4200 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 1997 / Proposed Rules

14. Written Agreements

Designated terms of this policy may be

altered by written agreement in accordance

with the following:

(a) You must apply in writing for each

written agreement no later than the sales

closing date, except as provided in section

14(e);

(b) The application for a written agreement

must contain all variable terms of the

contract between you and us that will be in

effect if the written agreement is not

approved;

(c) If approved, the written agreement will

include all variable terms of the contract,

including, but not limited to, crop type or

variety, the guarantee, premium rate, and

price election;

(d) Each written agreement will be valid for

one year (If the written agreement is not

specifically renewed the following year,

insurance coverage for subsequent crop years

will be in accordance with the printed

policy); and

(e) An application for a written agreement

submitted after the sales closing date may be

approved if, after a physical inspection of the

acreage, it is determined that no loss has

occurred and the crop is insurable in

accordance with the policy and written

agreement provisions.

Signed in Washington, D.C., on January 21,

1997.

Kenneth D. Ackerman,

Manager, Federal Crop Insurance

Corporation.

[FR Doc. 97–2041 Filed 1–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE BILLING CODE 3410–FA–P

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 louvered sides.

9.0 EER.

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

EE-RM-93-801-RAC COMMENT 21
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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 industryrecommended 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

EE-RM-93-801-RAC COMMENT 21