[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 156 (Monday, August 12, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41748-41750]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-20420]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket No. EE-RM-93-801]


Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Energy 
Conservation Standards for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 
Freezers

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy provides notice that the comment 
period is reopened on a proposal to amend the energy conservation 
standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers 
(refrigerator products). The Department is reopening the comment period 
on this proposal to obtain further comment on issues related to the 
appropriate consideration of the relationship between regulations under 
the Clean Air Act banning manufacture of hydrochlorofluorocarbon-141b 
(HCFC-141b) and the effective date and revised standard levels for DOE 
efficiency standards.

DATES: The comment period on this proposal is reopened until September 
11, 1996. The Department requests 10 copies of the comments and, if 
possible, a computer disk.

ADDRESSES: Written comments are to be submitted to: Refrigerator 
Rulemaking (Docket No. EE-RM-93-801), U.S. Department of Energy, Office 
of Codes and Standards, EE-43, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 1J-
018, Washington, D.C. 20585-0121, (202) 586-7574.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael G. Raymond, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building, Mail Station EE-
43, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585-0121, (202) 
586-9611.
Eugene Margolis, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General 
Counsel, Forrestal Building, Mail Station GC-72, 1000 Independence 
Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585-0103, (202) 586-9507.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 20, 1995, the Department issued a notice of proposed 
rulemaking to amend the energy efficiency standards for refrigerator 
products. 60 FR 37388 (July 20, 1995). The proposal described two tiers 
of standards for different products: (1) Standards for products 
manufactured with the current insulation blowing agent, HCFC-141b (the 
``Tier 1 standards''); (2) standards for products manufactured with a 
non-HCFC substitute blowing agent (the ``Tier 2 standards''). The Tier 
1 standards would be more stringent than Tier 2. Overall, the Tier 1 
standards would result in a 30 percent improvement in energy efficiency 
relative to current standards, although the improvement varied 
considerably among the different classes of covered products. The Tier 
2 standards would be less stringent--they would permit use of 10 
percent more energy than the Tier 1 standard for all product classes 
and sizes to compensate for the assumed energy penalty of the 
replacement for HCFC-141b. The revised standards would take effect 
three years after the promulgation of the final rule. The Tier 2 
standards would be in effect for six years, after which time all 
products would be required to meet the Tier 1 standard level. The two 
tiers were developed to accommodate the interrelationship between the 
revised DOE standards and regulations of the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) to implement the Montreal Protocol on 
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the Clean Air Act. The EPA 
regulations will prohibit production and import of HCFC-141b after 
January 1, 2003. 40 CFR Sec. 82.4 (l), (m). The July 1995 notice of 
proposed rulemaking discussed the relationship between the DOE 
standards and the EPA standards, and acknowledged the uncertainty with 
regard to what substitutes for HCFC-141b would be available. 60 FR at 
37396.
    The July 1995 proposed rule was based in large part on a joint 
comment, filed by manufacturers, efficiency advocates, states and 
utilities in November 1994, that made a consensus recommendation on 
revised standards. In September and October of 1995, a number of 
manufacturers submitted comments on the proposed refrigerator standards 
indicating that, for a variety of reasons, they no longer supported the 
imposition of updated standards prior to 2003, and emphasizing the 
continuing uncertainty surrounding the thermal efficiency 
characteristics and costs of insulation produced using a blowing agent 
other than HCFC-141b. Efficiency advocates have indicated that the 
consensus recommendation on standards was based on estimates of the

[[Page 41749]]

efficiency of compressors to be available in 2000, and that if the 
effective date of the standard were delayed to 2003, further 
improvements in compressor efficiency likely to occur by 2003 should be 
considered in adopting any 2003 standard level.
    To inform the development of a final rule on revised refrigerator 
standards, DOE is seeking further comment on these issues related to 
the relationship between revising DOE efficiency standards and EPA 
regulation of HCFCs, and on several options for responding to the 
comments received on this issue to date, as described below. No 
amendment to the July 1995 notice of proposed rulemaking is required to 
address these issues. However, consistent with the Department's 
commitment to providing ample opportunity for public input, DOE has 
concluded that reopening the comment period on these important matters 
is an appropriate step prior to promulgating a final rule.

Possible Responses To Comment on Effective Date and Standard Levels

    To respond to comments about the effective date and uncertainty 
relating to substitute blowing agents, DOE is considering several 
possible adjustments to the standard levels and effective date for 
updated standards described in the July 1995 proposed rule:
    1. DOE could promulgate the two-tiered standards as described in 
the July 1995 proposed rule effective on January 1, 2000. The less 
stringent Tier 2 would phase out 6 years thereafter. This approach 
would probably save more energy than the other approaches listed 
herein, but could result in manufacturers making two significant 
product design changes within a three-year period for some products.
    2. DOE could promulgate the less stringent Tier 2 standards 
effective January 1, 2000, and begin a new rulemaking to consider 
revisions to take effect January 1, 2005. The energy savings from this 
approach could be comparable to the energy savings of the approach 
described in the proposed rule, depending on the outcome of the new 
rulemaking. The effective date of 2000, combined with EPA's 2003 
phaseout date for HCFC-141b, could result in two significant product 
design changes within a three-year period.
    3. DOE could promulgate the less stringent Tier 2 standards 
effective January 1, 2003, and begin a new rulemaking for further 
revised standards to take effect January 1, 2008. This approach would 
fully address manufacturer concerns about timing of redesigns, but 
could sacrifice energy savings because it assumes that there will be a 
10 percent energy penalty for the HCFC-141b substitute.
    4. DOE could promulgate a final rule establishing that the revised 
standards between the Tier 1 and Tier 2 levels would take effect 
January 1, 2003, and that the precise levels would be set in 1999 based 
on a narrow determination concerning the energy penalty, if any, of 
using an HCFC substitute. Because the possible energy penalty of the 
replacement blowing agent is unknown at this time, the Department would 
not establish the final standard until late 1999. Prior to that 
determination, DOE would solicit public comment on the issue of the 
magnitude of the energy penalty for available substitutes of HCFC-141b. 
After identifying blowing agents likely to be used by manufacturers of 
refrigerators produced for the U.S. market, DOE would make a 
determination by the end of 1999 concerning the energy penalty, if any, 
associated with an HCFC-141b substitute that: (1) Will be available for 
use (e.g., satisfies regulatory criteria relating to toxicological 
effects and could be produced in adequate quantities by 2003); (2) 
appears likely to result in the smallest energy penalty (or greatest 
efficiency improvement); and (3) is sufficiently comparable in cost to 
HCFC-141b so as not to require substantial revision of the economic 
analysis supporting the proposed standards. This determination would be 
used to establish specific standard levels for refrigerator products 
within the range between the Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards. Standard 
levels outside this range would not be considered. In determining this 
level, DOE would carefully consider the cost impacts on manufacturers 
of the use of particular HCFC-141b substitutes, using data obtained 
from manufacturers and other interested parties.
    The Tier 1 standards would be the standard if there were no energy 
penalty for the replacement blowing agent relative to HCFC-141b. If the 
energy penalty relative to HCFC-141b is 10 percent or greater, the 
standards would be set at the Tier 2 standards. If the energy penalty 
is determined to be between 0 and 10 percent, the standard would be 
finalized at (1+.01 x ) times the Tier 1 standard. Thus, for instance, 
if the energy penalty was determined to be 5 percent, the standards 
would be set at the mid-point between the Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards.
    This approach addresses manufacturer concerns about the timing of 
the effective date of the revised standards, and addresses the 
uncertainty regarding the energy penalty of substitute blowing agents 
by deferring that narrow question until there is better information. 
This approach achieves significant energy savings in any case, and 
implements the more energy efficient Tier 1 standards if there is no 
energy penalty associated with the HCFC-141b substitute. This approach 
also takes advantage of the bulk of the work done by manufacturers, 
efficiency advocates, states and utilities to develop the joint 
recommendation on refrigerator standards, and the DOE's analytical work 
to support the proposal based on that recommendation.
    5. DOE could promulgate a final rule with the standard level at a 
specified intermediate level between Tier 1 and Tier 2, effective 
January 1, 2003. This approach would require a judgment now about the 
characteristics of likely available HCFC substitutes, but would avoid 
the need for a subsequent determination in 1999.
    6. DOE could promulgate a final rule with two separate product 
classes. The class of refrigerator products manufactured with HCFC and 
hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) foams would be subject to standards at the Tier 
1 level, and the class of refrigerator products manufactured with 
hydrocarbon (HC) foams would be subject to standards at the Tier 2 
level. This approach would require a judgment now about the 
characteristics of likely HFC and HC substitutes for HCFCs, but would 
avoid the need for a subsequent determination in 1999.
    7. DOE could discard the work done to date and start a new 
rulemaking from the outset using the full panoply of procedures and 
policies established in the DOE final rule on procedures for 
consideration of new or revised energy conservation standards issued on 
July 15, 1996. 61 FR 36974 (July 15, 1996).
    DOE's preferred option is that described in item 4 above--
promulgate a final rule establishing that standards will be set in the 
range between Tier 1 and Tier 2 levels effective January 1, 2003, with 
the final levels to be set based on a narrow determination of the 
energy penalty of HCFC-141b substitutes to be made in 1999. This 
approach is consistent with the program policies outlined in the July 
15, 1996, final rule on procedures for developing standards: it 
addresses concerns about mitigating the cumulative impact of multiple 
regulations; it acknowledges uncertainty about a key engineering issue 
and crafts a sensible approach for addressing that uncertainty; and it 
puts to use the hard work of stakeholders to develop a consensus 
recommendation to the DOE on revised standards.

[[Page 41750]]

Issues for Comment

    DOE requests comments and supporting data on any issue related to 
the relationship between the phaseout of HCFC-141b and revised DOE 
standards for refrigerator products. DOE also requests comments on the 
advantages or disadvantages of the approaches described in this notice, 
and particularly on the preferred option as described in item 4 above. 
DOE specifically requests input on the following:
     When should new refrigerator standards take effect? Would 
significant cost savings result from having the standards take effect 
at the same time as the HCFC production ban? Information and data on 
the cost impacts of a refrigerator efficiency standard taking effect in 
2000 combined with a 2003 phaseout of HCFCs are specifically requested.
     What standard level, or range of standard levels, should 
be adopted given current information on blowing agents?
     Is new information available on design options, including 
more efficient compressors, that would indicate that the analysis that 
accompanied the 1995 proposed rule should be redone?
     What blowing agents will be available to replace HCFC-
141b? If there is uncertainty now, will there be sufficient information 
available in 1999 to make this assessment?
     What will be the range of impacts on manufacturers of 
using a substitute blowing agent?
     If a later determination is to be made on energy penalties 
of HCFC-141b substitutes, what procedure should be followed to 
determine the energy penalty and the resulting final standard? If this 
approach is adopted, should the final rule specify a baseline or 
default standard level that would take effect in the event no 
determination is made?
     Under what range of conditions concerning the cost of HCFC 
substitutes, and related manufacturing cost impacts, can the existing 
economic analysis be used?

    Issued in Washington, DC, August 6, 1996.
Christine A. Ervin,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 96-20420 Filed 8-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P