[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 42 (Friday, March 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11967-11970]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5291]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
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 [[Page 11968]] 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 burner-
assisted 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 burner-assisted 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 <bullet> P.O. Box 643 <bullet> Massillon, 
Ohio 44648-0643, 216-833-2117 <bullet> Fax 216-833-2494

July 18, 1994.
Ms. Christine Ervin, [[Page 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 all-electric 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 Kool-Fire 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 Kool-Fire'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 
mis-construed 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 mis-represent 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 ``year-round'' 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 [[Page 11970]] 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 well-known 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