### 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

### 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 ofFederal 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.

### 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 , and locks the unit off, ' 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 of

Hearings 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 Corporatio n . Tulsa

. OMatoma
......._...._... BFA-0494 .....,,... Appeal of an Information Request Denial. If granted : The September 11, 1980
, denial ofa 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 a n d 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.