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

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