80896 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 237 / Monday, December 8, 1980 / Notices

Office of Conservation and Solar

Energy

[Case No. F-0011

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products; Petition for

Waiver of Consumer Product Test

Procedures From the Carrier Corp.

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

SUMMARY: The energy conservation

program for consumer products, other

than automobiles, was established

pursuant to the Energy Policy

Conservation Act The Department of

Energy has amended the Department's

regulations for the energy conservation

program for consumer products by

allowing the Assistant Secretary for

Conservation and Solar Energy

temporarily to waive test procedure

requirements for a particular covered

product (45 FR 64108, Sept. 26. 1980).

Waivers may be granted when

characteristics of the product prevent

use of the prescribed test procedures or

lead to results that provide materially

inaccurate comparative data. Pursuant

to paragraph (b) of § 430.27 of the Code

of Federal Regulations, DOE is required

to publish in the Federal Register a

Petition for Waiver and supporting

documents from which confidential

information, as determined by DOE, has

been deleted in accordance with 10 CFR

Part 207 and 10 CFR 1004.11. Also DOE

is required to solicit comments, data and

information with respect to the

determination of the petition.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data,

and information no later than January 5,

1981.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

statements shall be sent to: Department

of Energy, Office of Conservation and

Solar Energy, Case No. F-001. Mail Stop

GH-068, Forrestal Building. 1000

Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20585.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

James A. Smith. U.S. Department of

Energy Office of Conservation and Solar

Energy, Room GH-065, Forrestal

Building. 1000 Independence Avenue,

S.W., Washington. D.C. 20585, (202) 252-.

9127. Eugene Margolis. Esq., U.S.

Department of Energy, Office of General

Counsel, Room 6B-128, Forrestal

Building. 1000 Independence Avenue,

S.W., Washington. D.C. 20585, (202) 252-

9510.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On September 26, 1980, Carrier

Corporation filed an "Application for

Exception" with the Office of Hearings

and Appeals (OHA) of the Department

CAS-RM-79-104 COMMENT 06
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 237 / Monday, December 8, 1980 / Notices

of Energy (DOE) in accordance with 10

CFR 205.55. The Carrier exception

request pertains to the test procedures

specified in 10 CFR Part 430, the Energy

Conservation Program for Consumer

Products; the tests that manufacturers of

certain classes of consumer products are

required to perform in determining

energy efficiency and consumption

estimates for those products. This

request seems to be more appropriately

handled under the provisions of new

section 430.27 "Petitions for Waiver"

rather than the exception proceedings of

OHA. Effective October 27, 1980, the

Assistant Secretary for Conservation

and Solar Energy is empowered to

waive test procedure requirements -

pursuant to 10 CFR Part 430 for a

particular covered product (45 FR 64108,

September 26, 1980). Waivers may be

granted when design characteristics of

the product prevent the use of the

prescribed test procedures.or lead to

results that provide materially

inaccurate comparative data. By letter

dated October 16, 1980, the deputy

Director of OHA has forwarded this

request to the Assistant Secretary for

Conservation and Solar Energy.

Therefore, the "Application for

Exception" from the Carrier

Corporation, dated September 26, 1980,

will henceforth be considered a

"Petition for Waiver" (Case No. F-001)

requiring appropriate action by the

Assistant Secretary of Conservation and

Solar Energy in accordance with the

provisions of 10 CFR 430.27.

In consideration of the foregoing and

in accordance with the provisions of

Part 430.27(b) of Chapter II of Title 10,

Code of Federal Regulations,.DOE is

hereby publishing the "Petition for

Waiver" in the Federal Register in its

entirety. The petition and supporting

documents contain no confidential

information. DOE is hereby soliciting

comments, data and information

respecting the determination of the

petition.

Issued in Washington, D.C., November 28.

1980.

Frank DeGeorge,

Principal DeputyAssistant Secretary

Conservation and Solar Energy.

Petition for Waiver

This is an application for exception from

the test procedures set forth in Subpart B of

Part 430, Chapter II of Title 10, Code of

Federal Regulations applicable to the gasfired furnace described below which BDP

Company ("Applicant") plans to manufacture

and commence marketing in November, 1980.

This furnace is similar in operation to the

induced draft gas furnace manufactured by

Heil Quaker Corporation for which the DOE

granted an exemption on June 20, 1979.

Because of the similarity of furnace

operation, this request for exemption follows

the format of the 1979 Heil Quaker request.

1. General Description of Applicant's

Business

Applicant manufactures and distributes

residential beating and air conditioning

products for the new construction.

replacement and remodeling markets under

the Bryant, Day and Night and Payne brand

names. Applicant also manufactures beating

products for distribution in the same markets

by Carrier Air Conditioning Company.

Applicant is a Division of Carrier

Corporation, which is a subsidiary of United

Technologies Corporation.

During recent years, applicant has

developed an induced draft gas furnace.

During that time, many such furnaces have

been fabricated and tested at BDP Company,

the Research Division of Carrier Corporation,

and at the American Gas Association

Laboratories. Beginning in November. 1980,

applicant plans to market this furnace.

2. Federal Labeling and Testing

Requirements

The induced. draft gas furnace Is a covered

product, being an appliance falling within the

"Furnace" category as set forth in 16 CFR

Part 305, and therefore, subject to the rules

for using energy costs and consumption

information in labeling and advertising

consumer appliances under the energy policy

-and conservation act ("Act").

Section 305.5 of 16 CFR Part 305 prescribes

the procedures for determining the estimated

annual operating cost and energy efficiency

rating for covered products. These

procedures are found in Subpart B, and are

referred to herein as the "Test Procedures".

3. BDP Company Induced Draft Furnace

Principles of Operation

The BDP Company induced draft gas

furnace is fundamentally equivalent in

operation to the Heil Quaker induced draft

gas furnace granted an exemption June 20,

1979. The BDP Company induced draft

furnace differs in that it includes a draft

safeguard system described in Attachment

"A". This system includes a small passage

through which a minute amount of air is

drawn into the combustion system. This

opening does not function as, and cannot be

treated as, a draft diverter since its area is

less than 5% of the flow area of BDP

Company's smallest draft diverter.

4. Test Procedures Do Not Adequately

Handle Applicant's Product

While the test procedures apply to

Applicant's induced draft gas furnace as a

covered product under the Act. such

procedures do not adequately handle the

testing and rating of said furnace for the

following reasons:

A. The BDP induced draft gas furnace does

not utilize a draft diverter that mixes relief

air with the products of combustion prior to

discharge into the vent system. Because of

this fundamental design difference, applicant

cannot determine a system number as

required in Paragraph 4.2.1 of Appendix N,

Subpart B, Part 430, 10 CFR, in order to

calculate the annual fuel utilization

efficiency.

80897

B. The previously granted exemption for

induced draft gas furnaces (Heil Quaker

Corporation, June 20, 1979) does not clearly

define Test Procedures relative to the

presence of the minute passage in the vent

connection area of Applicant's product.

5. The Lack of Correct Test Procedures Is

Unfair to Applicant

For the reasons described. Applicant

submits that the current system of Test

Procedures are not fair to Applicant. Should

Applicant be required to adhere to the

existing Test Procedures either.

A. Applicant would be legally precluded

from marketing a product because of a lack of

proper Test Procedures, or

B. Applicant would be required to label

and advertise an induced draft furnace which

does not have a draft diverter using

procedures developed for furnaces with draft

divertera, causing gross inaccuracies in

labeled and advertised information. Said

inaccuracies would both deprive Applicant of

an equitable market position and frustrate

the intent of Congress in passing the Act.

Finally,

C. Should the Test Procedures not allow

for, or improperly treat, the draft safeguard

system, Applicant would be forced to

redesign the product to eliminate an

innovative design feature with a significant

potential for national energy savings.

6. BDP Company Induced Draft Gas Furnace

Testing

Applicant proposes that this furnace be

handled in the most direct manner. This is,

the BDP Company induced draft gas furnace

would be tested as an induced draft gas

furnace but with the draft safeguard passage

open and the flue collector and inducer

housing uninsulated during the testing. This

Would include the effects of the conditioned

air drawn into the furnace system during the

burner on cycle by virtue of the steady state

CO. measurement and during the off cycle as

a result of the DP determination from stack

properties. Further, due to the low steady

state flue temperature and very low off cycle

flow rates, insulation of the flue collector and

Inducer housing are not necessary.

Applicant's representatives have discussed

the above Test Procedure with Dr. David

Didion and Dr. George Kelly of the National

Bureau of Standards who recommended three

alternate possible procedures. Tests were

conducted on a BDP Company induced draft

gas furnace with the four different

procedures. AFUE values ranged from 82.9 to

83.3, with the procedure proposed above

giving an AFUE value of 83.0. The tests also

showed that the difference between

insulating and not insulating the flue collector

and inducer housing is less than the normal

test variance and very much less than the 5%

tolerance applied in applicable certification

requirements. The NBS representatives have

concurred that the test method as proposed in

this request provides equivalent accuracy to

other possible methods while not adding

unnecessary complication. Details of the

various proposed procedures and the test

results have been communicated to Mr. John

Talbott of the Consumer Product Efficiency

Branch of DOE.

CAS-RM-79-104 COMMENT 06
80898 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 237 / Monday, December 8, 1980 / Notices

In summary, Applicant is confident that the

DOE Test Procedure (Section 305.5 of 16 CFR

Part 305, Subpart B), System #2 tested with

the safeguard passage open and with

DS=DF= DP is the best method to rate the

BDP Company induced draft gas furnace.

And further, that so rating the BDP furnace

will provide a level of accuracy equivalent to

that resulting from the use of the present DOE

procedures with either induced draft or

conventional gas furnaces. -

Very truly yours,

Edward A. Baily,

Director, Government and Industry Relations.

Attachment "A".-Draft Safeguard System

Principles of Operation

The BDP Company induced draft gas

furnace operates in essentially the same

manner as the Heil Quaker induced draft gas

furnace which was granted an exemption

June 2o, 1979. The BDP Company furnace,

however, incorporates a design innovation

known as a draft safeguard system . The draft

safeguard system allows the induced draft

furnace to be installed in a common venting

system with a natural draft appliance

(typically a natural draft water heater).

The National Fuel Gas Code (ANSI Z223.1)

does not allow natural draft appliances to be

connected to any portion of an induced draft

vent system operating at positive pressure. In

addition, induced draft vent systems

operating at positive . pressures must employ

gastight construction. The burner and heat -

exchanger system of the BDP induced draft

gas furnace is specifically designed for

operation with induced draft The design is

such that the flow energy of the draft inducer

is completely expended inside the furnace as

velocity resultant pressure losses. Thus with

a properly functioning and adequately'sized

vent system, the BDP induced draft furnace

does not impose a positive pressure on the

vent. This allows the BDP induced draft gas

furnace to be installed in a common vent of

conventional construction, with natural draft

appliances.

The presence of an adequate and

functioning vent system is essential to safe

operation of the appliances in this type of

installation. The draft safeguard system, see

attached figure, proves the adequacy of vent

performance by monitoring the temperature

in a small passage (draft safeguard passage)

connected to the furnace vent connection. If

vent performance is adequate, a small

amount of ambient temperature air will be

drawn through the passage causing the draft

safeguard switch to sense low temperatures.

If, for whatever reason, the pressure in the

furnace vent becomes positive, a flow of flue

products is established through the passage.

The draft safeguard switch detects the

elevated temperature resulting from the

presence of flue products

off, '

, and locks the unit

The draft safeguard system does not

inherently improve the efficiency of an

induced draft furnace. It does, however,

provide a substantial opportunity for energy

conservation. The energy conservation will

result from the increased use of this furnace

as a preplacement for older, lower efficiency

furnaces presently installed in common vents

with water heaters. Without the draft

safeguard system, it would not be permissible

to use the available common chimney and a

new vent system would have to be installed

for the furnace . The millions of homeowners

with common vented gas furnaces and water

heaters, when faced with the cost of a

ate Name end location. of applicant can No.

completely new vent system, would in many

cases, choose to forgo the energy savings of

an induced draft furnace.

(FR Dm eo-37a6f Filed 12-&-8O 8:45 am)

efwNG CODE 645o-01-r

Office of Hearings and Appeals

Cases Filed Week of October 10

through October 17, 1980

During the week of October 10

through October 17, 1980 , the appeals

and applications for exception or other

relief listed in the Appendix of this

Notice were filed with the Office of

Hearings and Appeals of the

Department of Energy.

Under DOE procedural regulations, 10

CFR, Part 205, any person who will be

aggrieved by the DOE action sought in

these cases may file written comments

on the application within ten days of

service of notice, as prescribed in the

procedural regulations. For purposes of

the regulations, the date of service of

notice is deemed to be the date of

publication of this Notice or the date of

receipt by an aggrieved person of actual

notice, whichever occurs first. All such

comments shall be filed with the Office

of Hearings and Appeals, Department of

Energy, Washington. D.C. 20461.

Dated: December 2, 19W.

George B. Breznay,

Director. Office ofHearings and Appeals.

Type of wAtmiasion

Oct 10, 1980....... _..... Combined Resources Group, Salt Lake City, Utah... BEE-1493 ._._.... Allocation Exception. It granted: Combined Resources Group would receive an exception from the provisions of 10 C. F.R.. Pert 211 , which would permit the firm to receive

an allocation of unleaded motor gasoline for the purpose of blending gaso hol.

Oct. 10, 1980 ...._ ...__...__ .__ R. H. Engelke, San Antonio, Texas .........,..-,..._- BXE-1494.-,_._. Extension of the Relief granted in A. H. Engelke, 5 DOE Par, 81,020 (July 28, 1960). N

granted: R. H. Engelke would be permitted to continue to sell the crude oil produced

from the Bertha Cops" Lease located in Jackson County. Texas at market prices.

Oct. 10, 1980 ... ..__.__.._ ... Site Oil Company and Flash Petroleum Corporation, BPS, BRT- Request for Stay and Temporary Stay. It granted : Site Oil Company and Flash PetroWashington. D.C.. 0111. teum Corporation would receive a stay and temporary stay of its obligation to file a

response to the September 26, 1980. Notice of Probable Violation.

Oct 10, 1960 ._.___._........_..__._.. Dave. Engineering Company, San Diego. California BFA-0495 .......... Appeal of an Information Request Denial. If granted The October 3, 1980, denial of a

request for Information issued by the Regional Program Manager, Small-Scale Appro•

piste Energy Technology Grants Program, would be rescinded and Davex Engineering Company would reoeive access to certain DOE materials.

Oct 14. 1960._....-»........ ............... Deutsche Corporation. Tulsa. OMatoma ......._...._... BFA-0494 .....,,... Appeal of an Information Request Denial. If granted: The September 11, 1980 , denial of

a request for information issued by the Acting Assistant Administrator for Enforcement Economic Regulatory Adnuristrabon would be rescinded , and Deutsche Corporation would receive access to certain DOE materals concerning the mandatory petroleum regulations applicable to crude oil producers and reeaaers.

Oct 14, 1980 ......-.__......__.__.._. G & G Alcohol Enterprise ., Inc., Gresham. Oregon.. BEE-1497...:._..: Allocation Exception. If granted: G & G Alcohol Enterprises. Inc. would received an ex.

caption from the provisions of 10 C.F.R.. Part 211, which would permit the firm to

receive an allocation of unleaded motor gasoline for the purpose of blending gasohol.

Oct. 14 , 1980 .......... ....._.......w....... Leonard L Kleinman, Cleveland. Ohio........................ BFA-0493........ Appeal of an Information Request Denial. It granted: The denial of a request for information issued by the District Manager. Control Enforcement District, Economic Regulatory Administration , would be rescinded and Leonard L Kleinman would receive

access to certain DOE materials concerning Malco Industries , Inc.. Maio Petroleum

Corporation and Falcon ON Company.

Oct 14, 1980 ................................... Marathon ON Company /Aeameca Oi Company, BEJ, BED, Motions for Protective Order and Discovery and Request for Stay. If granted : Discovery

Findlay, Ohio. BES-0144. would be granted and Marathon Oil company would enter into a Protective Order with

Asarnera Oil Company in connection with Asamera Old Company ' s Application for Exception and Temporary Exception (Case No. BEE-1491 and BEL-1491). A hearing

on Asamera Oil Company' s temporary exception applicaton would be stayed until

Marathon Olt Company receives a complete and undeleted copy of Asamera Oil

Company' s Application.

Oct 14, 1960 ..-..._...__._..^...._... ML Airy Refining Company. Washington, D.C.......... BEE-1496.......... Exception from the Buy /See Program. If granted: Mt Airy Refining Company would recarve an exception from the provisions of 10 C.F .A., Section 211.65, regarding the

firm's participation in the crude oil Buy/Semi Program.

CAS-RM-79-104 COMMENT 06