Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 1995 / Notices 11967

their share of the amounts paid to El

Paso Natural Gas Company as a result of

the Commission decision in their rate

case.

Any person desiring to protest said

filing should file a protest with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

825 North Capitol Street, NE.,

Washington, DC 20426, in accordance

with § 385.211 of the Commission’s

Rules and Regulations. All such protests

should be filed on or before March 6,

1995. Protests will be considered by the

Commission in determining the

appropriate action to be taken, but will

not serve to make the protestants parties

to the proceeding. Copies of this filing

are on file with the Commission and are

available for public inspection.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–5228 Filed 3–2–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. RP95–170–000]

Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc.;

Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC

Gas Tariff

February 27, 1995.

Take notice that on February 22, 1995,

Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc.

(Granite State) tendered for filing with

the Commission the revised tariff sheets

listed below in its FERC Gas Tariff,

Third Revised Volume No. 1, revising

the provisions of Rate Schedule LMS

(Load Management Service), effective

December 1, 1994:

Third Revised Sheet No. 24

First Revised Sheet No. 141

First Revised Sheet No. 142

First Revised Sheet No. 143

First Revised Sheet No. 144

First Revised Sheet No. 437

According to Granite State its tariff for

restructured operations, approved in

Docket No. RS93–1–000 and effective

November 1, 1993, included Rate

Schedule LMS (Load Management

Service) which provided a monthly

balancing service and a Daily Demand

Service to cover swings in excess of the

daily variance tolerances for

transportation services at delivery

points to its former sales customers, Bay

State Gas Company (Bay State) and

Northern Utilities, Inc. (Northern

Utilities). Granite State further states

that both services were tied to

underlying services provided by

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company

(Tennessee), which had been Granite

State’s principal upstream supplier of

natural gas supplies prior to

restructuring. The monthly balancing

service was tied to an Operational

Balancing Agreement between

Tennessee and Granite State, and

Granite State contracted for the Daily

Demand Service under Tennessee’s Rate

Schedule LMS–MA.

Granite State further states that,

during the latter half of 1994, Tennessee

offered its customers an option to

convert Daily Demand Service to a

storage service under its Rate Schedule

FS–MA. According to Granite State, it

and its customers accepted the option;

Granite State assigned its conversion

rights to Bay State and Northern

Utilities and both customers contracted

separately with Tennessee for storage

services under Tennessee’s Rate

Schedule FS–MA, effective December 1,

1994.

According to Granite State, the

revised tariff sheets submitted herewith

eliminate the Daily Demand Service and

references to the service from its Rate

Schedule LMS but continue the

availability of the monthly balancing

service through the Operational

Balancing Agreement with Tennessee.

According to Granite State, copies of

its filing were served upon its

customers, Bay State and Northern

Utilities, and the regulatory

commissions of the States of Maine,

Massachusetts, and New Hampshire.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

make any protest with reference to said

filing should file a motion to intervene

or protest with the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 825 North

Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.

20426 in accordance with Rules 211 and

214 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211

and 385.214). All such motions or

protests should be filed on or before

March 6, 1995. Protests will be

considered by the Commission in

determining the appropriate action to be

taken, but will not service to make

protestants parties to the proceeding.

Any person wishing to become a party

to the proceeding must file a motion to

intervene in accordance with the

Commission’s Rules. Copies of this

filing are on file with the Commission

and are available for public inspection.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–5229 Filed 3–2–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products: Granting of the

Application for Interim Waiver and

Publishing of the Petition for Waiver of

Kool-Fire From the Department of

Energy Central Air Conditioner and

Central Air Conditioning Heat Pump

Test Procedure (Case No. CAC–007)

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Department of

Energy.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Today’s notice publishes a

letter granting an Interim Waiver to

Kool-Fire from the existing Department

of Energy central air conditioner and

central air conditioning heat pump test

procedure for the company’s lines of HC

and LTH burner-assisted heat pumps.

Today’s notice also publishes a

‘‘Petition for Waiver’’ from Kool-Fire.

Kool-Fire’s Petition for Waiver requests

DOE to grant relief from the DOE heat

pump test procedure for the Kool-Fire

lines of HC and LTH burner-assisted

heat pumps, which operate in both the

cooling and heating modes. Kool-Fire

requests that the heating mode tests be

waived for its burner-assisted heat

pumps because the DOE procedure has

no provision for testing burner-assisted

heat pumps. The Department is

soliciting comments, data, and

information respecting the Petition for

Waiver.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data,

and information not later than April 3,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

statements shall be sent to: Department

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy, Case No. CAC–

007, Mail Stop EE–43, Room 5E–066,

Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585,

(202) 586–7574.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael G. Raymond, U.S. Department

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy, Mail Station

EE–431, Forrestal Building, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–

9611

Eugene Margolis, Esq., U.S. Department

of Energy, Office of General Counsel,

Mail Station GC–72, Forrestal

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue,

SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202)

586–9507.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products (other than

CAS-RM-79-102 COMMENT 16
11968 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 1995 / Notices

automobiles) was established pursuant

to the Energy Policy and Conservation

Act (EPCA), Public Law 94–163, 89 Stat.

917, as amended by the National Energy

Conservation Policy Act (NECPA),

Public Law 95–619, 92 Stat. 3266, the

National Appliance Energy

Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA),

Public Law 100–12, the National

Appliance Energy Conservation

Amendments of 1988 (NAECA 1988),

Public Law 100–357, and the Energy

Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT), Public Law

102–486, 106 Stat. 2776, which requires

DOE to prescribe standardized test

procedures to measure the energy

consumption of certain consumer

products, including heat pumps. The

intent of the test procedures is to

provide a comparable measure of energy

consumption that will assist consumers

in making purchasing decisions. The

test procedures appear at 10 CFR Part

430, Subpart B, Appendix M.

The Department amended the

prescribed test procedures by adding 10

CFR 430.27 on September 26, 1980,

creating the waiver process. 45 FR

64108. Thereafter, DOE further amended

the appliance test procedure waiver

process to allow the Assistant Secretary

for Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy (Assistant Secretary) to grant an

Interim Waiver from test procedure

requirements to manufacturers that have

petitioned DOE for a waiver of such

prescribed test procedures. 51 FR 42823,

November 26, 1986.

The waiver process allows the

Assistant Secretary to temporarily waive

test procedures for a particular basic

model when a petitioner shows that the

basic model contains one or more

design characteristics which prevent

testing according to the prescribed test

procedures, or when the prescribed test

procedures may evaluate the basic

model in a manner so unrepresentative

of its true energy consumption as to

provide materially inaccurate

comparative data. Waivers generally

remain in effect until final test

procedure amendments become

effective, resolving the problem that is

the subject of the waiver.

The Interim Waiver provisions added

by the 1986 amendment allow the

Secretary to grant an Interim Waiver

when it is determined that the applicant

will experience economic hardship if

the Application for Interim Waiver is

denied, if it appears likely that the

Petition for Waiver will be granted, and/

or the Assistant Secretary determines

that it would be desirable for public

policy reasons to grant immediate relief

pending a determination on the Petition

for Waiver. An Interim Waiver remains

in effect for a period of 180 days, or

until DOE issues its determination on

the Petition for Waiver, whichever is

sooner, and may be extended for an

additional 180 days, if necessary.

On July 18, 1994, Kool-Fire filed a

Petition for Waiver and an Application

for Interim Waiver regarding the heat

pump tests. Additional information

supporting the application was

provided to DOE in a letter dated

January 6, 1995. Kool-Fire’s application

seeks a Waiver from the DOE test of

heating mode operation for its burnerassisted heat pumps because the current

DOE test procedure does not address

burner-assisted heat pumps. Kool-Fire

also applied for an Interim Waiver,

based on economic hardship which

would be experienced if the Application

for Interim Waiver is denied.

In Kool-Fire’s Application for an

Interim Waiver, the company addresses

the economic hardship likely to result

absent a favorable determination on its

application. The company states that,

lacking the Interim Waiver, Kool-Fire’s

rejection by certain State Energy

Commissions has brought the

manufacturing, marketing, and

distribution of its products to a virtual

stand-still. In its January 6, 1995 letter,

Kool-Fire included a letter from its

Oregon distributor claiming that lack of

a DOE waiver for the company’s product

was directly responsible for the loss of

a 180-plus unit order. Kool-Fire further

stated that the inability to meet the DOE

testing requirements is impacting 100

percent of the Kool-Fire product line.

The Department knows of no other

company which manufactures a heat

pump similar to the Kool-Fire burnerassisted system. However, the

Department has granted a waiver to

Enviro Master International from the

need to determine a Heating Seasonal

Performance Factor (HSPF) because its

heat pumps could not be tested in the

heating mode using the DOE test

procedure. Based on the economic

hardship which will be suffered by

Kool-Fire if the Application for Interim

Waiver is denied and the precedent

established in granting a waiver from

the requirement to test a heat pump in

the heating mode when the product

cannot be tested using the DOE test

procedure, the Department is granting

Kool-Fire an Interim Waiver from the

requirement to test its lines of HC and

LTH heat pumps in the heating mode.

Pursuant to paragraph (e) of Section

430.27 of the Code of Federal

Regulations Part 430, the following

letter granting an Interim Waiver to

Kool-Fire was issued.

Pursuant to paragraph (b) of 10 CFR

Part 430.27, DOE is hereby publishing

the ‘‘Petition for Waiver’’ in its entirety.

The Petition contains no confidential

information. The Department solicits

comments, data, and information

respecting the Petition.

Issued in Washington, DC, February 22,

1995.

Christine A. Ervin,

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy.

Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585

February 22, 1995.

Mr. J.N. Friedrich, President, Kool-Fire

Division of Friedrich Corporation, 1930

Lincoln Way East, P.O. Box 643,

Massillon, OH 44648–0643.

Dear Mr. Friedrich: This is in response to

your letters of July 18, 1994 and January 6,

1995, submitting an Application for Interim

Waiver and Petition for Waiver from the

Department of Energy (DOE) central air

conditioners and central air conditioning

heat pumps test procedure for Kool-Fire’s

model HC and LTH burner-assisted heat

pumps.

The Department agrees that the Kool-Fire

lines of HC and LTH burner-assisted heat

pumps contain design characteristics which

prevent testing them in the heating mode

according to the prescribed test procedures.

Thus, it appears likely that the Petition for

Waiver will be granted.

Kool-Fire’s Application for Interim Waiver

provides sufficient information to determine

that Kool-Fire has and will continue to

experience a severe negative economic

impact absent a favorable determination on

its Application. Therefore, Kool-Fire’s

Application for an Interim Waiver from the

DOE test procedure for its model HC and

LTH burner-assisted heat pumps is granted.

Kool-Fire shall be required to test its HC

and LTH series heat pumps on the basis of

the test procedures specified in 10 CFR Part

430, Subpart B, Appendix M, for the cooling

mode of operation, Section 2.1. The heating

mode test, Section 2.2, is waived.

This Interim Waiver is based upon the

presumed validity of statements and all

allegations submitted by the company. This

Interim Waiver may be removed or modified

at any time upon a determination that the

factual basis underlying the application is

incorrect.

The Interim Waiver shall remain in effect

for a period of 180 days, or until DOE acts

on the Petition for Waiver, whichever is

sooner, and may be extended for an

additional 180-day period, if necessary.

Sincerely,

Christine A. Ervin,

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy.

Kool-Fire

1930 Lincoln Way East ∆ P.O. Box 643

∆ Massillon, Ohio 44648–0643, 216–833–

2117 ∆ Fax 216–833–2494

July 18, 1994.

Ms. Christine Ervin,

CAS-RM-79-102 COMMENT 16
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 1995 / Notices 11969

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, and

Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of

Energy, Mail Station EE–1, Forrestal

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue.,

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585.

RE: Petition for waiver and application for

interim waiver for Kool-Fire products.

Dear Ms. Ervin: For the past few months

I have been working through Mr. Ed Pollock

from the DOE and with Mr. Brian Dougherty

with NIST to reestablish communications to

resolve a ‘‘certification procedure’’ and/or

‘‘request for waiver’’ which we began in

1990. As of this date, Mr. Ed Pollock and I

have agreed upon a course of action. The

agreed upon approach consists of and

includes the following four points:

1. The ‘‘cooling mode’’ performance of the

Kool-Fire burner-assisted heat pumps will be

evaluated as per the DOE heat pump and air

conditioning test procedure. Kool-Fire

systems will be tested at 82 degree F and 95

degree F and have an SEER rating.

2. Kool-Fire requests a waiver from having

to use the DOE test procedure to evaluate the

‘‘heating’’ mode performance of Kool-Fire

burner-assisted heat pumps. This waiver is

requested because the existing test procedure

does not state how to test burner-assisted

heat pumps. An HSPF rating only reflects the

seasonal space heating efficiency of allelectric heat pumps, not dual fuel heat

pumps like the Kool-Fire HC and LTH

models.

3. While Kool-Fire’s request for a waiver

from the ‘‘heating’’ mode portion of the DOE

test procedure is being pursued through the

public review process, Kool-Fire requests

that an ‘‘interim waiver’’ be IMMEDIATELY

granted.

4. Kool-Fire will continue to work on the

development of a NEW test procedure for

testing and rating the ‘‘heating’’ mode

performance of dual-fuel, burner assisted

heat pumps. In developing this new

approach, Kool-Fire expects to use portions

of the existing DOE test procedures for heat

pumps.

Mr. Brian Dougherty and I have exchanged

a great deal of information regarding the

Kool-Fire product which we manufacture

and distribute throughout the United States.

I would request that Mr. Dougherty, due to

his extensive involvement to date, continue

to be assigned to this project.

As a result of the efforts of Mr. Pollock and

Mr. Dougherty, we have reached the point

where there is an understanding, as stated

above, on the procedure to follow to resolve

the ‘‘certification’’ requirement. CRITICAL

mid-term and short-term components to this

process are the granting of a ‘‘waiver’’ and

‘‘interim waiver’’, respectively. Therefore,

this letter will serve to initiate our formal

request for a ‘‘waiver’’ and ‘‘interim waiver’’

of the HEATING operation mode of the KoolFire two thru four ton ‘‘split system’’

products for the reasons enumerated herein.

Following are excerpts of my most recent

reply to Mr. Dougherty of June 28, 1994 in

response to his letter of June 10, 1994

wherein I explain situations which exist that

would justify your granting Kool-Fire this

‘‘interim waiver’’:

‘‘A situation exists relating to our receipt of

an ‘‘interim waiver’’. Lacking this ‘‘interim

waiver’’, Kool-Fire’s acceptance by certain

State Energy Commissions has brought the

distribution of our products to a virtual

stand-still in those areas. This situation can

and will cause both our manufacturing

operation and distribution network to

experience severe ‘‘economic hardship’’.

We have been informed that with this

‘‘interim waiver’’, Kool-Fire distribution

would be approved and we could actively

compete in the market place with other

heating/cooling manufactures. The sooner we

have this ‘‘interim waiver’’ in hand, the faster

we can work to develop a proper ‘‘heating’’

mode test procedure.’’

I have sent Mr. Dougherty all the

information I could find related to laboratory

testing, various certifications received, and

numerous data compiled from field tests and

subsequent reports presented since KoolFire’s inception in 1979. Most of this testing

was done in Canada by Ontario Hydro and

the Canadian Gas Association (CGA), except

for the AGA testing information from the

early 80’s on earlier versions of Kool-Fire

models and current ETL certification

procedures. I indexed this material to

facilitate Mr. Dougherty’s use and perusal.

Unlike other ‘‘unique/dual-fuel’’ systems,

Kool-Fire has been tested, perfected, and

proven over the past 15 years, primarily in

the Canadian marketplace. I believe this, in

itself, lends creditability to it’s concept and

our requests for BOTH the ‘‘waiver’’ and the

IMMEDIATELY NEEDED ‘‘interim waiver’’.

In this same letter to Mr. Dougherty, I

commented on his suggestions regarding

‘‘possible testing methods’’ as follows:

I. Regarding an SEER test for Kool-Fire:

a. I see no problem conducting this test, in

the COOLING mode, like a single speed heat

pump or air conditioner. My only thoughts

as related to the SEER test is that. * * *

IN REALITY,

Kool-Fire is a COMBINATION air

conditioner, reverse cycle ‘‘heat pump’’ TYPE

unit which utilizes an auxiliary heat

absorption system that is used in conjunction

with a ‘‘matched’’ indoor forced air heat

exchanger.

Any SEER test for ‘‘cooling’’ must be

augmented with an appropriate test for the

‘‘heating’’ mode, else Kool-Fire could be misconstrued to be a ‘‘cooling’’ only type system.

This would cast untrue representation of the

product and put us at a competitive

disadvantage.

IN REALITY,

‘‘COOLING’’ IS SECONDARY to Kool-Fire’s

primary design intent of ‘‘most efficient’’’

utilization of BOTH energy sources used in

the ‘‘HEATING’’ mode.

II. Regarding heating mode tests as Mr.

Dougherty suggested:

a. There appears to be a problem

differentiating a test procedure between the

HC and the LTH model systems. To conduct

a test at 17 Degrees F. in the ‘‘air to air’’

reverse cycle mode would not be indicative

of a ‘‘true’’ indication of how any Kool-Fire

system operates and would tend to misrepresent it’s design purpose and intent. This

also would cast an untrue representation of

the product and put us at a competitive

disadvantage. In fact, current electrical rates

have increased to a point that now over 99%

of the systems installed are the HC models.

This is due to the fact that the ‘‘economic’’

balance point of natural gas and propane

compared to electrical energy costs dictates

changing to the ‘‘flame mode’’ at outdoor

ambient temperatures of 42 degrees F. and

higher.

Kool-Fire’s true comparative annual

‘‘heating’’ test must consider the actual

utilization of both energy sources used in the

‘‘heating’’ mode; based on the ‘‘economic’’

balance point of the fuels used, compared to

the ‘‘thermal’’ balance point of a structure.

These facts then could be factored with the

‘‘bin’’ temperature profiles similar to other

DOE tests applied for competitive ‘‘yearround’’ system. If these type facts are

determined, and if this information were

published in conjuction with the results of

DOE tests performed at the higher

temperatures of 47 Degree dry bulb and 43

Degree wet bulb, both steady state and cyclic;

this information would be an accurate

representation of Kool-Fire’s efficiency.

b. Due to circumstances outlined above, I

question whether a need exists to be

concerned with developing a procedure to

perform a DOE Frost accumulation test. As I

understand this test, part of the equation

considers the ‘‘negative’’ COP during the

defrost cycle when the reversing valve causes

an ordinary heat pump system to switch to

the ‘‘cooling’’ mode.

Kool-Fire LTH model has NO ‘‘negative’’

COP. During defrost of the Kool-Fire outdoor

coil the outdoor blower turns OFF and the

fossil fuel burner turns ON to defrost the coil;

Kool-Fire’s compressor NEVER turns ‘‘off’’.

Kool-Fire’s reversing valve DOES NOT shift

and cause the inside of the structure to be

cooled. Unlike ‘‘ordinary’’ heat pumps, the

‘‘outdoor coil’’ of Kool-Fire is ENCLOSED

and not subject to ‘‘wind effect’’. 100% of the

energy used for defrost is used to heat the

structure. While the ice is changing to water

it transfers the ‘‘latent’’ heat to the circulating

refrigerant that is heating the structure. This

situation that occurs during the defrost cycle

of a Kool-Fire should be included in the

annual efficiency calculations for Kool-Fire

and should be reflected as a CREDIT for

Kool-Fire systems.

c. Since Mr. Dougherty had talked to Mr.

Dave Young, from Ontario Hydro’s Research

and Development Department, and Mr.

Dougherty referred to the Cd (Coefficient of

degradation) factor, Dave probably has made

him aware how the actual field tested cyclic

performance profile of Kool-Fire differs from

ordinary heating systems. The difference of

Kool-Fire’s actual operating profile should be

reflected in the Cd factor applied in any

evaluation equation. Then Kool-Fire can be

accurately compared to others.

III. Could Kool-Fire be tested as a ‘‘Hybrid’’

heat pump?

After presenting Mr. Dougherty an

explanation of Kool-Fire and the differences

between Kool-Fire and heating systems

evaluated in the ‘‘hybrid’’ heating system test

procedures, Mr. Dougherty and I mutually

agree that:

THIS HYBRID TEST IS IN NO WAY

INDICATIVE OF A ‘‘true’’ indication of how

any Kool-Fire system functions and could

CAS-RM-79-102 COMMENT 16
11970 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 1995 / Notices

tend to mis-represent our purpose and intent.

This also would cast an untrue

representation of the product and put us at

a competitive disadvantage.

Kool-Fire IS NOT A HYBRID HEAT PUMP.

Hybrid system tests are based on the

assumption that at some outdoor

temperature, the heat pump electrical energy

usage for ‘‘heating’’ will stop and some other

‘‘single’’ source fuel will turn ‘‘on’’ for

‘‘heating’’. With Kool-Fire systems, the

outdoor fan turns ‘‘off’’ when the fossil fuel

burner turns ‘‘on’’, THE COMPRESSOR

NEVER TURNS ‘‘OFF’’. Therefore, electricity

PLUS another energy source are used

simultaneously.

IV. UNIQUE Kool-Fire features vs.

‘‘ordinary’’ furnaces:

Some of Kool-Fire’s differences compared

to ‘‘ordinary’’ fossil fuel furnaces are as

follows:

a. There is no steel plate heat exchanger,

Kool-Fire is an absorption heating system

causing heat to the absorbed into refrigerant

which has a boiling point of ¥40 Degree F.

(Similar to a ‘‘boiler’’ system)

b. Kool-Fire’s absorption system surface is

constantly ‘‘wet’’, surface temperatures never

exceed 55 Degree F.

c. Combustion air, both primary and

secondary, on a Kool-Fire constantly changes

from +50 to ¥40 Degree F. due to the fact

that all combustion occurs OUTDOORS.

d. Some of the test data I supplied Mr.

Dougherty on Kool-Fire was done by Ontario

Hydro and others throughout the 80’s. I

NOTED that the Canadian Gas Association

(CGA) test report of November 20, 1980, on

an ‘‘early’’ version of Kool-Fire, indicates a

‘‘tested’’ heating output of 12.33 KW with a

‘‘combined’’ measured input of 10.26 KW.

THIS TEST INDICATES KOOL-FIRE HAD A

COMBINED EFFICIENCY OF 120%, which

NO OTHER fossil fuel appliance in the world

has achieved. This data does not reflect the

over 20% efficiency improvement due to

design changes since that time.

e. When Kool-Fire cycles ‘‘off’’, unlike

vented furnaces, there is little heat build-up

in the exchanger because the absorption coil

is exposed to outdoor ambient. Kool-Fire’s

outdoor exchanger cools from 55 Degrees to

ambient rapidly. This fact eliminates any

possibility of acid formation on the outdoor

exchanger.

f. Kool-Fire’s design assures that a

‘‘matched’’ exchange rate exists between the

amount of liquid refrigerant boiling and the

amount of fossil fuel burning under the

outdoor exchanger. This fact of it’s design

insures that the surface temperature of the

exchanger does not exceed 55 Degree F.

Note: A limit control set at 65 Degree F.,

which is located ‘‘upstream’’ on the

compressor suction line, senses return gas

temperature. Two (2) 90 Degree F. limit

controls are also located on the top of the

outdoor exchanger coil. Any of these controls

will shut the fossil fuel burner ‘‘off’’, then

turn the outdoor fan ‘‘on’’, in the event of

‘‘low’’ refrigerant charge in the system.

To summarize:

Kool-fire burns it’s fossil fuel, OUTDOORS,

and is subject to extreme fluctuation of

temperatures that will have to be duplicated

in order to obtain accurate test results.

Kool-Fire systems function more like a

‘‘boiler’’ than like a furnace. The heat

transfers medium used is refrigerant instead

of water. I know of none other like it in the

world.

V. Concerning an HSPF rating for Kool-Fire

systems:

At this point, Mr. Ed Pollock, Mr. Brian

Dougherty, and I all agree that Kool-Fire

units cannot be tested and assigned an HSPF

rating because of their unique, duel-fuel,

burner-assisted design. Kool-fire DOES NOT

USE any supplemental electrical resistance

heat.

VI. Thoughts about Heating Season

Operating Costs (HSOC):

a. Existing DOE test procedures have been

developed to provide an ACCURATE

evaluation and comparison of products.

b. Instead of modifying existing

procedures, is the DOE at a point that NEW

test procedures are required that will reflect

the Comparative Annual Integrated Fuel

Efficiency (CAIFE) of Kool-Fire and other

‘‘unitue/dual-fuel’’ systems, that could

emerge in the future?

c. DOE might consider developing a test

procedure that measures the actual fuel

utilization of those energy sources used in

the ‘‘heating’’ mode based on their

‘‘economic’’ balance point. Then factor this

information in conjunction with the

‘‘thermal’’ balance point of the structure.

d. Tests should consider including the

TOTAL BTU OUTPUT, related costs to

purchase the INPUT FUEL being consumed,

and efficiencies of same. These facts could be

cross-plotted on some type graph format to

find the ‘‘economic’’ balance point of the

fuels being consumed. This information

could then be factored with the ‘‘bin’’

temperature profiles for a given geographical

location. These ‘‘bin’’ temperatures could be

the same as used by DOE in tests used for

‘‘ordinary’’ heating systems.

IN CONCLUSION:

The intent of all the DOE testing is to

provide an accurate, fair evaluation so that

United States consumers will be provided

factual information to enable them to make

an informed purchasing decision.

Unfortunately, times are changing and

technology has advanced. I realize this

stretches the imagination of those in the DOE

and NIST who are responsible to be sure that

this intent is fulfilled.

As previously described, Mr. Ed Pollock and

I have agreed upon a course of action to

resolve this matter.

We will be glad to work and supply input

for this test procedure in co-operation with

Mr. Pollock from DOE and Mr. Dougherty

from NIST. I am sure Mr. Dave Young from

Ontario Hydro will be able to provide

valuable input to this process. I have

contacted Mr. Hank Rutkowski, a wellknown Mechanical Engineer from the HVAC

industry, who is knowledgeable of existing

test procedures and is willing to lend his

expertise. Mr. Gerry Vandaarvart, the

inventor of Kool-fire from Canada, can offer

valuable assistance to arrive at an accurate

‘‘certification’’ and proper ‘‘heating’’ mode

test procedure.

I sincerely hope I have supplied enough facts

to warrant a PROMPT, FAVORABLE

RESPONSE to our ‘‘waiver’’ request and to

motivate DOE to IMMEDIATELY grant an

‘‘interim waiver’’.

Respectfully,

J.N. (Jim) Friedrich, CMS,

President.

cc: Mr. Gerry Vandaarvart (Kool-Fire

Research & Development)

Mr. Dave Young (Ontario Hydro)

Mr. Hank Rutkowski, Mechanical Engineer

Mr. Brian Dougherty (NIST)

Mr. Edward Pollock (DOE)

[FR Doc. 95–5291 Filed 3–2–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–4720–8]

Environmental Impact Statements and

Regulations; Availability of EPA

Comments

Availability of EPA comments

prepared January 30, 1995 through

February 03, 1995 pursuant to the

Environmental Review Process (ERP),

under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act

and Section 102(2)(c) of the National

Environmental Policy Act as amended.

Requests for copies of EPA comments

can be directed to the Office of Federal

Activities at (202) 260–5076.

An explanation of the ratings assigned

to draft environmental impact

statements (EISs) was published in the

Federal Register dated April 10, 1994

(59 FR 16807).

Draft EISs

ERP No. D–AFS–J31024–UT Rating

EO2, Blanchett Park Dam and Irrigation

Reservoir, Construction and Operation,

Uintah Water Conservancy District

(UWCD), Special-Use-Permit and COE

Section 404 Permit, Ashley National

Forest, Vernal Ranger District, Uintah

County, UT.

Summary

EPA supported the USFS selection of

No Action as the agency preferred

alternative. EPA expressed

environmental objections with the build

alternative due to the unmitigable

impacts to over 50 acres of montane

peat fen and loss of a portion of a

genetically pure native salmonid

population.

ERP No. D–AFS–L65235–ID Rating

EO2, Boise River Wildfire Recovery

Project, Implementation, North Fork

Boise River and Mores Creek Drainages,

Boise National Forest, Idaho City and

Mountain Home Ranger Districts, Boise

and Elmore Counties, ID.

CAS-RM-79-102 COMMENT 16