[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 29, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4200-4201]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2175]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
10 CFR Part 430
[Docket Numbers EE-RM-93-801 and EE-RM-93-801-RAC]
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products; Room Air
Conditioner Energy Conservation Standards
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Energy
Department.
ACTION: Notice of limited reopening of the record and opportunity for
public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy reopens the record of its rulemaking
to revise the room air conditioner energy conservation standards under
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Notice is given of revised
draft reports on the potential impact of alternative efficiency levels,
various written and oral comments from industry representatives and
energy efficiency advocates, new factual information, and the principal
policy options now under consideration.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 13, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Kathi Epping, 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. A copy of the revised draft Technical Support
Document and other post comment period correspondence is available for
public inspection and copying at the Freedom of Information Reading
Room, U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1E-190, 1000
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586-7574,
between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. Copies of the revised draft Technical Support
Document may be obtained from: 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,
(202) 586-9127.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathi Epping, 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, (202 586-7425, or
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, (202) 586-9507.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 325 of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act (EPCA), 42 U.S.C. 6295, the Department of Energy
(DOE) proposed to revise the energy conservation standards applicable
to room air conditioners, as well as a variety of other consumer
products. 59 FR 10464 (March 4, 1994). Section 325(o)(2) requires that
any amended standard be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in
energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically
justified. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2).
DOE held public hearings and received 12 comments on its proposed
revisions to the room air conditioner energy conservation standards.
After reviewing the comments, DOE concluded that a number of
significant issues had been raised that required additional analysis.
DOE also decided to sever the rulemaking on room air conditioners from
the rulemakings for the other consumer products covered by the notice
of proposed rulemaking.
On May 5, 1996, DOE distributed a copy of the Draft Report on the
Potential Impact of Alternative Energy Efficiency Levels for Room Air
Conditioners (Draft Report), containing DOE's revised analysis
examining five alternative efficiency levels, to a mailing list that
included all of the commenters on the proposed rule on room air
conditioners. (EE-RM-93-801-RAC No. 1 and No. 2.) The letter invited
recipients to comment on the Draft Report by no later than July 1,
1996. A copy of the cover letter and the mailing list has been added to
the record on file for inspection in the DOE Freedom of Information
Reading Room.
On April 23, 1996, the American Council for an Energy Efficient
Economy (ACEEE) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sent a
letter to the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) with
the following table of proposed standard levels:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class Standard level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Units without reverse cycle and with
louvered sides.
Capacity less than 20,000 Btu/h....... 10.0 EER.
Capacity 20,000 Btu/h and more........ 9.0 EER.
Units without reverse cycle and without 9.0 EER.
louvered sides.
Slider/casement and casement-only units... 9.0 EER.
Units with reverse cycle, all capacities.. 0.5 EER less than the
standard for a comparable
cool-only model.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
At a May 21, 1996, meeting at which representatives of ACEEE, AHAM,
and DOE were present, AHAM circulated a handout including a variety of
charts that has been added to the record on file for public inspection
in the DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room. Attachment 3A of the
handout was a chart entitled ``Life Cycle Cost and Payback--Room Air
Conditioners, Effect of Allocating Cost of Chassis Size Change.'' (EE-
RM-93-801-RAC No. 9 at Attachment 3A.)
Between the beginning of June and the end of November, 1996, DOE
received six comments on the Draft Report or related issues. DOE
officials held meetings on September 26 with representatives of AHAM
and interested manufacturers and on September 27 with ACEEE, the
Alliance to Save
[[Page 4201]]
Energy, NRDC, and State energy officials from California, Florida, and
Oregon. Memoranda summarizing these meetings have been added to the
record on file for public inspection in the DOE Freedom of Information
Reading Room. (EE-RM-93-801-RAC No. 11 and No. 12.) The participants in
each meeting were informed as to the discussions during the other
meeting: at the September 27 meeting with energy efficiency advocates,
DOE described the September 26 meeting with the manufacturers, and
after the September 27 meeting, DOE informed AHAM of the discussions at
the September 27 meeting. In these meetings: (1) manufacturers argued
for prorating the cost of increasing chassis size at each efficiency
level; (2) efficiency advocates indicated concern about loopholes that
might be created by establishing considerably lower standard levels for
certain reverse cycle or non-louvered product classes as compared to
their louvered or cool-only counterpart product classes; and (3)
efficiency advocates objected to industry-recommended standard levels
for casement room air conditioners.
On the basis of these inputs, DOE prepared a supplemental analysis
to be appended to the Draft Report that focused on a set of efficiency
levels for the same 9 classes analyzed in the proposed rule. The
Department is inclined to use the same standard for class 6 as it uses
for class 7 and the same standard for classes 9 and 10 as it uses for
class 8, as was done in the proposed rule. A copy of the supplemental
analysis has been added to the record on file for inspection in the DOE
Freedom of Information Reading Room, and DOE is sending a copy to all
commenters on the proposed rule for room air conditioners. (EE-RM-93-
801-RAC No. 13.) The analyzed efficiency levels by class are as
follows:
1. Without reverse cycle and with louvered sides less than
6,000 Btu/h............................................... 9.7 EER.
2. Without reverse cycle and with louvered sides 6,000 to
7,999 Btu/h............................................... 9.7 EER.
3. Without reverse cycle and with louvered sides 8,000 to
13,999 Btu/h.............................................. 9.8 EER.
4. Without reverse cycle and with louvered sides 14,000 to
19,999 Btu/h.............................................. 9.7 EER.
5. Without reverse cycle and with louvered sides 20,000 and
more Btu/h................................................ 8.5 EER.
* * * * *
7. Without reverse cycle and without louvered sides 6,000
to 7,999 Btu/h............................................ 9.0 EER.
8. Without reverse cycle and without louvered sides 8,000
to 13,999 Btu/h........................................... 8.5 EER.
* * * * *
11. With reverse cycle, and with louvered sides............ 9.0 EER.
12. With reverse cycle, without louvered sides............. 8.5 EER.
For some classes, there was a coincidence of views between the
energy efficiency advocates and AHAM on the efficiency level. As to
classes 1 through 5, there was disagreement about how to take into
account the cost of increasing chassis size. DOE has chosen to analyze
efficiency levels corresponding to the minimum life cycle costs when
chassis size cost is prorated. (See Attachment 3A.)
With respect to class 8, manufacturers commented that under the
1990 standards they were forced to reduce the highest capacity models
within this product class. They argue that increasing the standard
(currently at 8.5 EER) for this class will again eliminate higher
capacity models within the class from the market. (EE-RM-93-801 No. 544
at 5.) According to the 1996 AHAM Directory, the highest capacity model
available without louvered sides and without a reverse cycle is 12,500
Btu/h with an EER of 8.5. In addition, only one manufacturer currently
makes units at a capacity of 9,000 Btu/h or higher which would meet the
9.0 standard recommended by ACEEE and NRDC. The Department believes
that raising the current standard for this class risks eliminating
higher capacity models within this class, and therefore, the Department
is not inclined to raise the standard for this class.
For the final rule, DOE is inclined to split classes 11 and 12.
ACEEE, NRDC, and AHAM all recommended using a .5 differential between
reverse cycle units and their ``cool-only'' counterparts. (EE-RM-93-
801-RAC No. 3 and EE-RM-93-801 No. 1 at 21.) For units with reverse
cycle and louvered sides, the energy efficiency advocates are willing
to accept an EER of 9.0. (EE-RM-93-801-RAC No. 5 at 5.) AHAM finds this
level to be acceptable for units with capacities less than 20,000 Btu/
h. However, for units at 20,000 Btu/h or more, AHAM argues that the
standard should not be higher than the standard for its ``cool-only''
counterpart. (EE-RM-93-801-RAC No. 6 at 3.) The Department is inclined
to agree. By splitting the class 11 at 20,000 Btu/h, the Department can
raise the standard for most of the units with reverse cycle and with
louvers without raising the standard for units of capacities of 20,000
Btu/h or more above the 8.5 EER of its cool-only counterpart.
Similarly, the Department is inclined to split class 12, and set
the standard for units less than 14,000 Btu/h at 8.5 EER while keeping
the standard for units of 14,000 Btu/h or more at 8.0 EER. This split
would follow the recommendation of a .5 differential between reverse
cycle units and their ``cool-only'' counterparts for the standards for
units without louvers proposed by the ACEEE and NRDC. Similarly, it
would follow the recommendation of a .5 differential between reverse
cycle units and their ``cool-only'' counterparts for the standards
proposed by AHAM with the exception of units in the 8,000-13,999 Btu/h
capacity range. However, according to the 1996 AHAM directory, only one
model with reverse cycle and without louvers in this capacity range
does not meet an 8.5 EER.
In the notice of proposed rulemaking, DOE proposed standard levels
for all product classes, other than casement room air conditioners. For
the final rule, DOE is inclined to use the efficiency standard
recommended by AHAM, ACEEE, and NRDC for casement-slider units (9.5
EER) (EE-RM-93-801-RAC No. 6 at 2 and EE-RM-93-801-RAC No. 5 at 5) and
the standard recommended by AHAM for casement-only units (8.7 EER).
(EE-RM-93-801-RAC No. 6 at 2.) For the purposes of this rulemaking, a
casement-type unit is defined as a 14 x 11 inch or smaller unit used in
a casement-only or casement-slider window. Although the efficiency
advocates argued for a higher standard level for casement-only units
(EE-RM-93-801-RAC No. 5 at 3-4), they did not provide the supporting
analysis that would warrant adoption of that level.
The Department is providing a 15 day comment period because all the
interested parties who have actively participated in this rulemaking
are familiar with most of the information on which this notice is based
and have already been given extensive opportunities to make their views
known to each other and to DOE.
Issued in Washington, D.C., on January 23, 1997.
Christine A. Ervin,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 97-2175 Filed 1-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P