a water heater's 

### included in the original proposed test power input and recovery efficiency on Energy Conservation Program for procedures because they were likely to the rate at which the water heater could Consumer Products; Fenal Rulemaking assist consumers in making purchasing heat water. In the proposed test Amending Test Procedures forWater decisions, procedures, recovery rate was to be Heaters At the public hearing on the original determined independently of hot water AOENCY: Department of Energy. proposed water heater test procedures, supply rating and was intended to serve ACTION: Final rule. members of the water heater industry as a useful measure ofthe rate at which argued that, because ofthe way the term a water heater could recover from a 

### SUMMARY: The Department of Energy "basic model" was defined, the test large hot water draw. amends its test procedures for water procedures as proposed were unduly Revising the definition ofa water heaters to specify a new measure of burdensome for the testing ofelectric heater basic model also made the water heater capacity, first hour rating. water heaters with immersed heating proposed method for the determination These test procedures are a part of the elements. The proposed definition ofrecovery rate unworkable. Again. energy conservation program for would have required the testing ofa lacking a proven recovery rate consumer products established pursuant large number of models. calculation method and the test data to the Energy Policy and Conservation After reviewing those comments, a from which to attempt to develop such a Act, as amended by the National Energy decision was made to revise the method, this proposed measure, like hot Conservation Policy Act, which requires definition of a water heater basic model water supply rating,had to be deleted that standard methods oftesting be for the final test procedures to exclude from the final test procedures. prescribed forcovered products. immersed heating elements from The investigation into methods for the EFFECTIVEDATE: October 9,1979. consideration as a distinguishing feature prediction of hot water supply rating ofa basic model. This revision of the and recovery rate for the determination 

### FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: definition of a water heater basic model ofsome other measure ofhot water James A.Smith, U.S. Department ofEnergy, solved the burdensome issue but made delivery performance for water heaters

Office ofConservation and Solar the proposed method for the was concluded by DOE at about the Applications. >Mail Station 2221C. 20 determination of hot water supply rating same time that two events occurred Massachusetts Avenme. N.W.. Washington. unworkable. which reaffirmed the need for such .Rot 0. Musser2 S.Depar2tment of1. Since hot water supply rating was a measures to be included in the test Robert M. Musslet,U.S. Department of

Energy. Office ofGeneral Counsel. Mail useful measure of the capacity of a procedures for water heaters. The first Station 3224, 20 Massachusetts Avenue, water heater. members of the water ofthese events was the release of the N.W.. Washington. D.C. 205A5. 202-376- heater industry expressed concern over Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) final 

### 4100. the possible loss of this measure. They staffreport on FTC's proposed rule SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:commented that the hot water supply concerning disclosure of energy cost and *LEA Nrating ofan electric water heater with consumption information in labeling and A. Background immersed heating elements could be advertising of consumer products. This

Title 11. Part Bofthe Energy Policy predicted by calculation: however, they report was released on February 12, iand Conservation Act (Act) (Pub. L. 94 had no such calculation method to 1979. In it. FI'C made the following 163) estahlished an energy conservation present at the time, nor did they submit statement in the section dealing with the program for consumer products. Aspart any data from which a hot water supply determination of the capacity of of this program. section 323 (42 U.S.C. rating calculation method might be consumer products covered by the 6293) of the Act requires that standard develop d. proposed rule: While the development ofa method p methods of testing to determinefor predicting the hot water supply"Historically, gas and oil water heater estimated annual operating cost and at rating of such a water heater was sales are based on recovery capacity, while least one other useful measure ofenergy consided feasible, it was found that, electric water heater comparisons are based consumption be prescribed for certain considered feasibe twasfoundthatcapacity. Some participants lin the products, including water heaters. lacking a proven hot water supply rating public hearing and written commentsl argued

Test procedures for water heaters calculation method and test data from that the traditional methods ofcomparing were proposed by notice issued April 21. which to attempt to develop such a water heaters are unsatisfactory. A system 7 e4 pro

2 t April 27 7 method, the proposed measure, hot that reflects the energy needed both to store 1977 (42 FR 2157o.April 27. 1977).r inal water supply rating, had to be deleted and to replace consumed hot water is more test procedures for water heaters were from tes t pr test procedures for water informative than one thatmeasures only prescibed on September 27 1977 (42 FR heaters. towever, a statement was storage orrecovery. The Recommended Rule 54110, October 4. 1977). DOE amended included in the notice ofthe final rule on reservedly bases capacity on tank storage, in the test procedures for water heaters by test procedures 

### to the effect that further accordance with current DOE test notice issued October 13, 19,78 (43 FR itest procedures to the effect fth h e r rocedures. Ifthe Department of Energy 488notice issued October 13.197,3 FR investigations into methods for the prescribes method, of measuring first hour 489-R. October 19, 1978) in order to calculation ofhot water supply rating or recovery rates or hot water supply ralings specify a new method ofdetermining the for the determination of some other before the Commission issues the final measure of efficiency ofwater heaters. measure ofhot water delivery labeling rule, staffrecommends that the final

When originally proposed on April 21, performance for water heaters would be rule refect the DOE procedure for measuring 1977. the test procedures for water made. It was further stated that the capacity in effect at that time." 

### hears included t measure of hot water heater industry and other The second event was the series ofsix water supply rating and recovery rate. interested parties were invited to public meetings held on DOE's Hot wlter supply rating was a measure participate in these investigations. advanced notice of proposed rulemaling of the m.ximum amount of hot water No comments on the original proposed regarding energy efficiency standards that a water heater could provide in one test procedures for water heaters for nine types ofconsumer products. addressed the measure ofrecovery rate. These public meetings were held over 

### 52632 Federal Register / 

### Vol. 44. No. 175 / Friday. September 7. 1979 / Rules and Rel!ulations

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part430
Energy ConseNaUon Program for Consumer Products; Final Rulemaklng Amending Test Proceduresfor Water Heaters

AGENCY: Depurtment ofEnergy. ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Department ofEnergy amends its**te~t** procedures ror water heaters to specify a new meusure of
water heater capacity. first hour rating. These test procedures are a part ofthe**ener~y** conservation prGgram for

consumer products established pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. as amended by the Neltional Energy Conservation Policy Act. which requires that standArd methods oftesting be prescribed for covered products. EFFECTIVE DATI!: October 9. 1979. FOR FURTHER tNFORMATION CONTACT:
James A. Smith. U.S. Department ofEnergy.

Ofiice ofConservation and Solar Applicatiol!s. Mail Station 2221C. 20 Massachusetts Avemle. N.W

.. Washington. D.C. 20585.**:mZ-.17~14.** Robert M. Mussier. U.S. Departmr.nt of

En"rIlY. Offier. ofGenerul Cuunsel. Muil Stillion 3224. 20 Mus901chusett. Avenue. N.W

..**W~shingron.** D.C. 205115.**202-J~!>-** 4100.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

Title Ill. Part Rof the Energy Policy lind Conservdtion ;\ct (Act) (pub. L.94- 1113) estllhliah/!d an enl'rgy conservation progrnm for consumer products.**A~** part ofthis program. section 323 (42 U.S.C. 029:1) of tne Act requires that stand.::rd methods oftesting to determine estimated unnuul operating cost and at least one .other useful measure ofenerg. v consumption be prescribed for certain products.**includin~** w.lter heaten.

Test procedures for water heaters

were proposed by notice issued April 21; 1977 (42 FR 21576. April 27. 1977). Final
test procedures for wHter h<!aters were prescribed on Sepl'!mber 27.1977 (42 FR 54110. October4. 1977). DOE amended thp. test procedures for water heaters by notice issued**Odob~r** 13. 19:"8 (43 FR 48966. October 19. 1978) in order to**~_pecify** a new method ofdetermining the mp.aSllre ofefficiency ofwater heaters.

Whp.n originally proposed on I\pril21. 1977. the lest proceoures for

......ilter hr.a:ers included the**measure~** ofhot watcr supply ralin!! and recovt.ry rate. Hot willer supply rating W/l8 a measure of the**mll~imum** umount (Ifhot wllter thlll a wllter hellIer could provide in olle hour. Recovery rate was a measure of the rate at which a water heatercould heat water. Doth ofthese measures were included in the original proposed test procedures because they were likely to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions.

At the public hearing on the original proposed water heater test procedures. members ofthe watprheaterindustry argued that. because ofthe way the term "basic model"was defined. the test procedures as proposed were unduly burdensome for the testing ofelectric water heaters with immersed hellting elements. The proposed definition would have required the testing ofa Iilrge number ofmodels.

Arter reviewing those commellts. a decision was made to revise the delinition ofa water heater basiC model for the finalte,t procedures to exclude immersed heating elements from consideration as a distinguishing feature ofa basic model. This revision ofthe definition ofa water heater basic model solved the burdensome issue but made the proposed method ror the determination ofhot water supplyrating unworkable.

Sincehot water supply rating was a useful measure of the capacity ofa waterheater. members ofthe water heater industry expressed concern over the possible loss ofthis measure. They commented that the hot water supply rating oran electric water heater with immersed heatingelements could be predicted by calculati'on: however. they had no such calculntion method to present at the time. nor did they submit any data from which a hot water supply rating calculation method might be developed.

While the development ora method

ror predicting the hot water supply rating of such a waler heater was considerC!J feasible. it was round that. lacking a proven hot water supply rating calculation method and test data rrom which to allp.mpt to develop sl!ch a method. the proposed measure. hot
water suppiy rnling. had to be deleted

rrom the final test procedures for water heilters. However. Q stlltement was included in the noti..:e orthe final rule on test procedures to the errect thllt further investigations into methods for tile calculation ofhot water supply rating or for the JetHmination of some other**mea~ure** ofhot water delivery performance for water heaters would be made. It was further stated that the water heater industry and other intr.rcsted parlies were invited to participate in these investi$!otions.

No cumments on t!le original proposed test procedures for wllter healers Addressed the measure of recovery rate. This measure. sometimes referred to as "recovery capacity." acco::nted for the combined effect ofa water heater'S power input and recovery effiCiency on the rate at which the water heater could heat water. In the proposed test procedures. recovery rate was to be determined independently ofhot water supply rating and was intended to serve

as a useful measure ofthe rate at which

a water heater could recover from a large hot waterdraw.

Revising the definition ofa water heater basic model also made the proposed method for the determination ofrecovery rate unworkable. Again. lacking a proven recovery rate calculation method and the test data from which to attempt to develop such

# a method. this proposed measure. like hot
water supply rating. had to be deleted from the final test procedures.

The investigation into methods for the prediction ofhot water supply rating and recovery rate for the determination ofsome other measure ofhot water delivery perrormance ror waterheaters

was concludedby DOE at about the 8ame time that two events occurred which reaffirmed the need ror such

measures to be included in the test procedures for waterheaters. The first ofthese events was the release ofthe Federal Trade**Commi~sion's** (FTC) final starfreport on FTC's proposed rule concerning disclosure orenergy cost and consumption information in labeling and advertising of consumer products, This report was r!'lp.ased on February 12. 1979. In it.

## Jo-rc mnde the following
statement in the section dealing with the determination ofthe capacity or

consumer products covered by the proposed rule:

"Historically. gas and oil water heater sales are based on recovery capacity. while electric water heatercompHrison. are bHsed

on**8tor~ge** capacity. Some participanls lin the public hearing and",riUen commentsl argued that the traditional methods ofcompilring water heaters are uns·utisfactory. A syslem that renects the energy needed bOlh to store and to replHcc consumed hot water is more informative thRn one thllt measures onlv storage orrecovery. The Recommended-Rule reservedly**ba~es** capacity on tank slorage. in accordance with current DOE test procedure9. Ifthp. Dpparfml'nt of**EnH~v** prescribes mprhod. nf**m~"9urinl!** firsl liour recovery**r81~9** or hoI Willer supply rolings before ine Commission issues the final labclinl! rule. staffrecommends that the final rule reflect the DOE procedure for mea.uring capacity in**eff~,;t** at that lime."

The second event was the series of six public**meetin$!~** held on DOE's advllnr:ed notice of**propo~ed rlllem"~inR**  regarding energy effidcncy stunJards for nine typc9 ofconsumer products. These public meetings were held O\'er

### Federal Register / Vol. 44. Nr. 175 / Friday. September 7. 1979 / Rules and Regulations 52633

the period January 26 to February 8. maintain hour after hour. The proposed consumers would usually be able to 1979. Fourof the participants in these method for determining first hourrating make meaningful comparisons between public meetings. all representatives of differed from that originally proposed water heaters oflike energy source on the water heater industry. made for determining hotwater supply rating. the basis ofstorage capacity. they sl.trrements to the effect that DOE should Hot water supply rating was to be pointed out that meaningful

use first hour rating as the measure of determined entirely by test. First hour comparisons could not be made the capacity ofa water heater and issue rating. as proposed. was to be between water heaters of different rcir:::;urn 

### energy efficiency standards determined partially by test and energy sources based on storage. which are a function of this capacity partially by calculation. This new capacity alone. The basis for the ' rrnisure. (As itis used here, first hour method for determining the measure commenters' remarks concerns the r.tinii can be considered to be was intended toreduce the test burden contribution ofa water heater's equiv:alent to hot water supply rating.) without sacrificing accuracy. recovery rate to its hot water delivery .lhiusl corn.menters claimed that the A public hearing on the proposed performance. Typically, for water irtalblishniern ofun energy efficiency amendment was held on June27.1979. heaters oflike energy source and like s:.lnatlud bused on a fixed energy factor B.Discussion of Comments storage capacity, recovery rate will not '.,due for water heaters ofa given s vary greatly. Therefore. the contribution ln.Trgy source would impose a more Three speakers all representatives of ofrecovery rate tothe hot water oft rcover y rat e 

### tothe hot water st!inge.t requirement on water heaters the wndttest de performance ofwater heater industrytesified on with lar:g tank volumes than those with the proposed amendment to the test oflike energy source may be accounted s.m;il! !ank volu.mes. Such an approach procedures for water heatersat the for implicitly in the approach taken to wuuld discriminate against water public hearing. Six written comments "size" a water heater to a given het l

### :rs with large tank volumes. It was oncerning the proposed amendment application. However. a different sizing poinilted out that water heaters with had been received by July 18 1979. Five approach would have to be used for I.lrge tank volumes provide a utility of the written comments were submitted each water heater energy source since which cannot always be matched by by representatives ofthe water heater the contribution of recovery rate to hot those with smaller tank volumes industry. The sixth was submitted by a water delivery performance will usually particularly in the case of electric water water heater retailer. Although some of vary greatly between waterheaters of these written comments were received heters. Commenters argued thatafter the ose ofthe written comment like storage capacity but different

consumers need electric water heaters aftr wrenergy sources. Typically, an electric with large tank volumes to satisfy their period on July 9,1979. all were waterheater has a much lower recovery hot waterneds in order to ake considered in the development of this jhot water needs in order to takef ulrate than a gas water hea.er which, in advantage of off-peak or time-of-day Thfoowing discssion the turn. typically has a much lower electric utility rates to reduce theirs ise in esti esented recovery rate than an oil water heater.

waterheating energy bill. at hepubic hearing and inthe written Thu for a given application, the sizing

By notice issued May 3. 1979 (44 FR comments submitted to the docket. The "pproach that is appropriate forgas 27191. May 9.1979). DOE.in an effort to comments have been analyzed bytopic water heaters may indicate that a unit develop a more useful measure ofwater rather than source, since in manycases with a storage capacity of30 gallons heater capacity. proposed to amend the the same or similar comments were would suffice while the sizing approach test procedures for water heaters to received from more than one source. that is appropriate for electric water incorporate twonew measures. recovery 1.First hourratingandthe Federal heaters may indicate that a unit with a rain and first hour rating. TradeCommissions lubelingrule.All storage capacity of50gallons would be

Recovery rate. as proposed. was the commenters expressed the concern that required To present a different sizing

same as it appeared in the original DOEwas proposing to amend its test approach for each water heater energy proposed test procedures except that a procedures for waterheaters to specify source for thepurpose of enabling

new method ofdetermining the power a new measure ofcapacity. firsthour consumers to make comparisons input ofan electric water heater with rating. at a time when FTC was between water heaters ofdifferent immersed heating elements was preparing to issue a final rule forthe energy sources would complicate the specified. Also, as proposed. recovery labeling ofwater heaters which would water heaterlabels and the consumer rulte was to be used in the determination require the disclosure ofa different education process associated with the of first hour rating. measure ofcapacity, storage capacity. labeling program. Using first hourrating.

First hour rating. as proposed. was a This concern prompted most ofthe valid comparisons may be made measure conceptually equivalent to hot comments submitted. between water heaters ofboth like and water supply rating as it appeared in the Several commenters addressed the unlike energy sources. Adopting first original proposed test procedures for need forusing first hour rating as the hour rating asthe measure ofthe water heaters. This new name for the measure ofthe capacity of a water capacity ofa waterheater would avoid

measure was deemed more descriptive heater. Firsthour rating was cited as a all ofthe difficulties described above. since it both identified the time base of true measure ofa waterheater's ability Several comments were made to the the measure. an hour. and bythe useof to do work. I.e.. deliver hot wateron effect that DOE should not amend the the term "firt."implied that the demand. end the measure which should testprocedures forwater heaters to
measure was only indicative ofthe serve as the basis formaking meaningful specify thenew measure, first hour performance ofthe water heater during comparisions between all types of water rating, ifFTC prior to issuing its final its "first" hourof operation. While the heaters. It was remarked that storage labeling rule. isnot going toreplace

consumer will not know the conditions capacity, the only measure of the storage capacity with first hour rating as for the determination ofthis measure. it capacity ofa water heaterincluded in the measure ofthe capacity ofa water is sufficient that the term will DOE's test procedures at thetime, heater.It was argued that such an discourage the Interpretation ofthe suffices only as a measure ofa water amendment to the test procedures for

measure as a rate of hot water delivery heater's ability to store water. While water heaters would be pointless ifFTC performance which the water heater can commenters acknowledged that were not to require the disclosure ofthe t'ederalRegistcr 

## I Vol. 44. N('. 175 / FridCly. September 7. 1979 

## I Rules, and Regulations 

### 52633

till' period JHnuary 26 to February 8. 19;'9, f'uur of the participants in these public meetings. al\ representatives of the waterheater industry. made sf"tem"nts to t!le effect that DOE should

use first hour rating as the measure of
tn!' cap.Jcity ofa wHter heater lind issue r::ir::mum energy ef!iciency standardu which ;Ire a function oftrJs capRcity**m'~d~ure,** (.\s :t is used here. first hOUT riltins; can

# ue considered to be eqw\':Jlent tohot water supply rating.)**'nw~,~** commenters r:Iaimed thnt the ,,,tabbhment ofun enerllY eFfici!'ncy**~:.l!llliJrlJ** llllseu on iI fixeu energy fuctor
\.!l1I1! for wiltrJr heaters ofa given I!!wr;.lY SOl!rcewould impose a more**~t~in:;er.t** requirement on walerheaters with**liI~gl~** tank .olume3 tha.nthose with**~:nill!** lank ;·olumes. Such an approach \\'oulddiscriminatc against water**h,,;tt',r~** with I<lrge tank volumes. It was pt>intl,d oct that walerheaters with**l.q~1!** tank .olumesprovide

## autility which cannot alwClYs be matched by those with smaller t<lnk\·olum('s. particularly in the case ofelectric wilter hl'aters. Commenters argued that c'Jnsumers need electric waterheaters with large tank volumes to satisfy their hot wilter needs in order to take iI(hanlage ofoff·peak or time·of·day f'll'ctric utility rates to reduce their**wat~r** heating energy bill.

Dy notice issued May 3. 1979 (44 FR Z7191. May 9. 19i9). DOE. in an effort to c!!'\'elop a more useful measure ofwater hl'atncapacity. proposed to amend the**I!~~t** procedures for waterhe'aters to incurpornle two newmeasures. recovery rate and first hour rating.

RecoveryraIl'. as proposed. was the**~ame** liS it appeared in the original proposed test procedures except that a
new method ofdeterminill8 the power input 

### oClin electricwaterheater with immerRed healing elements was specified. Also. as proposed. recovery rllll! Wltl to be used in the determination offirst hour rating.

First hourratiDg. as proposed. was a
mensure concephl811y equivalent to hot wut!'r supply ratill8 as it appeared in the originlll proposed test procedure. for
wnter heaters.'1'his new name for 

### the m!'asure WIS deemed more descriptive since it both identified the time baseof the measure. anbour. and by the IDe of the term "first."implied thatthe

measure wasonlyindicatiyeofthe performance ofthe waterbeaterdlll'ing its "first': bourofoperation. While the

consumer will not know the conditlonl

ror the**d~'emliJllltion**

# ortru. menure, it I, ,uendent that tha term will

. discourago the Interpretation ofthe

measure as II raleofbot waterdelivery

,performance which 

### the waterbeatercan muiutain hour ilfter hour. The proposed methuJ for determining first hour rating diff

..red from that originally proposed fur**dt~termining** hot watersupply ratiog. Hot waler supply rating was to be determined entirely by test. First hour rating. 115 proposed. WIIS to be determined partially by testand partially by calcuhilion.This new melhod for determining the measure
was intended to reduce the testburden without sacrificing'accuracy.

t\ public hearing on the proposed IIrncndmlmt was held on June 27.1979.
B. Dilfcussion ofComments

"fhr!!e speakers. all representatives of the water heaterindustry,'testified on the proposed amendment to the test procedures fur wllterheaters atthe public hearing.'Six written comments concerning the proposed amendment had been received by July 18. 1979. Five ofthe writte:1 comments were submitted by rp.presentatives ofthe waterbeater industry. The sixth was submitted by a water heaterf(·tailer. Although some of these written comments werereceived ilftpr the close ofthe written comment period on July 9. 1979. all were considered in the development ofthis

. finlll rule. The following is a discllssion ofthe issues raised in the testimonypresented at the publichearingandi.n the written,
comments submitted to the docket.The comments have been analyzedbytopic. rather than source. since 

### inman)'cases the sameor similar comments were received from more than one source.



### 1. First hourratinsandtheFederal Trade Commission's/ube/ingrule. All commenters expressed the concern that DOE wasproposing to amend its test procedures for waterheaters to specify

a new measure ofcapacity,first hour rating. at a time whenFTC was preparill8 to issue a final rule for the labeling ofwaterheaters which would require the disclosureof

### Ii different

measure ofcapacity. storll8e capacity. This concern prompted most 

### Ofthe comments submitted.

Several commenten addressed the need for using first hourrating asthe

measureofthe capacityofa water

. heater. Firsthourratingwascited as a true measure ofa waterheater's ability to do work. I.e" deliverhotwateron demand. end themeasure which should

serve as the basisfor makingmeaningful

comparisions between all types ofwater heaters. Itwa.remarked thatatcrase capacity. the only mealUre ofthe 'capacityofa waterheaterineluded in DOE's tellt procedures at the time, sufficelonly a. a measureofa water heater'.ability toatore water.While cornmenters acknowledsed that ,**consum~rs** would uS:JCllly ue able to make meaningful comparisons between
waterheaters oflike energy source on the basisofstoragecapacity. they pointed out that meaningful comparisons could not be made between waterheaters ofdifferent energy sourcesbased on storage, capacity alone. The basis for the' commenters' remCirks concerns the contribution ofa wR'tet heater's

recoverv rate to its hot waterdeliverv perform'anc{'. Typically. for wa-ter

. heaters oflike !'ne'llY source and like**storagl~** r.apllcity. reco\'ery rate will not \'ary greally. Therefore. the contribution ofreCO\'ery rate to the hot ""'ater delivery performance ofwaterheaters oflike energy source may be accounted for implicitly in the approach taken to "size" a waterheaterto a gh'en applicntion. However. a diffe",nt**~iz:ng** approach would have to be used for each waterheater energysource since the contribution ofrecovery rate to hot
water deli\'ery performance will usually varygreatly between waterheaters of like storage capacity but different enersy sources. Typically. an electric waterheaterhas a much lowerrecovery rate than a gas wliterhea.!!r which. in tum. typically has a much lower recovery rate than an oil waterheater. Thus for a given application. the sizing '\pproachthat is appropriate for gas waterheatersmayindicate that a unit with a storage capacityof30 gallons would suffice while the sizing approach 'thatis appropriate for electric water' heatersmayindicate that a unit with a storage capacityofSOgallons would be required. To presenl a different sizing approach for eachwaterbeaterenergy
sourcefor thepurpose ofenablina

consumers to make comparisons betweenwaterheatersofdifferent energy sourceswould complicatethe waterheaterlabels andthe consumer educationprocellaSsociated with the labelill8program. Usill8 rarst bourrating. valid comparisons may

### bemade betweenwaterbeatel'll ofboth like and unlike energyaourcea. Adopting rarst hourratingas the measure ofthe capacity of.waterheaterwould avoid all ofthe difficulties described above.

Severalcomments

### were mIlde tothe effect that DOE shouldnot ante!ld the testproceduresfor waterheaters to specifythe'new measure, first hour ratiftg, 

### If

### FI'C. priorto issuing its final labelingrule, Is not goill8 toreplace storage capacitywithfirst hourrating as the measureofthecapacityorI water heater. II**wa~** Rrgued that such an amendment to the test procedures for water heAters would 

### be pointless iffTC

werenot to require the disclosure ofthe

### 52634 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 175 / Friday, September 7. 1979 / Rules and Regulations

I- I



### new measure on the label for water proposed amendment would impose a

-heaters. Several cost estimates were heaters. substantial test burden on the water presented for such a retesting program.

Also ofconcern was the prospect that heater industry. The burden that was of The trade association estimated the cost FTC might proceed with issuing its final concern was not the incremental to be as high as $18,000 per company. labeling rule utilizing storage capacity additional test time and cost of One manufacturer estimated labor costs as the measure ofthe capacity of a determining first hour rating as part of a at S27,000 and an additional S19.000 water heater and then revise it at some complete test of a water heater in expense to reclaim the test units for future date in order to require the use of accordance with the existing test sale. Another manufacturer estimated first hour rating in place ofstorage procedures. but the burden ofhaving to his test cost at $12,000 and commented capacity. It was argued that such a test a water heater solely to determine thathis firm would haveto build units switch in the labeling requirement its first hour rating. [n anticipation of expressly for test purposes since his would disrupt consumereducation FTC's labeling requirement. the water firm manufacturs to order and not to programs based on the original labels heater manufacturers claimed that they stock. A third manufacturer estimated and confuse the consumer. During such had already commenced, and to a large his additional test cost would be at least

a transition period consumers might extent completed, testing water heaters $10.000. attempt to make comparisons between in accordance with DOE's test Concern was also expressed over the water heaters when some might bear a procedures. This testing has been done possibility that, in order to provide more label disclosing storage capacity while in order to be able to supply FTC with time for completing required testing, the labels on other water heaters might the energy consumption and cost of FTC might delay the labeling rule for disclose first hour rating. Commenters operation figures which manufacturers water heaters ifDOE were to finalize its also remarked that such a switch would expect FTC to require to be submitted GO test forfirst hour rating as it was impose additional costs associated with days after the issuance ofits final proposed. Commenters projected that a the printing of new labels for'water labeling rule. DOE's proposed delay ofthe labeling rule forwater heaters. 'Ihese cost would have to be amendment would, iffinalized. require heaters would severely complicate the passed on to consumers. that manufacturers perform the consumer education process regarding

Concern was also expressed over the proposed first hour rating test on all of the use of consumerproduct labels. possibility that FTC might delay the the models of water heaters for which The manufacturers commented that labeling rule for water heaters ifDOE the tests for energy consumption and none of these problems which they had

were to finalize its test for first hour cost ofoperation had been completed. identified concerning DOE's proposal for ruating as itwas proposed. The water The effort and expense ofsuch further determining firsthour rating by test heater industry projected that a delay of testing would impose a burden would be encountered ifDOE were to the labeling rule for water heaters would significantly greater than the burden accept their recommendation that first .:verely complicate the consumer that would havebeen sustained had the hour rating be predicted by calculation. .lducation process regarding the use of tests for first hour rating been performed All ofthe water heater manufacturers hhe consumer product labels. at the same time as all other tests. who submitted comments supported this

I.TC staff attended DOE's publicomes e t t recommendation and offered first hour hearing regarding its proposed Comments were madethat the timin rating calculation formulas. The industry .imendment to the test procedures for ofD 's rule to amend the test trade association did the same. All of water heaters. Additionally, FTC staff procedures and C's rule to prescribe the proposed formulas followed the h;,sbeen provided with copies of aill labels for water heaters would impose same approach toward calculating first submissions to the docket regarding this an unreasonable test burden. IfDOEhour rating.H oward calculatingfirst pnposed rulemaking. DOE ad FTC were to issue its final rule to amend the hour rating. However there were some proposeld rulcmiking. DOE,and FTC w

### er o ue t

### s n l u e 

### t o am

### edetail differences which would cause staff h~ave discussed the issues raised in test procedures f o r 

### water heaters as it slight differences in the calculated -. 

### te.stimony at the public hearing and in d a in time for FTC to alues.

,submissions to the docket which revise its rule prescribing labels for All but one water heater manufacturer

..ncern the FTC labeling program. FTC water heaters, the water heater industry offered data in support oftheir * 

### luiff has indicated that they continue to could have as little as 60 days in which suggested first hour rating calculation support their recommendation to the to accomplish all testing in order to be formulas. The data submitted compared ,:.'.lderalTrade) Commission that the able to present the test results to FTC on the results of determining first hour final labeling rule for water heaters time. rating by test with the results ofusing should reflect the DOEprocedure for While some manufacturers said thai it the commenter's suggested calculation

:,:.isuring water heater capacity in would be possible for them to meet such formula. The results showed general ,*ffectat the time that the labeling rule is a requirement should it be imposed. a agreement between the results issued. Following these discussions. trade association for members ofthe determined by calculation and those DIOE staffresolved to issue a final rule water heater industry expressed determined by test. In most cases the to amend its test procedures for water concern for other manufacturers.. calculated value differed from the test heaters in time t6 permit FTC to adopt particularly those with limited test value by less than three percent. first hour rating in place ofstorage facilities or none at all. The trade Several ofthe water heater

· capacity as the measure ofthe capacity association'claimed that water heater manufacturers and the trade association of awater heater and issue its final manufacturers would need six months to acknowledged that there may be some labeling rule with no delay in schedule. conduct the tests once they were designs ofwater heaters for which their The timing oftoday's issuance has been published. suggested formula would yield overly coordinated with FrC staff to assure It was further remarked that such a conservative results,i.e.. up to ten avoidance ofthe potential problems test requirement would not only impose percent below the value that would be discussed above. significant test costs which would be determined using the proposed first hour

Z.The ;urden oftestingand

### npethoids paissed on to consumers. but it would rating test. These would be the designs for fIetrirmining, firsthourrotfi,. All of also divert manpower and resources which do an extraordinary job of the water heater manufacturers who from product development work on new limiting mixing ofhot and cold water in submitted comments claimed that the energy efficient designs of water the tank during a water draw. To avoid



### 52634 Federal Register 

## I Vol. 44. No. 175 

## I Friday, September 7. '1979 

## I Rules and 

### Regulations

7

new measure on the label for water heuters.

.

Also ofconcern was the prospect that**r~rc** might proceed with issuing its final labeli:1g rule utilizing storage capacity

as the measure of the capacity ofa . water heater and then revise it at some future date in order to require the use of fint hour rating in place ofstorage capacity. It was argued that such a switch in the labeling requirement would disrupt consumereducation programs based on the originallilbels and confuse thn consumer. Durin!!**~uGh** II**tran~ition** period**consumer~** mi)lht attempt to make comparisons between water he;;ters wh.m some might bea:' a

.label disclosing**~torage** capar:ity while the labels on other water heaters might disclose first hourrating. Commenters also remarked that such a switch would impose ;;dditional costs associaled with the prin1inf; ofnew labels for'water hpaters. These cost would have to be passed on to consumers.

Concern was also expressed over the possibility that FTC might delay the labeling rule for water heaters ifDOE

.wcre to finalize its test for first hour "aling as it was proposed. The water hcater industry projeGted that a delay of the laheling rule for water heaters would "!verely complicate the consumer ,·duclltion process regarding the use of**Ih,~** consumerproduct labels:

I-TC staffIll1ended DOE's public hl!aring regarding its proposed

..mendment to the test procedures for
waterheaters. Additionally. FTC staff hilS heen provided with copies of

### nil**""bmis~ions** tl' the docket rej:l/lrding this

. prnpOSI!d rulemllkinJ;:. DOE alld FTC

staffh17ve discussed the issues raised in t

..stimony at the public hearin)! and in "'lbmissions'to the dockct which r.llnr:ern the FTC labelin)! progmm. FTC <taffhas indicatrd that they continue to ""pport their r:!commendation to the 'Fl'dernl Trade)**Commi~sion** that thl! fillilllilbeling rule for water hellters ,hould renect the DOE procedure for l,l'!,\Suring water hrlltN cllp;;city in "ffectat the time th;;t the labeling rule is**l~st7l'd.** Following these discussions. (JOE stnffresolved to issue a final rule

.to IPmend ita test procedures ror water hl!utl!rs in time to permit FTC to adopt first hour rlltin)! in place orstornge r.IlPlPcity 1P9 the meRsure ofthe capacity of II water heAter And issue its finnl lah!!lin!! rule with no dl'lay in schedule. The timing of today's issuance has been coordinIPtf)d with FTC staffto assure a\'oidllnce ofthe potential problems di!7r.us!7ed above.

Z. The .iurriell ofteslillgalld**1I1"'lhnd.~** (or r/,·lt.·rminingfirst hUllrrolin.I/. 

### All of thl' wllter heilter manufacturers who suhmitted commenls claiml'd thaI the proposed amendment would impose a substantial test burden on the water heater industry.Thl! burden that was of

concern was not the incremental additional test time and cost of determining first hour rating as part of II complete test ofa water heater in accordance with the e"<isting test procedures. but the burden ofhaving to testa water heater solely to determine its first hour rating. In anticipation of FTC's labelingrequirement. the water he;;ter manufacturers claimed that Ihey had already commenced. and to a la!,!!e extent completed, tcsting wuter heaters in accordance with DOE's test procedures. This testing has bl!!!n done in order to be able to s'upply FTC with the energy constimption and cost of operation figures which manufacturers expect FTC to require to be submitted 00 days after the issuance ofits final labelingrule. DOE's proposed amelldment would. if fimllized. require thai manufacturers perform the proposed first hour rating test on all of the models ofwater heaters for which

. the tests for energy consumption and
cost ofoperation had been completed. The effort and expense ofsuch·further testing would impose a' burden signifir.antly greater than the burden that would have been sustained had the tl!sts for first hour rating been performed at the same time as all other tests.

Comments were made thaI the timing ofDOE's rule to amend the test procedures and FTC's rule to prescribe labels for water heaters would impose lin unreasonable test burden. IfDOE WI!re to issue its finlll rule to amend the test procedures for water heaters us it

was proposed and in time for FTC to revise its rule prescribing labels for
water heaters. the water heaterindustry could have liS little liS 60 days' in which
to accomplish all testing in order to be ;;ble to presenl the test results to FTC on time.

. While some manufacturl'rs said that it would be possible for them to meet such

a requiwment should .it be. imposed. a trade association for members ofthe
waterheaterindustry expressed

concern for oliler manufacturers,

. particularly those with limited test facilities ornone at all. The trade association'claimed thilt water heater manufacturers would need six months to conduct the tests once they were published.

It was furthl!r remilrked that such a test requirement would not only impose sillnificunt test costs which would be pm7sed on to consumers. but it would also divert mllnpower and resources from product development work on new

,energy efficient designs ofwater heaters. Severalcost estimates were presented for such a retesting program. The trade association estimated the cost to be as high as 

### $18.000 per company. One manufacturer estimated labor costs at 

### S27.000 and an additionlll 

### S19.000 expense to reclaim the test units for sale. Another manufacturer estimated his test cost at 

### $12,000 and commented that his firm would have to build units expressly for test purposes since his firm manufacturs to order and not to stock

..A third manufacturer estimated his additional test cost would be lit least SIO.OOO.

.

Concern was also expressed over tht· possibility that. in orderto provide more time for completing required testing, FTC might delay the labeling rule for
waterheaters ifDOE were \0 finalize its
test for first hour rating as it was proposed. Commentersprojected thaI iI delay ofthe labeling rule for water heaters would severely complicate the

consumer education process regardin!! the use ofconsumerproductlabels.

The manufacturers commented that

none ofthese problems whir:h they had idel\tified concerningDOE's proposal 

### for ! determining first hourrating by test w01,Pld be encountered ifDOE were to accept their recommendation that first hour rating be predicted by clilculation. 

### All ofthe water heater manufacturers who submitted comments supported this recomr.lendalion and offered first hour rating calculation formulas. The industry trade association did the same. 

### All of the proposed formulas followed the

same appro;;ch toward clllculating first hourrating. However. there were sornp detllil differences which would cnuse slight differences in the calculated values,

All but one water heater manufacturer offered data in support oftheir suggested first hour rating calculation formulas. The dala submitted compared the results ofdetermining first hour mting by test with the results of**usin~** the commenter's suggested calr:ulation formula. The results showed general agreement between the results determined by calculation lind those determined by lest.ln most cases the calculated value differed from the test valueby less thon three percent.

Several ofthe water heater manufacturers and the trade association acknowledged that there may be some designs ofwaterheaters for which their suggested formula would yield overly conservative results, i.e

.. up to ten percent below the value thllt would be determined using the proposed first hour rating test. These would be the desisms which do an extrllordinary job of

. limiting mixing ofhaland r.o!d water in the tank during a water dmw. To avoid

### Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 175 / Friday. September 7, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 52635

underestimating the first hour rating ofa which yields aresult which tends to be recommended test method maydiffer
water heater of such innovative design. slightly lower than that which can be from those obtained using the proposed it was suggested that water heater obtained by testing. DOEhas provided method, this difference will be small in manufacturers be provided the option of an incentive for manufacturers to comparison to the magnitude of the conducting a test to determine the first perform the first hour rating test ifthey results. Moreover,the proposed test hour rating ofsuch a water heater. have access to test facilities and if, in method is a significantly less

DOE finds that data submitted by the their own judgment, the benefit ofa burdensome testthan that water heater industry and data slightly higher first hour rating justifies recommended by the commenter. DOE generated by the National Bureau of the cost oftesting. rejects the commenter's Standards substantiate that first hour It is also the intent ofthese provisions recommendation on these grounds. rating can be calculated for water to insurethat first hour rating for all The same commenter who heaters of conventional design with a new basic models ofwater heaters shall recommended that the previously small sacrifice in accuracy over the be determined exclusively by test since proposed hot water supply rating test be proposed test method. DOE concurs DOE does not find that the prescribed' used to determine first hour rating also with comments that a formula for test isburdensome when it is conducted offered an alternative to this calculating first hour rating may yield as part ofa complete test ofa water recommendation. The suggested overly conservative results forwater heater in accordance with the test alternative was to modify the proposed heaters ofinnovative design. DOE:also procedures for water heaters. approach forcalculating the finds that the test burden that would be Should-it become clear at sometime contribution ofrecovery rate to the first imposed at this time on water heater that the date by which FTCwill require hour rating measure, i.e., the amount of manufacturers by the proposed rule manufacturers to submit energy water that a water heater can heat and outweighs the benefits ofrequiring first consumption and cost of operation make available over the one hour time hour rating for water heaters to be figures. including first hourratings, for base ofthe first hour rating measure. determined exclusively by test when waterheaters will be laterthan The commenter's position was that the first hour rating can be calculated with November 30. 1979, DOE will consider time period for this calculation should only a slight sacrifice in accuracy in extending this termination date of its be one hour minus the time duration most cases. Further, DOE agrees that the option for allowing firsthour rating to be from the start ofthe water draw to the alternative ofFTC granting relief to calculated or determied bytest. time that themain burner or heating 3; Determining First HourRatingby water heater manufacturers by delaytinging First Hour atinS element begins operatingrather than the the issuance-of the final labeling rule for Fu versusprtil testing. For time period of one hour minus the time water heaters to allow sufficient time for determining the first hour rating ofa duration ofthe water draw itelf.The testing water heaters to determine first water heaterby testing, one commenter commenter remarked that !'hemain hour rating could beaccompanied by remarked that the proposed test method burnerofa gas waterheater would

some confusion among consumers. In which required only one waterdraw ignite withinfifty seconds to two addition, the slight gain in the accuracy was far better than the test method minutes after the start ofthe water draw ofthe measure disclosed on the label previusl prpsed for determinin the while the water draw itself will last previously proposed fordetermining the heweraw itself wi l las t that is determined by test rather than by conceptually equivalent measure. hot several minutes longer. It was claimed calculation does not outweigh the water supply rating, which allowed for that this shortcoming of DOE'sproposed adverse Impact of denying useful more than one water draw. Another approach would result in an error of five Information to consumers making water commenter remarked exactly the gallons in the first hour rating ofone of heater purchasing decisions for a period opposite. This dissenting commenter the commenter's water heaters. The oftime equal to any delay. claimed thatby providing'for only one trade association echoed this

Bused on these findings. DOEhas water draw to be made the proposed commenter's position that for modified the requirement ofits proposed test method would discriminate against determining first hour rating.the rule to allow first hour rating to be the best waterheaters on the market. contribution ofrecovery rate should be calculated or determined by test, at the i.e.. those with both high recovery calculated over the period oftime ofone manufacturer's option for the period of efficiencies and power input to storage hour minus the time duration ofthe time beginning on the effective date of capacity ratios. The commenter water draw until the main burner or today's rule and ending on November remarked that such water heaters could heating element begins operating. 30. 1979. Beginning December 1. 1979. recover from the initial water draw. i.e.. Concerning the recommendation that, manufacturers will be required to achieve another thermostat cutout for the proposed test method, the determine first hour rating exclusively withinthe one hour period that is the contribution ofrecovery rate should be bytest. The formula for calculating first time base ofthe first hour rating calculated over the period oftime ofone hour rating prescribed by today's rule measure. It was claimed that the test hour minus the time duration ofthe was developed with the intent that it method for determining first hourrating water draw until the main burner or would yield results which would be previously proposed would, by allowing heating element begins operating. DOE equal to or slightly less than the results for additional water draws over the one finds that this could lead to "double which would be obtained bytesting. hour period-ofthe test; yield a better accounting" of hot water. For some

The primary intent ofthese provisions: measure of firsthour rating than the water heaters, notably electric water isto enable manufacturers to supply lower result that would be obtained heaters and gas water heaters with low FTC with first hour ratings for all with the proposed test method. power input to storage capacity ratios, existingmodels of waterheaters, either ' DOE has considered the commenter's operation ofthe heating elements or by testing or by calculation. within a 60 recommendation that DOEadopt the main burner during the water draw test day period following September 20. previously proposed test method for has littleeffect on the amount of water 1979. the latest date that FTC currently determining hot water supply rating as withdrawn from the water heater. In projects for the issuance of its final the test method for determining first other words, nearly the same amount of labeling rule. However, by prescribing a hour rating.DOE finds that while the water could be withdrawn from the formula for calculating first hour rating results obtained using the commenter's water heater during the test even if the , 

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 44, 

### No. 175 

## I Friday. September 7. 1979 

## I Rl,1les and Regulations 52635

underestimating the first hour rating ofa waterheater ofsuch innovative design, it was suggested that waterheater manuracturers be provided the option of conducting a test to determine the. fint' hourrating ofsuch a waterheater.

DOE finds that data submitted by the waterhellier industry and data generated by ihe National Bureau of

. Standards substantiate that first hour rating can be cillculated for water heaters ofconventional design with a small sacrifice in accuracy over the proposed test method. DOE concurs with comments that a'formulll for calculatingfirst hour rating may yield .overlyconservativeresults for water heaters ofil')novative design. DOE:also finds that the test burden that would be imposed at this time on waterheater manufacturers by theproposE'd rule outweighs the benefits ofrequiring first hour ratinS! for waterheaters to be detem.ined exclusively by test when first hourrating can be calculated with only a slight sacrifice in accuracy in
most. cases. Further. DOE agrees that.the alternative of

### FiCgranting reliefto waterheater manufacturers by delaying the issuance'ofthe final labeling rule for. waterheaters to allow sufficient time for testing waterheaters to determine first hourrating could be accompanied by

some confu!iion among consumers. In addition, the slight gain in the accuracy ofthe measure disclosed on the label that is determined by test rather than by calculation does not outweigh the adverse. impact or denying useful Information to consumers making waier heaterpurchasing decisions for a period oftime equillto any delay.

Bused on thesefindings. DOE has modified the requirement ofits proposed rule to allow first hour rating to be ' calculated.ordetermined by test. at the manufacturer's option for the period of time beginning on .the erre!=live date of today's rule and ending on November 30, 19'79. Be!!inning December 1. 1979. manufacturers will be required to

.determine firsl hour rating exclusii:ely by lest.The formul!! for calculating first hour raling prescribed by today's rule

WRS developed with Ihe inlent Ihat if would yield results which would be equal 10 or slightly less Ihan the results which wouldbe obtained by**te~ting.**

Theprimary intent ofthese provisions is to enable manufacturers 10 supply 

### Fiewith first hour ratings for all elCisting models ofwaterheaters. either hy tesling orby calculation, within a 60 day period following September 20. 1979. the latell! date that 

### Fiecurrently projects for the issuance ofits flnol labeling rule. However. by prescribing a rormula for calculating**fir~t** hourrating which yields a result which tends to be slightly lowerthlln that which canbe obtainedby testing, DOE has provided

anincentive for manufacturers to perform the firBt hourrating test ifthey have access to test facilities and if. in their ownjudgment, the benefit of

### B slightly higher first hour ratingjustifies the costoftesting.

Itis also the intent ofthese provisions to i,nsure that first hourrating for all

new basic models ofwaterheaters shall be determined exclusivelyby !cstsince DOE does not find that the prescribed' testis burdensome when it is conducted

as partofa complete tesl of8.water heaterin accordance with the test procedures ror waterheaters.

Should·itbecome clear at some'time that the dateby which 

### FiC wi!! require manufacturers to submit energy

.consumption'and cost oroperation figures, including first hourratings. for walerheaters will be later Ihan November 30.1979. POEwill consider ,extending this termination date ofits option for allowing first hour rating 10 be calculatedordeterminedbytest.



### 3; DeterminingFirstHourRating bj· Testing.

a. 

### Full versuspartia/lesting. For determining the first hour rating ofa 'waterheaterbytesting. one commenter remarked that the proposedlest melhod which required only one waterdraw.

was farbetterthan the test method previouslyproposed for determining the conceptuallyequivalent measure. hot watersupplyrating. which allowed for

more than one wilter draw;Another commenlerremarked exactly the opposite.This dissenting commenter claimed thatbyproviding'ioronly one walerdraw to bemade.the proposed· test method would discriminate against tite best walerheaters on the markel

.. i.e

.. those withbolh high recovery' efficiencies and powerinput to slorage capacily ratios.The commenter remarked Ihal such waterhealers could

recoverfrom Ihe Initial waler draw. i.e

.. achieve another Ihermostat cutoul, within the onehourperiod that is the

. Iime baseofthe first hourratiJJ,2

measure. It was claimed thaI the tesl method for determining first hour rating previously proposed would. by allowing for addilionalwaterdraws overthe one hourpericid·ofthe test; yield a better

•measure offirst hourrating than the lower.result that,would beobtained with Ihe proposed test method.

. DOE has considered Ihe commenter's recommendation thill DOE adopt the previously proposed test method for determining hot waler supplyrating as the test method for determining first hour rating. DOE finds thaI while the results obta.ined using the commenter's recommended test method may differ from those obtainedusing the proposed method. this.difference will be small in comparisonto the magnitude ofthe results.Moreover, the proposed test method is a significantly less burdensome test than that recommended by tbecommenter. DOE rejects the commenter's

. recommendation on these grounds.

The satr.! commenter who recommended that the preViously proposedhot water supply rating tesl be used to determine first hourrating also offered an alternative to this

. recommel\dation.The suggesled alternativewas to modif}' the proposed approach for calculating the

. contribution ofrecovery rate to the fll'St hourrating measure. i.e.• the amount of walerthaI a walerheatercan heat and make available over Ihe onehour time base ofthe first hourrating measure. Thecommenter's**position.wa~** that the time period for Ihis calculation should beonehour minus the time duration from the start ofthe waler draw to the time thatthe.main burnerorheating elementbegirrs operatingrather than the time period ofonehourminus the time

. :duration ofthe waler drawih,elf. The

commenterremarked Ihat 

### !"te main burner ofa ga's waterheater would

. ignite within fifty seconds to two

minutes after the slart ofthe waterdraw while the waterdrawitselfwilllast

,severalminutes longer. It was claimed that this shortcoming ofDOE's proposed

. approach would result In an erroroffive

gallons in the fint hour raling ofoneof the commenler's walerheaters.The trade association echoed this cominenter'sposition that for determining first.hour rating, the

. contribution ofrecov!!ryrate should be**~** calculatedoverthe period oftime ofone hourminus the time duration ofthe waterdraw until the main burneror heatirlg elementbegins operating.

Concerning the recommendation Ihal. for the proposed lesl method, the contribution ofrec()veryrate sp'ould be calculated over the period oftimeofone

. hour minus the time duration ofthe
waterdrawuntil the main burneror heating element beghlJ1 operating. DOE finds that this could lead to "double accounting" ofhot water. For some waterheaters. nolably electricwater heaters andgas waterhealers with low powerinput to storage capacityratios. operation ofthe heating elements or main burnerduring the.waterdraw test has littleeffect on the amount ofwater withdrawn from !he waterheater. In other words: nearly the same amount of watercould bewithdrawn from the waterheater during the test even ifthe

### 52636 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 175 / Friday. September 7, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

heating elements ormain burner was draw test ofa 40'F outlet water temperature drop specification. By prevented from operating during the temperature drop. Both commenters today's rule, section 3.7 of the test water draw. However, for other water were concerned that the specified procedures for water heaters specifies heaters, notably oil water heaters and temperature drop was excessive and 20'F as the temperature drop for the first gas water heaters with high power input would lead to inflated values offirst hour rating water draw test. to storage capacity ratios, the effect of hour rating for water heaters which, in c. Impacton waterheaterutility. A main burner operation has a significant turn. could lead consumers to purchase commenter expressed concern that the effect on the amount ofwater that can water heaters of insufficient capacity to proposed first hour rating water draw 

### be withdrawn. Therefore. some of the satisfy their needs. One commenter test would encourage manufacturers to water heated by the operation ofthe remarked that a 20'F temperature drop produce water heaters which do not main burner during the water draw test specification would be more appropriate maintain arelatively constant outlet would be accounted for in the amount of for the water draw test in light of water temperature when subjected to a waler withdrawn from the welter heater recommendations being mad,! to water draw. The commenter remarked during the test. Adoption of the consumers to lower their water heater that. through widely recognized industry comm,-nter's recommendation would thermostats to as low as 120'F. It was standards. the water heater industry has allow full credit in the calculated claimed that consumers who operate encouraged waterheater designs that recovery rate contribution term for all their water heaters at these can deliverthe major portion ofa water water that could be heated by the main recommended thermostat settings will heater's storage capacity at a relatively burner over the period ofthe water run outof usable hot water well before constant outlet water temperature draw. Thus. some amount ofwater incurring a 40°F outlet water nearly equal to the initial outlet water could be accounted for twice, once in temperature drop but in most cases not temperature when subjected to a water the water draw test and again in the before incurring a 20°F outlet draw. The commenter pointed out that calculated recovery rate contribution temperature drop. the utility ofsuch designs is that term. resulting in an inflated first hour The commenters are of the opinion consumers can enjoy a relatively rating for such w.ater heaters. DOE that significantly different first hour constant water temperature for personal re(jects the commenters recommendation rating water draw test results will be applications. e.g., bathing and on this basis. but finds that the proposed obtained ifinstead ofspecifying 40'F as showering. without having to method for the determination of first the outlet water temperature drop, a continually adjust the hot and cold hour rating would discriminate against smaller temperature drop is specified. water flow rates to account for
some water heaters by not fully DOE does not share this opinion. DOE fluctuations in the hot water supply a.ccounting for the amount of waier finds that, forcurrent waterheater temperature. The commenter remarked hea;ed by the operation of the heating designs. an outlet water temperature that DOE's proposed rule would elements or main burner ofa water drop specification of40°F will yield adversely affect this utility.By not heater during the water draw test. water draw test results only slightly accounting for the energy associated Therefore. DOEhas modified its greater than those that would be with the water withdrawn from the approach for the determination of first obtained using a 20'F temperature drop waterheater, the commenter pointed out hour rating to insure that all water specification. This is because current that for a given water heater design heaters are treated equally. Dy today's water heater designs inhibit dilution of more favorable results could be rnle. section 3.7 of the test procedures the stored hot water with the incoming obtained with the proposed test ifit for water heaters requires that the water cold water when subjected to a water were possible to modify the design of draw test be conducted with a!l draw. Thus, when subjected to the water the water heater to cause the outlet electrical power or fuel to the heating draw test. these designs ofwater water temperature to drop offmore elements or main burner interrupted to heaters exhibit a relatively constant quickly during the course ofthe water prevent their operation. Section 3.7 outlet water temperature oran outlet draw. It was pointed out that all other further requires that the elapsed time water temperature which falls offonly things being equal. the amount ofwater from the start ofthe test until the first very slowly until most of the hot water that could be withdrawn from a water thermostat aets to operate the heating his been withdrawn at which time there heater which is capable ofmaintaining a -rmernits or main burner be recorded. is a rapid drop of more than 40'F. relatively constant outlet water he contribution ofrecovery rate to the While DOE does not agree with the temperature will be less than the first hour rating measure will be commenters' contention. i.e.. that the amount of water that could be calcu!ated over the period of time ofone outlet water temperature drop withdrawn from a water heater which hour minus this elapsed time. Thus. the specification of the first hour rating induces dilution of the stored hot water calculated recovery rate contribution water draw test has a significant effect with the incoming cold water (i.e., in term will account for all of the water on the results of the test. DOE does find such a fashion that the outlet water that could be heated by a water heater merit in the recommendation that 20'F temperature would fall gradually
over the one hour ime base ofthe first he specified as the outlet water through the temperature drop specified hour rating measure while the results of temperature drop for this test. Should a for the proposed first hour rating water the water draw test will account for water heater manufacturer introduce a draw test). A greater total volume of only the contribution ofa water heaters new design of water heater which does water could be withdra wn from the

ar.pabilitv to deliver hot w...er from not inhibit dilution ofthe stored hot water heatcr in the l:;ter case because a storage. Summing these two terms to v.aer with the incoming cold water significant amount of the incoming cold yvild first hour rating will account for all when subjected to a water draw. water would be wilhdrawn 

### as a result of of the hot water that could possibly be conducting the vwat:r draw test using dilution. In the former case. very little liuvered by a 

### water hieat 

### oic.r r 

### ranne 't'F as the outlet water temperature cold water would be withdraw:n in h iur period. drop specification will yield a more addition to the stored hot water

h bWctotr imlratest rtempero.o'r drop. representative first hour rating than that withdrawn. Further. the greater the Two comments were made concerning which would have been determined had outlet water te-:perature drop specified. the specification in the proposed water 40'F been used os the cutlet water the greater the amount of cold

### rwater

... w . 

### 52636 Federal Register 

## I Vol. 44, No. 175 

## I Friday, September 7, 1979 

## I Rules and Regulations

heating elements or main burner was prevented from operating during the
water draw. However. for other water heaters. notably oil water heaters and
gas water heaters with high power input
to storuge cilpacity riltios. the effect of main burner operation has a significant effect on thc amount ofwater that can be withdrawn. Therefore. some of the**wat(:~** heilted by the operation ofthe main burner during the water draw test would be accounted for in the amount of WII'er withdruwn from the Wlttcr heater ullrin!! thl! te,1. Adoption of the cOlT1m':nter's recommendation would allow full credit in the calculated n'covery rflte contribution term for all
water that could be heated by the milin burner over the period of the water

. draw. Thus. some amount ofwater could be accounted for twice. once in the W'ltl'r draw test ilnd again in the ciilc'Jlatr:u recovery rilte contribution
term. resulting in an inflated first hour rating for such ·.\filter heaters. DOE rejPcts the commenters recommendation

on this bilsis. but finch that the proposed method fur the detf:rmination of first hour rating would discriminate against

sume water heaters by**no~** fully ilr.collnlin!! for the amount of waier !owated by the operation of the heating dements crmain burner of a water heater durin)! the water draw tesl. Thrrefore. DOE has modificd its appro'lch for the detennination 

### of first hour rating to insurc that all water heaters lire treated equnlly. !Jy today's rill". section 3.7 of the test pror.edures for water hellters requires that the water c1ruw tcst be conductcd with u!! elpctr:cal p'ower or fuel to thc heatin!!**clem('nt~** or main burner interrupted to prev!:nt thf!ir operation. Section 3.7 further reqlliff!s that the elapsed time from the start of the test until the first I·hf'rmostatllr.ts to operate the hentiri)!

•·I

..rnpnts or m.lin burner be**reco~ded.** The contrlhution of recuverv rate tu the first hour rnting measure wi'lI be calculat('d over thr. period of time ofone hour minus this el;lpscd time. Thus. the c:.llculatrd recovery rate con!ribution
term will account for tlll of the water thilt could be hf'ated by a watrr heater OVf:r the one hour time bnse of the first hour ratin)!**ml'a~ure** whilp the rf's'ults of !he wuter druw**tf'~t** will atcount for onlv the contribution ofa wilter**heHter'~** r.i'l;abilit'; to deliver hot w;;!cr frem**~toru!!f'.** Summin)! these two terms to yield**lir~!** huur r:lting will Rccount for all**~f** the hot wilfer that could**p("~lbly** be**·1~lin'rt'd** by f\ wiltf'r h"ilter o"f'r it one h'lUr peri"'f.

h H'ctl'rdrow tc.ot**t"mp('ra!lIN~** drop. TW(l**cC)mm('nt~** w('re mildr concerning the qpecificntion in Ihl' proposed wRtf'r draw test ofa 4O"F outlet water temperature drop. Both commenters

were concerned that the specified temperature drop was excessive and would lead to**inflat~d** values of first huur rating for water heaters which. in tum, could lead com;umers to purchase
water heaters ofinsufficient capacity to satisfy their needs. One commenter remarked that a 20"F temperature drop specification would be more appropriate for the water draw test in light of recommendations being mad" to

consumers to lower their water heuter thermostats to as low as 120"F. It was clilimed that consumers who operate their water heaters at these recommended thermostat settings will

run out ofusable hot water well before incurring a 40"F outlet water temperature drop but in most cases not before incurring a 20"F outlet temperature drop.

The commenters are of the opin,ion that significantly different first hour rating water draw test r':!sults will be obtained ifinstead of specifying 40'f' as the outlet water temperature drop. a

,smaller temperature drop is specified. DOE does not share this opinion. DOE finds that, for current water heilter designs. an outlet water temperature drop specification of4Q"F will yield
water draw test results only slightly grealer than those that would be obtained using a 20'F temperature drop specification. This is because current water heaterdesigns inhibit dilution oi the stored hot water with the incoming cold water when subjected to a water draw. Thus. when subjected to the water draw test. these designs ofwater heaters exhibit a relatively constant outlet water temperature oran outlet wiltrr temperature which falls offonly

verv slowlv until most of the hot water hilS' been**~ithdruwn** at which time there is il rllpid elrop ofmore than 40'F

.

While DOE dues not agree with the cornmenters' contention. i.e

.. that the outlet water temperature drop specification of the first hour ratir.g wilter draw test has a signii'icant effect

on the res!.IIts of the test. DOE dol'S nnd merit in the recommendation that 20"F be specified as the outlet water temperature drop for this test. Should a water heater manufacturer introduce a

new desi)!n of water heater which does
not inhibit dilution of the stored hot
water with thr incur.ling cold water when subjected to a w:lter draw. conductin,:; the W:,t(,T draw trst using ;'fl'F ilS the outlet w.lter temperature drop spf'ciliciltiun Will ,ridd a more**r.~prrsf'ntati**..e first hour**ratin~** th:ll1 that which would have beer. determined had 40'Fbeen used**a~** the cat!e! water temperature drop specification. By today's rule, section 3.7 of the test procedures for waterheaters specifies 20"F as the temperature drop for the first hour rating water draw test.



### c. 

### Impact on waterheaterutility. A
commenter exprcssed concern that the proposed first hourrating water draw
test wouid encourage manufacturers to produce water heatcrS which do not maintain a relatively constant outlet
water temperature when subjected to a water draw. The commentcrremarked that. through widely recognized industry standards. the water heater industry has encouraged waterheater designs thOat

can deliver the major portion ofa water heater's storage capacity at a relatively
constant outlet water temperature nearly equal to .the initial outlet water temperature when subjected to a water draw. The commenterpOinted out that the utility ofsuch designs is that

consumers can enjoy a relatively
constant water temperature for personal applications. e.g., bathing and showering. without having to continually adjust the hot and cold
water flew rates to account for fluctuations in the hot water supply temperature. The commenter remarked that DOE's proposed rule would adversely affect this utility. By not accounting for the energy associated with the water withdrawn from the
water heater. the commenterpointedout that for a given water heater design

more favorable results could be obtained with the proposed test if it

were possible to modify the design of the water heater to cause the outlet
water temperature to drop orrmore quickly during the course ofthe water draw. It was pointed out that. all other things**bein~** equal. the amount ofwater that could be withdrawn from a water heater which is capoble ofmaintaining a relatively constunt outlet water temperature will be less than the
amount ofwater that could be withdrawn from a water heater which induces diiution of the storl'd hot waler with the incoming cold water (Le., in such a fashion that the ouilet water temperature would fall gradually through the temperature drop specified for the proposed first hour rating water draw test). A !;rcatcr total volume of
water could be wi!hd!awn from the wilterheiltcr in the ):i:ter case because a si):nificant amount of the incoming cold
water would be withdrawn uS a result of dilution. In Ihe fL'rr.ter casl!.vcrv little coldwater wou!d be Withdraw:; in Ilddition 10 the stn,'eel hot Willer withdrawn. Further. the**great~r** the outlet water tt:tr:;.>erature drop specified. the greater the "mount nfcold wiltl'r

### Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 175 / Friday. September 7, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 52637

that could be withdrawn in the latter designs which permit such dilution, this Firsthour rating is intended as a case, and the greater the disparity new approach will yield results measure to be used toproperly size a between the results of the first hour significantly lower than the results that wate, heater to a particular application. rating water draw tests for the two the proposed test method would have The procedure for sizing the water different water heater designs. yielded. heater involves making an estimate ofa

Changing the outlet water temperature This new approach has been reasonable "worst case" hot water drop specification for the first hour incorporated in the test procedures for demand that would occur over a one ratingwater draw test from 40'F to 20'F water heaters by modifying section 3.7 hour period and selecting a water heater lessens the magnitude ofthe problem to require that the outlet water with a first hour rating ofnearly equal identified by the commenter but has not temperature be recorded at 15 second magnitude. eliminated the source of the problem. intervals throughout the duration ofthe DOE finds that the fivegallon per

When referencing industry standards first hour rating water draw test and by minute (plus orminus 0.25 gallonsper which encourage water heater designs modifying section 4,8 to multiply the minute) flow rate specification that was which deliver hot water at a relatively actual volume of water withdrawn from proposed for the firsthour rating water constant temperature when subjected to the water heater during the first hour draw test is appropriate for the purposes
a water draw. DOE assumes that the rating water draw testby the mean of ofusing first hour ratingto properly size
commenter was referring to. for gas therecorded values ofoutlet water a waterheater to a particular water heaters, section 2.14 of the temperature divided bythe initial outlet application. Therefore, no change has American National Standard for Gas water temperature. This approach been madeto this specification in Water Heaters. Volume I,designated accounts for the energy content of the today's final rule. ANSI Z21.1O.1a-1978. and, for electric weter withdrawn from the water heater. e. Timing the waterdrawtest.A water heaters. section 4.4. of the The frequent outlet water temperature waterheater manufacturer proposed American Nationa! Standard for readings can be used to trace how the thatDOE allow the.duration ofthe first Household Automatic Electric Storage- energy content ofthe water withdrawn hour ratingwiater draw test to be Type Water Hleaters. designated ANSI from the water heater changes with calculated by dividing thevolume of C72.1-1972. DOE is not aware ofthe time. Thus. theproduct ofthe mean of water withdrawn from the waterheater existence of a widely recognized the recorded values ofoutlet water during the water draw test by the standard which encourages this type of temperature and the actual volume of product ofthe nominal water design for oil water heaters. However, water withdrawn from the waterheater withdrawal rate of five gallons per since the first hour rating of a typical oil during the test is proportional to the minute and the conversion factor, sixty water heater is primarily a function of energy content ofthe water. Dividing minutes per hour. The point was made its high recovery rate rather than its thisproduct by some reference that adoption ofthis suggestion would small storage capacity. the effects of temperature. in this case the initial eliminate the requirement for timing the dilution during the firsthour rating outlet water temperature, yields the duration ofthe water draw test. water draw test, if any, will have little equivalent amount of water which. at Changes to the test procedures made effect on the first hour rating measure. that reference temperature, would have inresponse to comments discussed DOE considered the approaches taken the same energy content. previously under "Impact on water by these standards for possible These modifications to the proposed heater utility" require the use ofa clock application to the test method for test method result in anegligible during the first hour ratingwater draw determining first hour rating. DOE found increase in the test burden associated test. DOE finds that nothing would be that a test approach similar to the one with the proposed testmethod. gained by adopting the commenter's taken bythe ANSI Z21.10.la-1978 d. Rateofhotwaterwithdrawal.Two suggestion. Ithas not been adopted. standard for gas water heaters could be commenters recommended using a three f. Usingthe resultsofthewaterdraw developed for the first hour rating water gallon per minute withdrawal rate for test formorethanonebasicmodel.One draw test which would neither the water draw test.They contended commenter remarked that there are encourage nor discourage water heater that a three gallon per minute flow rate various models ofgas and oilwater designs which induce dilution of stored is more representative oftypical hot heaters which utilize essentially the hot water with incoming cold water water withdrawal rates encountered in same tank and water inlet (dip tube) when subjected to a water draw. The the home. The point was made that design but differ in power input rating. approach prescribed today considers the industry standards specify a three gallon The commenter recommended that. in energy content ofthe water withdrawn per minuteflow rate for testing water cases such as this. the manufacturer from the water heater during the first heaters. To DOEs explanation that a should be allowed to conduct the water hour rating water draw lest. It adjusts. five gallon per minute flow ratehad draw test on one model ofwater heater

on an energy basis. the measured been specified in the proposed test and then calculate the firsthour rating volume of water withdrawn to an method in order to reveal whether or not for the other gas and oilwater heaters equivalent. oradjusted, volume ofwater the design ofthe water heater fostered which are ofthe same tank and water of equal energy content that would have dilution ofthe discharge water,one inlet design but have different power been withdrawn from the water heater if commenter remarked that DOE's Inputs. It was argued that DOEpermits a the discharge water temperature had proposed test method would. by use of similar scheme fordetermining the first remained constant at its initial value. the higher flow rate, exaggerate the hour rating of electric water heaters For water heater designs which inhibit effects ofdilution. with immersed heating elements. dilution of the stored hot water with the DOE finds that it is not unusual for Because the water draw test was incoming cold water during the first hot waterto be withdrawn from a modified in response to comments hour rating water draw test. this new household water heater at rate on the previously discussed under "Full versus approach will yield results nearly equal order of five gallons per minute or more. partial testing". the requirement to to the results that would have been Such a flow rate is typical ofthe hot- separately test basic models ofwater obtained using the proposed test water fill demands ofclothes washers heaters which differ only by the power method: However. for water heater and dishwashers. input has been eliminated. 

### Federol Register 

## I Vol. 44. No. 175 

## I Friday. Septeinber 7 • .1979 

## I Rules and Rcgulotions 52637

that could be withdrawn in the latter



### case. and the greaterthe disparity between the results ofthe first hour raling water draw lesls for the two different waterheaterdesigns.

Changinllihe outlel water temperature drop specification for the first hour roting water draw**te~t** 

### from 40"F to 20"F lessens the magnitude ofthe problem identifil!d by Ihe commenter but has not eliminated the source ofthe problem.

\\'hen referencing industry standards which enwurage wuter he,ater designs which dl?liver hot water at a relatively constant temperature when subjected to , a water draw. DOE assumes that the commeriter'was referring to. for gas waterheaters. section 2.14 ofthe American**~a**

### tional Standard for Gas' Water, Heaters. Volume I. designated A;-";SI 221.1O.1a-1978. 

### and. for electric waterheaters. section 4.4. ofthe ".merican I'\aticina! Standard for,**Hou~ehold** 

### Automatic Electric StorageType Water lIeaters. designated ANSI C72.1-Hl72. DOE is not aWl:lre,ofthe existence ofa widely recognized standard which encourages this type 

### oC design for oil waterheaters. However, since the first hour rating ora typical oil wilter heater is primarily a function of its high recovl!ry rate rather than its small stor**d~e** 

### capacity. the effects of dilution during the first hour rating wuter draw test. 

## if any. will have little effect on the first hourrating measure: DOE considered the approaches taken by these standards for**pos~ible** 

### upplicution to the test method for de!t?rmining first hourrating. DOE found that a test approach similar to the one taken by the**A~SI** 

### Z21.10.1a-1978 standard for gns waterheaters could be**de~'eloped** 

### for the first hour rating water draw test which would neither

,encourll/le nor discourage waterheater**de~ign~** 

### which induce dilution ofstored hot wuter with incomin!! cold WAter

, when**~lIbll?cted** 

### to a waterdraw. The

approach prescribed today considers the ener!ly content ofthe water withdrawn from the wllter heater during the nrst hour ratinR waterdraw test. II adjl,lsts.

on an I!nl!rRY**hasi~.** 

### the measur,cd volume ofwater withdrawn to an equivalent. or adjusted. volume ofwlltl'r, of ('Qu.d 

### enp.rRY content that would have bl!en withdrawn from the waterheater if the ui'Chargc wlilcr temperature had remained constant At its initial value. For waterheaterdesign!! which inhibit dilution ofthl! stored hot waterwith the incominR cold waterduring the fint 'hour rlltinll w(lter draw test. this'new apprunch will 

### yield rellults nearly equal to thl: results thilt would have bpen obtainl!d**u~inR** 

### the proposed tellt metitod: Howe\·er. for waterheater designs which permit such dilution. this

newapproach will yield results Significantly lower than the results that. the proposed test method would have yielded.

. .

,This new approach hasbeen incorporated in the test procedures for waterheaters bymodifying section 3.7 to require that the outlet'water temperature be recorded at 15 second intervals,throughout the duration ofthe first hourrating water draw test andby modifying**s~ction** 

### 4.8 to multiplythe actual volume ofwaterwithdrawn from the water,heaterduring the.first hour rating waterdrawtestbythe mean of the recorded values ofoutlet water temperature dividedby the initial outlet watertemperature. This approach
accounts for the energy conlent 

### oCthe wrterwithdrawn Crom the waterheater. The frequellt outlet watertemperature readings canbe used to trace how the energy content ofthe waterwithdrawn Crom the waterheaterchanges with time. Thus. the product 

### oCthe mean 

### oC the recorded values 

### oCoutlet water temperature and the actual volume of waterwithdrawnfrom the waterheater during the test is proportional to the energycontent ofthe water. Dividing this productby some reference temperature. in this case the initial outlet watertemperature. yields the equivalent amount 

### oCwaterwhich. at that reference temperature, woUld have, the sameenergy content.

Thesemodifications to the'proposed test method result In a negligible increase inlhe lest burden associated with the proposed test mE!thod.**d.R~te** 

### of hot waterwithdrawal. Two commenters recommended using it 

### three gallon per minute withdrawalrate 

### Cor the waterdraw test.Theycontended that a'three gallon per minute flowrate is more.representative oftypical hot waterwithdrawalfates encountered In the home. The point wasmade that industry standards specify a three gallon· perlTlinuteflow rat!! for testing water heaters. To DOE's explanation that a five gallon per minute flow ratehad been specified in the proposed test method in order io reveal whether ornot the design ofthe waterheaterfostered dilution ofthe discharge water. one commentei'remarked that DOE's proposed test method would. by use of the hillher flow rate. exaggerate the effects ofdilution.

.DOE finds that it is not unusual for hot water to be withdrawn fron: a household waterheater at rate on the orderoffivegaJlons perminute crmore. Such a flow rate is typical ofthehot, wa.ter fill cemands ofclothes**~'ashers** 

### and dishwashers.

. Firstbourrating is intended a8 a mea8ure to beused to properly size a wate. heaterto a particular application. Theprocedure Cor sizing the water heaterigvolves making an estimate ofa reasonable "worst**case'~** 

### hot water demand that would occurovera one hourperiod and selecting a waterheater with a first hourrating ofnearly equal magnitude.

DOE finds that the five gallon per minute [plus or minus 0.25 gallons'per mInuteJ flow rate speCification that was proposed for the first hourrating water draw test is appropriate for the purposes ofusing first hourrating to properly size

a waterheaterto a particular application.Therefore, no change has beenIDade to this specification in today's final rule.

e. 

### Timing the waterdrow,test. A waterheatermanufacturerproposed thatDOE allow the,duration ofthe first hourrating**~'ater** 

### drawtest to be calculatedby dividing the volume of waterwithdrawn Crom 

### the waterheater during thewaterdrawtest by the product ofthe nominal water withdrawalrate 

### oCfive gallons per minute and the conversion Cactor, sixty minutes perhour. The point wasmade that adoption ofthis suggestion would eliminate the requirement 

### Cortiming the durationofthe waterdrawtest.

.

Changes to the testprocedures made 

### inresponse to comments discussed previously under"Impactonwater heaterutility"require the use ofa clock during the first hourrating waterdraw test. DOE finds that nothing would be. gainedby adopting the commenter's suggestion. 11 hasnotbeen adopted.



### {. Using the resultsofthe waterdraw
testformore than one basicmode/. One commenterremarked that there are various models ofgas and oil water heaters which utilize esseritially the

same

..tank and waterinlet (dip tube) design but differ in powerinput rating. The commenterrecommenl!ed that, in

cases such as this. the manufacturer

- shouldbe allowed to conduct the water draw test on one model 

### oCwaterheater and then calculate the first hourrating Cor the othergas and oil waterheaters which areoCthe 8ame tank and water

.Inlet design but have different power "nputs. It

### was argued thatDOE permits a similarschemefordetennlning the first hourrating ofelectric waterheaters With !mmersedlieating elements

..

Because the waterdrawtest was modified in response tocommentll previously disf;ussed under "Full versus partial testing", the requirement to

.separately test basic models ofwater**~eaters w~ich**  

### differ onlyby Ihe power mput**ha~** 

### been eliminated.

### 52638 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 175 / Friday. September 7. 1979 / Rules and Regulations

g.Recovery rotecalculation.One DOE's proposed rule for the which would be withdrawn from the commenter recommended that water determination of first hour rating shared -water heater following DOE's proposed heater manufacturers be permitted to this approach but required that a water water draw test. use the nominal or design power input heater be tested to determine the The fourth proposed formula would rating for the heating elements or main amount ofhot water that can actually be determine the first term of the first hour burner of a water heater for calculating withdrawn from storage. The amount of rating quantity in the same fashion as its recovery rate in all cases. not just in water that can be heated and made the third formula would for gas and oil the case ofelectric water heaters as available by a water heater, the second water heaters but would use the value proposed by DOE. The point was made term ofDOE's first hour rating quantity. 0.90 in place of0.95 for determining the that this would present the power input was to be determined by taking the adjusted rated storage capacity of an in nominal terms which the consumer product ofthe recovery rate of the water electric water heater. In this case, DOE has recognized through the years. By heater and aperiod of time equal to one assumes that the commenter intended to nominal or design power input rating. hour less the elapsed time of the water refer to storage capacity as rated in DOE assumes that the commenter draw teat. accordance with the method specified in intended for the rating which appears on For determining the first term of the section 25.1 of the American National the manufacturer's nameplate to be first hour rating quantity, two of the Standard for Household Electric used. These ratings usually appear in suggested formulas multiply a water Stoage-Tank Water Heaters, rounded terms, e.g., 30,000 Btu per hour heater's actual storage capacity. designated ANSI/UL 174-19. This for agas water heater. determined in accordance with DOE's standard requires the actual storage

DOE allows water heater test procedures. by 0.90. The rationale capacity of an electric water heater to DOEf acllows water hedsnat nper offered for this recommendation was be not less than 90 percent ofthe rated manufacturers to use the design power that a quantity ofwater equal to about storage capacity. raeings fothe immersed heating90 percent of the actual storage capactv A fifth proposal forpredicting the first elements they install in electric water ofa water heater would closely term ofthe first hour rating quantity heaters for calculating the recovery rate approximate that amount which would ould require w r ater eater of an electric water heater because DOE be withdrawn from the water heater manufacturers to calculate the minimum has found that it would be unnecessarily following DOE's proposed water draw amount ofwater that could theoretically burdensome to require testing of all test be withdrawn from a water heater to models ofelectric water heaters to d d e th satisfy the water draw requirement of determine actual power input. However, i ter b mul l ter section 2.14 of the ANSI Z21.10.1-1975 first term by multiplying a water since measurement of actual power heater's rated storage caacit b 0 standard for gas water heaters and input for gas and oil water heaters is nd then multiplying the result b 0.9 section 4.4 of the ANSI C72.1-1972 already required by the test procedures e fth t " d strastandard forelectric water heaters. In By use ofthe term "rated storage for water heaters, DOE does not find the case ofgas waterheaters, this that use of the measured value in the capacity DOE assumes that the minimum amount ofwater would be recovery rate calculation presents a commenter s refering to orage determined by multiplying the actual problem. Finally, since recovery rate is c ofthe American National storage capacity ofthe water heater by also a function of the recovery efficiency 0.60. In the case ofelectric water ,fa; water heater, and recovery a ar 1

. heaters, this minimum amount ofwater het, an i



### reoverye Volume i.designated ANSI Z21.10.1- would be determined by multiplying the efficiency is a measure determined by 1975. or section 3.8 ofmutiplying the Amecane tl:sl ,ird aLfected by the power input of Ntionactal Stan ora ge capacity ofthe waer thei witer heater tested, DOE finds that Automatic Electric Storage-Type Water h by 0

### .80 for water h

### eaters having it is more accurate to use the actual an overall tank height greater than 36 power input and recovery efficiency of a eaters. designated ANSI C7y -1972. inches. or by 0.70 for water heaters water heater as determined by testingy DOE is not aware of the existence of a having an overall tank height less than walterheater as, determined by testing widely recognized standard

. 

### or equal to 36 inches. No for calculating the recovery rate of the i or equal to 36 inches. No wateor hee erefore. DOE has not pecification for rating te storage recommendation was made concerning adopted the cormefntr' n capacity for an oil waterheater, how to calculate the first term of the adopted 

### thnecommnen ntrs however, since the specifications for first hour rating measure for oil water rating the storage capacities ofgas and heaters. 4.Predictin, firsthourrut,,'gby electric waterheaters referenced above In the case of the suggestion that colru/ion.Five different formulas for are identical. DOE has evaluated the water heater manufacturers use the hot 

### predicting first hour rating by suggested formula as ifthe rated storage water delivery requirements specified in calculation were suggested by as many capacity for an oil water heater were industry standards to calculate the commenters. All of the proposed specified in an equivalent fashion. The amount of water to use in place ofthe formulas shared the approach of referenced standards specifythat the results of the water draw test for tsumming two terms, the first term being actual storage capacity of a water determining first hour rating. DOEfinds
some large percentage of the tank heater must be within plus or minus five that gross underestimates may result. capacity and the second term being the percent ofthe rated storage capacity. By DOErejects this calculation method product of the recovery rate of the water multiplying the rated storage capacity of because itwould yield unreasonably heater and some period oftime. The first a water heaterby 0.95. as is done in the low results for some water heater term was intended to predict the amount suggested formula, the minimum .designs based on the data considered ofhot water that could be withdrawn allowable actual storage capacity for a under this rulemaking. from storage on demand. The second water heater ofa given rated storage Concerning the suggested calculation term was intended to predict the amount capacity would be used to calculate the methods which would use the adjusted ofwater that could be heated and made first term ofthe first hour rating rated storage capacity of a water heater available by the water heater over the quantity. This "adiusted" rated storage instead ofits actual storage capacity.
one hour period that is the time base of capacity term would then be multiplied DOE finds no merit in using the adjusted first hour rating. by 0.90 to account for amount ofwater rated storage capacity ofa water heater

52638 

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 44. No, 175 

## I Friday. Septemuer 7. 1979 

## I Rules and Regulations

g. Recoveryrote calculation. 

### One
commenterrecommended that water heater manufacturers bepermitted to

use the nominal ordesign power input rating for the heating elements or main burner ofa water heater for calculating its recovery rate in all cases, not just in the case ofelectric water heaters as proposed by DOE. The point was made that this would present the power input in nominal terms which the consumer has recognized through the years. Dy nominal or**dc~ign** power input rating, [JOE**1J~~UmCR** thllt the commenter inlf'ntletl for the rating which appears on the manufacturer's nameplate to be usec.l. Thcse ratings usually appear in rounded terms, e.g., 30,000 Btu per hour for a gas water heater.

DOF. allows

.....ater heater m,Jnufacturers to usc the design power ratin!:s for the immersed heating clements they install in electric water hcaters for calculating the recovery rate ofan electric water heatcr because DOE hilS f01Jnd that it would be unnecessarily burr!,'nsoTlw to require testing ofall models ofelectric watcr heaters to determine actual power input. However, since measurement ofactual power input for !las and oil water heaters is already required by the test procedures for wilter heaters, DOE docs not find that use of the measured \'alue in the
recovery rate calculation presents a problem. Finally, since recovery rate is also a f:.lnction ofthe recovery efficiency ofa w,,:er heater, and recovery dfir:iencv is II measure determined by tr,st "lid**~ffected** by the power input of'**th,~** wllter heuter tested, DOE fi:1ds that it**i~** more accurate to usc the actual
power input and recovery efficiency ofa water heater as determined by testing for cillculating the recovery rate of the
water heater. Therefore, DOE has not adopted the**comml'ntcr'~** rf'cornm!'nddtion.

4. Prpc/iclingfirst hourruling bX (;olr:!I/otiun. Fivc differt'nt formulas for predicting first hour raling by calculation were**su~ested** by**a~** mony**commenh~rs.** AI\ of the proposed formulas shared the approach of summing two terms, the first term being

some larlje percentage ofthe tank r::lpacity find thl> second term being the product of thl' recovery rate of the water hellter and some period of time. The first
tcrm**Wll~** intended to predict the amount ofhot water that could be withdrawn from storage on demand. The second t

..rm was intended te predict the amount ofWHtrr that could be heated and made Available by the water heater over the

onc hour period that is the tiMe hose of first hour raling. DOE's proposedrule for the determination offirst hour rating shared this approach but required that a water heater be tested to determine the
amount ofhot water that can actually be withdrawn from storage. The amount of
water**t~at** canbe heated aDd made available by 8 waterheater. the second
term ofDOE's first hour rating quantity.

was to be detennined by taking the product ofthe recovery rate ofthe wilter heater and a period oftime equal to one hour less the elapsed time of the water draw teat.

For determining the first term of the first hourrating quantity, two of the suggested fOI:mulas multiply a water heater's actual storage capacity. determined in accordance v.ilh DOE's
test procedures, by 0.90, The rationale offered for this recommendation was that a quantity ofwat.er equal to about ' 90 percent ofthe actual storage capacity ofa water heater would closely approximate that amount which would be withdrawn from the waterheater following DOE's pro;>osed water draw
test.

A third formula would determine the first term by multiplying a wat'er heater's rated storage capacity by 0.95 and then multiplying the result by 0.90, By use ofthe term "rated storage capacity" DOE assumes that the
commenteris referring to storage capacity as rated in accordance with section 2.26 ofthe American National Standard for Gas WaterHeaters, Volume I. designated ANSI Z21.10.1- 1975, or section 3.8 ofthe American National Standard for Iiousehoid Automatic Electric Storage-Type Water Heaters, designated ANSI C72.1-1972.

DOE is not aware of the existence ofa Widely recognized standard

. specification for rating the storage

• capacity for an oil waterheater;

however. since the specifications for rating the storage capacities ofgllS and electric water heater!! referenced above Arc ideritical. DOE has evaluated the**~ugl!ested** formula as if the rater.! storllge capacity for an oil water hea:er were specified in an equivalent fashion. The referenced standards sp!:!cify.thilt t..'1e octual storage capacity ofa wa:er heater must be within plus or minus five percent ofthe rated storage capacity, By multiplying the rated storage capacity of

a water heaterby 0.95, as is done in the suggested formula, the minimum. allowable actual storage capacity for a water heater ofa given rated storage capacity would be used to calculate the !irst term of the first hour**ratin~** quan!ity. This "adjusted" reted**~torage** capacity term would then be multiplied by O.9'J to account for amount ofwater which would be withdrawn from the
water heater following DOE's proposed
water draw teat.

The fourth proposed formula would determine the first term ofthe first hour rating quantity in the same fashion as the third formula would for gas and oil
water heaters but would use the value 0.90 in place of0.95for determining the adjusted rated storage capacity ofan electric waterheater. 

### In this case, DOE

assumes that the commenterintended to refer to storage capacity as rated in accordance with the method specified in section 25.1 ofthe American National Standard for Household Electric Storage-Tank Water Heaters, designated ANSI/UL 174-1977.This standard requires the actual !torage capacity ofan electric water heater to be not less than 90 percent ofthe rated storage capacity.

A fifth proposal for predicting the first
term ofthe first hourrating auantity would require waterheater' manufacturers to calculate the minimum
amount ofwater that could theoretically be withdrawn from a water heater to satisfy the waterdraw requirement of section 2.14 ofthe ANSI Z21.10.1-1975 standard for gas waterheaters and section 4.4 ofthe ANSI Cn.1-1972 standard for electric water heaters. In the case ofgas water heaters, this minimum amount ofwaterwould be determined by multiplying the actual • storage capacityofthe water heater by 0.60. In the case ofelectric water heaters, this minimum amount ofwater would be determined by multiplying the actual storage capacity ofthe water heater by0.80 for water heaters having

an overall tank height greater than 36 inches, or by 0.70 for waterheaters having an overatttank height less than

orequal to 36 inches. No recommendation was made concerning how to calculate the first term of the ( first hour rating measure for oil water

heaters.

In the cllse of the suggestion that
water heater manufacturers use the hot
water delfvery reqt:irements spl'cified in industry standards to calculate the
amount ofwllter to use in place of the result3 ofthe waterdraw test for determininR first hourrating, DOE finds that gross underestimlltes may result, DOE rejects this calculation method because it would yield unreasonably low results for some water heater designs based on the data considered under this rulemaking.**Co~ccming** the suggested c;1l1e:uiation methods which would**u~e** the adjusted rated stora!!e capacity of a water heater instead of its actunl storage capacity. ' DOEfinds no merit in**u~ing** the adjusted rated storage capacity ofa water he?ter

### Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 175 / Friday. September 7, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 52639

in a calculation for which the actual rating for the purposes of developing a hour rating waterdraw test immediately after rated storage capacity of the water formula for calculating first hourrating. a cutout by recording the hot water outlet heater has already been determined by According to the proposed test method, water temperature, recording thetime, and to-st. Further, adoption of this suggested the time duration forcalculating the withdrawhng water from the water eater calculation method would penalize contribution ofrecovery rate to the first t.0h0.25 gallons perminute. Interatpte

ater heater manufacturers who rate hour rating measure is one hour minus electrical power tothe heatingelements or the storage capacity of their water the time duration ofthe water draw. For fuel tothe mainburnerofthe water heater to heaters conservatively. DOErejects the the purposes ofthe formula for prevent their operation during this test. suggestion that the adjusted rated calculating first hour rating,this time Collect all ofthe waterwithdrawn from the stor,iae capacitv ofa water heater be period be be determined by dividing water heater during the test in asuitable used to calculate first hour rating for the predicted quantity ofwater container for the purpose ofdetermining its 

### these reasons, withdrawn from the water heater during weight atthe conclusion ofthe test.

Common to all but one calculation the water draw. i.e 0.85 ties theAlternatively a water ow meter maybe tthwate raw.iy

. of th ters het used to measure the volume ofwater nM,.thod w;ag the conlanlinrli thJat the storagecapacityofthe water heater in withdrawn from the waterheater direcitv. result of the first hotr rating water draw gallons. by the product ofthe nominal Beginning ISseconds after the start ofthe trst for a water heater would be nearly water withdrawal rate offive gallons test and atevery subsequent 15second eqlual to ninety percent of the actual per minute and the conversion factor. interval throughout the duration ofthe water storage capacity or the adjusted rated sixty minutes per hour. Carrying out the draw, record the outletwater temperature. storage capacity of the water heater. mathematics, this will simplify to 0.0028 For the purposes ofthis test. the maximum 'l'hteexception was the suggested times the storage capacity. Therefore. recorded temperature shall be referred 

### to as 

### ;c:lc:ulation method, discussed above. the second term ofthe formula for the initial outlet water temperature.T.. that would use the hot water defiver predicting first hour rating by Monitor the functioning ofthe water heater thermostats and record the time that a rTquirements spec:ifi]cl in industry calculation becomes the product ofthe thermostat on the water heater acts to standards.) DOE finds that the data ri-covery rate ofthe water heater and operate a heatingelement or the mainburner. submitted by the water heater industry the quantity. one minus the product of Continue the withdrawal of wateruntil the ;and that generated by NBS 0.0028 and the storage capacity of the outlet water temperature drops toavalue su'bstantiates the commcnters' wafer heater. 20'Fbelow the initial water temperature. at coenention. For most water heaters the Section 4.8 of the test procedures for which timeterminate the withdrawal. trst data and the results ofthe suggested water heaters, prescribed today. Determine the weight ofthe water c;lculation method agree within plus or presents the completeformula for withdrawn,W. inpounds measured with-an minus three percent. However, this data calculating first hour rating. error no greater than 2percent. or the volume otinus,~~~~~~ three.~~~~~ percent.

.. i .of water withdrawn. G, ingallons measured 

### also reveals that this suggested 5.,Miscllaneous.After careful with anerrorano



### . Gra e than 

### smpercent. calculation method may overestimate consideration of all of the comments, Determine the arithmetic mean ofthe outlet the results ofthe first hour rating water DOE has made some editorial and minor water temperature readings recorded. Ta,. in draw te'st for some water heaters by as technical changes that were not 'F.Determine the elapsed time of the test nmuch as six percent. discussed above and incorporated them prior to a thermostat on the water heater

In keeping with DOE's position that in the final rule prescribed today. acting to operate a heating element or the the formula for predicting first hour C. Regulatory Anolysis Reviel. main burner. t, in hours measured with an rating to be included in the test The proposed rule has been reviewed error no greater than 2percent. Ifa 

### procedires for water heaters should in accordance with Executive Order thermostat on the water heaterdoes not act yield results which 

### agree closely with 12044 and DO Order2030 Fromheaing element orthe main .12044 nd DOE Order2030. From the burner withinone hour after the start of the the results that would le obtained regulatory analysis performed, it was test the test is tobe terminated and t. 

### through testing but which are unlikely to determined that the proposal was expressed as one hour. exceed such test results. DOE has significant in nature but did 1 not have 

### adjusted the commenters' suggested maorimpacts to manufacturers and 2.Appendix E to Subpart Bof Part 430 formula for calculating the results of the consumers (imposing annual economic is arnded by adding a new section 4.7 consumers (imposing annual economic toread as follows: first hour rating water draw test to yield costs ofS100 million or more). results six percent lower. This was 4.7 Recovery rate. arcomplishIed by revising the formula nerg Policy andConeat

. 4.7.1 Recoeryrte forgcs andoil a.er .q-,,

- - lea. asamended byPub. L.95-:619. 

### from 0.90 times the actual (or adjusted Depar.ment er For gasor oil water heater. rated) storage capacity of a waler heater

. 95-.) calculate the recovery rate. R. expressed in in gallons. to 0.85 times the actual gallons per hourand defined as: storage capacity ofa water heater in In consideration of the fore8Oing, Part 

### storage capacity ofa water heater 430 ofChapter IIofTitle 10. Code of R = P x Er

llThe comments which pertained to the Federal Regulations is amended as set 

### k XAT The comments which pertained to the rtb ,efctvOtorgT- 

### forthbelow. effective Octoberg. 1979. 5 proposed method for calculating the
amount of water that could be heated Issued in Washington. D.C. August 30. whereand made available by a water heater 199.-k ;s defined in section 4.1.1.

over the one hour period that is the time Maxine Savitz. AT. is as defined in section 4.3. base of the first hour rating measure. the DeputyAssistantSecretary.Conservation E, is as calculated in section4..1. second of the two terms ofeach and Solar Applications. P=power input to the burner, determined in suggested formula for predicting first 1.Appendix Eto Subpart B ofPart 430 accordance with section 3.2.1. expressed hour rating by calculation. were is amended by adding a new section 3.7 in Btu per hour. addressed in the preceding section. The to read as follows: 4.7.2Recovery rote forelectricwater determinations made in response to 3.7 Firs herrati aers. For an electric waterheater. these comments apply here as well. Establish normal water heater operation with

As mentioned previously. DOE has the maximum mean tank temperature within followed the approach of the proposed the range specified in section .6and with all test method for determining first hour air eliminated from the tank. Begin the first 

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 44. 

### No. 175 

## I Friday. September 7. 1979 

## I Rules and**~egula:tions** 

### 52639

in a calculation for

.....hich the actuill rated stora!!e capilcity ofthe water heilter has already heen determined by**\I'~t.** Further. adoption ofthis suggested calculation method would penalize

....ater heater manufacturers who rate the storage capacity oftheir water h.!aters conserliatively. DOE rejects the**~uggl~stion** that the adjusted rated sturage r.apac:ity ofa water hcat<:!r be l!sed to ,calculate first huor'rating fur t!wse reilsons.

,

Commun to all but onc calculatiun rii,·thod**wa~** Ihl' I;onlenti'm th'lt the f"Hllit of**th~** first h,,'ur ratin!! wilter draw 'I'st for a

.....i1ler heater would be ncarly I·qual to ninety perr.lmt ofthe actuar storage capacity or the adjusted rilted storage capacity ofthewater heilter: {Th" eXCl'ption was the s(i)otgcsted calculati()nmethod. dIscussed above. that wuuld usc the hot water dciivc:v**r'~quir!'mcnts** spr!r:ifj'!d in industry'

. s'anJards,j UOE finds that the data "ubmith.d by thc water hcatrr industry and that generated hy :-';IlS**s!:bstanliillL'~** the wmmcnters' (;Imtention. 'For most water h!.aters the**tl~st** dat., and the results of the suggested r.alwlution method agree within plus or 'minus,thr('c percent. However. this data a!sl) rr!vpals thaI this sUAAcsted calr:ulatior. method may O\'erestimate thl! rpsults of thr. first hour rating

.....ater draw test for some water heaters by as much as**~ix** percent.

In keepin!! with DOE's position that the formula for predicting first hour ralin!! to IJI' included in the test'**rJroc;l!dljrl~.~** for wiltpr heaters shoulil yidd reRults which ugrec cloSI!ly with the rl'sults that would he ohtained throu!!h**te~ting** but which are unlikely to cxr.r.r.d such test results. DOE has adjusted the commenlers' suggested .formuln for calculatin!! the results ofthe first hour rating water draw test toyield Tl!sults six percent lower. This was nn;omplished by revisinR the formu!a from 0.00 times the actual (or adjusted rated) sloTa!(e capacity ofa water healer in RlIllons. to 0.85 times the actuill slorage capacity ofa water heater in gallons.

The comments which pertained 10 the proposed method for calcu!ating the
amount of wilter th;Jt could be hedted IIntl made availilble by a water hellter o\·p.r the one hour period that is the time bllse ofthe first hour rating measure. the second of the two terms ofeach sllAAested formula for predictins first hour ratins by calculation. were addrp.ssed in the preceding seclion. The determinations made in response to these comments apply here as well.

As mentioned previously. DOE has followed the approRch ofthe proposed lI'st method for determining first hour rating for the p;Jrposes ofdeveloping a formula for calculating first hour rating. According to theproposed lest method. the time duration for calculating the contribution 

### oErecoveryrate 10 the first hour rating measure is one hourminus the time duration ofthe waterdraw. For the purposes ofthe formula for cilkulatir.g first hour rating. this tiI:1e period can be determined by dividing theprcdicted quantity orwater withdrawn from the waterheater durinS the waterdraw. i.e

.. 0.85 times tl-.e storage capacity ofthe walerheater in !!illlOIlS. by the product ofthe nominal
water

.....ithdrawal rate offive gallons per minute and the conversion factor. sixty minutes per hour. Carryingout the ma:hematlcs. this will simplify to 0.0028 limes the storage capacity. Therefore. the second term ofthe formula for predicting first hour rating by calculation becomes the product ofthe r;'covery rate ofthe wilter heater and the quantity. one minus the product of 0,002" and the storage capacity ofthe waier heater.

Sec!ion 4,8 of the test procedures for waler heaters. prescribed loday. presents the complete formula for cdcu(aling first huur rating.



### 5. Miscpllaneous. After carefui consideration ofall ofthe comments. DOE has made some editorial and minor technical changes that were not discussed above and incorporated them in the final rule prescribed today.

C. 

### RegulatoryAnalysis**Re~·ielV.** The**propos~d** rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12044 and DOF. Order2030. From the regulatory analysis performed. it

.....as determined that the proposal was significant in nature but did'not have major impacts to manufacturers and consumel'9 (imposing annual economic
costs of$100 million ormore). (f.ncI'RY Policy and Consen/ahon Act. Pub. L. 9-1-16.:1.85 amended by Pub. L. 9!Hi1!/: Depnrtment ofF.nergy Organization ".:1. Pub. L.9S-91.)

In consideration ofthe foregoing. Part 430 ofChapter II ofTitle 10. Code of Federal Regulations is amended.as set forth below. effective October9. 1979.

IS5u"din Washinglon. D,C

.. Aullusl 30. 1979. Maxine Savitz, V"putyAssistantSecretary. Conser.ation f1ndSolarApplications.

1. Appendix E to Subpart B ofPart 430 is amendedby adding a new section 3.7 to read as follows:

3.7Firsthourratinll waterdraw tl'M. F.stHbli.h normal waler healer operation with the maximum mean tank tempera:ure within th

.. ranlle specified in section l.6 and willi all air eHminatedJrom the tank

..Begin the first hour rat'lng waterdraw test Immediately after

a cutout by recording the hot wat,er outlet watertemperature. recording the lime. and withdrawing water from the waterheater through the hot wateroutlet at a rate of 5.0:tO.25gallon8 perminute. Interrupt electrical power to the healing etements or fuel to the mainburner 01 the water h

..ater 10 prevent their operation during this test. Collect all ofthe waterwithdrawn from the waterheater during the test in a suitable containerfor the purpose ofdetermining its weight at the conclusionofthe test. Alternatively. a waterflow metermay be used to measure the volume ofwater withdrawn from Ihe waterheoter directtv, Beginning 15seconds after the stilT! 01 th'e lesl and at every subsequent 15"econd interval throughout the duration ofthe water draw. record theoutlel water temperature. For the purposes ofthis test. the maximum recorded temperature shall be relerrt'd to iJS the initial outlet water temperature.To. Monilor the functioning ofthe watprh'.'d:er thermostats and record the lime thaI a ther:nostat on the waterheateracts 10 operate a heating element or the main burner. Continue the withdrawal ofwateruntil the outlet water temperature drops to a value

..20'Fbelow the initial water temperature. ilt which time terminate the withdrawal. Determine the weight ofthe water withdrawn. \Y. in pounds measured with'an

errorno grealer than 2percent. orthe \'olume ofwater withdrawn. G. in gallons measured with an errorno greater than 2percent. Determine the arithmetic mean ofthe outlet water temperature readings recorded. T

... in OF. Dlltermine the elapsed lime ofthe test priorto a thermostat on the waterheater acting to operate a heating element or the main burner.

### 't.. in hOUTS measured with an
errorno greaterthun 2percenl.lfa ther.nostot on the waterheater do"s not act to operate a heatinll element or the mnin burnerwlthin,one hour after the start 01 the tl!st. the test is to be terminated and I"

, expressed as onehour.

2. AppendixE to Subpart 

### BofPart 430 is anwnded

### by adding a new section 4.7
to read as follows:

4.7Recoveryrate. 4.7.1 Rpcoveryratl'forgros ar.doil",o:I'r heaters. For a gas or oil waterheater. calculatethe recovery rate. R. expressed in gollons perhour and defined as:

where-- 

### R 

# = P X 

# Er
k XATS

k ;3;';' defined in section 4.1.1.**~T.** i. as defined in section 4.3. E,. Isascalculated in section4.1.1. P=powerinput to the burner. determined in accordance with section 3.2.1. expressed in Btu perhour. 4.7.2 Recoveryrateforelectric water heaters. For anelectricwaterheater. 

# ..

### 52840 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 175 / Friday. September 7. 1979 / Rules and Regulations

calculate the recurry rate. R. expressed in which. in characteristic operation of the gallons per hour and defined as: water heater, are not energized RPi E i 3,412 B /k412 simultaneously at any time. P shall he R = P x E r x 3,412 Btu/kWh taken as the design power rating ofthe

k x /T heating element in closest proximity to T5 the hot water outlet of the water heater. where- expressed in kilowatts. kis as defined in section 4.1.1. 3. Appendix E to Subpart B ofPart 430 AT, is as defined in section 4.3. is amended by adding a new section 4.8 E, is as calculated in section 4.1.2 for electrtc to read as follows: water heaters with other than immersed heating elements. or section 4.1.3 for 4.8 Firsthourrating. electric water healers with immersed 4.8.1 Methodfordetermining firsthour heating elements. rating.Except as provided in section 4.8.2. P' P. power input to the heating elements. first hour rating shall be determined in expressed in kilowatts. determined in accordance with section 4.8.3. accordance with section 3.2.1 for electric 4.8.2 Optionsfordeterminingfirsthour water heaters wilh other than immersed rating.Until December 1. 1979. first hour heating elements orsection 3.2.2 for rating may be determined in accordance with electric water heaters with immersed either section 4.8.3 or section 4.8.4. heating elements. with the following 4.8.3 First hourrating deterr;ined by exception: For electric water heaters testing.Calculate the first hour rating. F. with dual immersed heating elements expressed ingallons and defined as:



### F X + [R x (1

- tc)]

, 

### or

F G x T + R x (1 

### -t)]

where- temperature readings recorded during the Ris as calculiated in section 4.7.1 for gas and first hour rating water draw test. oil water healers. or section 4.7.2 for determined in accordance with section electric water heaters. 3.7.expressed in 'F. IW =

weight of the water withdrawn from the T.=initial outlet water temperature recorded water heater during the first hour rating during the first hour rating water draw water draw test. determined in test. determined in accordance with aiccol:rdinLce with section 3.7. expressed in section 3.7. expressed in 'F. purnds. t,-elapsed time ofthe first hour rating water d :-8.25 pounds per gallon. the nominal draw test prior to a thermostat on the density of water. water heater acting to operate a heating C =volume ofwater withdrawn from the element or the main burner, determined vwa;elr heater during the first hour rating in accordance with section 3.7. expressed water draw test, determined in in hours. ac:rordanrr with section 3.7, expressed 4.8.4 FirsthourratingdeterminedtPy gallons. calculation. Calculate the first hour rating. F. T,. airithmetic mean of the outlet water expressed ingallons and defined as:

F

- (O.85 x v) +

## J R x [ hour

- (0.0028 hour x V)] 

### cIallon

where- for calculating theduration of the water Vis as defined in section 4.1.1. draw during the first hour rating water Ris as calculated in section 4.7.1 for gas and draw test. determined by dividing 0.85. oil water heaters. or section 4.7.2 for as defined in this section. by the product electric Water heaters. ofthe hot water withdrawal rate during 0n

8,

- the constla.lt multiplier for calculating theT rst hour rating water draw test. five

the results of the first hour rating water gallons per minute. and the conversion 1draw test. falctor. 60 minutes per hour. O.on2n hour/gallon =the constant multiplier IFR Dt w."- Filed .- 7" 8l:i .- 1 BILLINO CODE I650-O1-M 

# .. 52640 Federal Register 

## I Vol. 44. No. 175 

## I Friday. September 7. 1979 

## I Rules and Regulations

calc"lute the**reco\~ry r~te.**  R. expressed In jlililons pt'r hour Hud defined HS:
R • p. 

### x Er 

### x 3,412 Btu/kWh


### It x ATS

wherek is as defined in section 4.1.1. AT. IS as defined in section 4.3. E, is as calculated in section 4.1.2 (or electrlt: wHter heaters with other than immersed heatinR clements. or section 4.1.3 for electric waterheaters with immersed heating el

..ments. p' "0 P. puwer inpllt to the**he~tin!!** clements. tlxprp.socd in kllowal!8. determined in IIccord,lIIr:e with section 3.2.1 f(Jr electric
wntcr heaters wiJh other than immersed h"iltinR elements or section 3.2.2 [or electric water hellters with immerscd h""tin!! elernellts. with the fullowing ",ception: For electric water heaters wilh dual immersed heating el('ments



### f 

### x +



### f 

# = +

wh,,,,,-

R is as calculated in section 4.7.1 for gas lind oil waler heaters. or section 4.7.2 for "Icetric water heaters. W**~** weiHht of the ",uter withdrawn from the w.tler heater during the first hour ratin!!
wntcr drllw test. determined in IIcc;"dance with section 3.7. expressed in pllllnds. d**:-II.~;I** pounds**p~r** Ritllon. the nominal den.itv ofwat"r. G =**volllm~** ofwatN**withdraw~** from the wat", heater durin!! the iirst hour rating wa!f'r draw**te~t.** d

..tcrmined in au:ordance with section 3.7. e

....**pre~sed** M,dlon•. T

..**~** arithmetic mPlln (If thp outlet watl'r which. in characteristic operation of the
water heater. are not**energiz~d** simultanp.lIusly ot any time. P' shall h(' tuken as the**de~;l:n** power rillinll of the heatin<! clement in clospst proximity to the hot watcr outlet of the water heater. expressed in kilowatts. 3. Appendix E to Subpart Bof Part 430
is amended by adding a new section4.8

to read as follows:'

4.8 First hOlJrrotinll' 4.8.1 Methodfordelermillingfirsl hour raling. Excepl as proo:ided in section**~.B.2.** first hour rating shall be dp.termined in uccordance with section 4.8.3.

4.8.2 Optionsfor**determinin.~** .firsI hour rating. Until December 1. 1979. first hour rating may be determined in accordance with either section 4.8.3 or section 4.B.4.

4.8.3 First hourrating determinedby lesting. Calculate the first hour rating. F. expressed in gallons and defined as:



### x 

## or

x (1

- 

### t 

### c )]

temperature readings recorded during the first hour ritting water draw test. determined in accordance with $ection 3.7. expressed in 

### '1". T.= initial outlet watertemperllture recorded during the first hour rating,wllter draw
test. determined in accordance with section 3.7. expressed in 'F. t,**~elapsed** time of the firsl hOllr ratin!! wilter druw II'S: prior to a thermostat on the
water heater acting to operate a heating element or the main burner. determined in accordance with section 3.7. expressl'd in hours. 4.8.4 First hourratinil dcterminedn.l· colcu/otion. Calc:ulale the first hour ratin!!. F. expressed in Malians and defined as:**'f'~** 

### (O.BSxVI + {R 

### x [1 hour

- (0,0028 hour 

### x VI] 

# t
gallon 

# f

wher,,-
V 

### i'**a~** !leflnrd in sl'r:tion 4.1.1. R is as calcul"ted in section 4.7.1 for I!nS and oil wutl'r h'!rltcrs. or section 4.7.2 for el!'etric wiltpr hrate",.

n R:t**~** the COIlSlilP.l multiplier for'cn1culating thl' r

...**ult~** of the first hour rntinp. water tlr"w test.**n.()()~n** hour/Rallon ='the**r:on~tant mllitipli~r**  for clllcu\ilting Ihe dumtion ofthe Willer draw during the first hour rating Witter draw test. determined by dividing 0.85.

as defined in this secliun. by the product of the hot water withdrawal rate during the**fir~t** hourr::.ting waterdmw test. five !!nllpns pl'r ",inule. and the conversion factor. 60 minutrs per hour. (fR £>.oc.**~~ f.lrd~:"Ct:**  8 ..4:'1**".~I** 8'I.LINO COOf: 6450-01-11