# 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)

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A95-5291

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Notice
- **Published:** March 3, 1995
- **Citation:** 60 FR 11967

## Text

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 P.O. Box 643 Massillon,
Ohio 44648-0643, 216-833-2117 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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A95-5291. Public record. Not legal advice.