Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 20191

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket No. EE–RM–98–440]

RIN 1904–AA77

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products; Central Air

Conditioners and Heat Pumps Energy

Conservation Standards

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Department of

Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Final rule; postponement of

effective date and reconsideration.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

memorandum of January 20, 2001, from

the Assistant to the President and Chief

of Staff, entitled ‘‘Regulatory Review

Plan,’’ published in the Federal Register

on January 24, 2001 (66 FR 7702), DOE

temporarily delayed for 60 days (66 FR

8745, February 2, 2001) the effective

date of the final rule entitled ‘‘Energy

Conservation Program for Consumer

Products; Central Air Conditioners and

Heat Pumps Energy Conservation

Standards published in the Federal

Register on January 22, 2001 (66 FR

7170). DOE today gives notice of further

postponement of the effective date of

the January 22, 2001, final rule pending

the outcome of petitions by the AirConditioning and Refrigeration Institute

(ARI) for reconsideration by DOE and

for judicial review by the United States

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

DATES: The effective date of the rule

amending 10 CFR Part 430 published at

66 FR 7170, January 22, 2001, is further

postponed from April 23, 2001, pending

the outcome of petitions for

administrative reconsideration and

judicial review and further Federal

Register notice. This action is effective

immediately upon publication.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill

Holtzman, Office of General Counsel,

(202) 586–3410,

jill.holtzman@hq.doe.gov; Dr. Michael

E. McCabe, Office of Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy, (202) 586–0371,

ME.McCabe@ee.doe.gov; or Eugene

Margolis, Office of General Counsel,

(202) 586–9526,

eugene.margolis@hq.doe.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to section 325 of the Energy Policy and

Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295), on

January 22, 2001, DOE published a

notice of final rulemaking, setting forth

energy conservation standards for

central air conditioners and central air

conditioning heat pumps that are not

yet effective and will not be enforceable

against manufacturers until January 23,

2006 (66 FR 7170). The existing

standards require a Seasonal Energy

Efficiency Rating (SEER) of 10 for split

systems with a corresponding Heating

System Performance Rating (HSPF) of

6.8 and a SEER of 9.7 for single package

systems with a corresponding HSPF of

6.6 (42 U.S.C. 6295(d)(1)). The January

22, 2001, final rule would require a

SEER of 13 for all systems with a

corresponding HSPF of 7.7.

The EFFECTIVE DATE line of the January

22, 2001, notice of final rulemaking set

forth February 21, 2001, as the effective

date for the purpose of modifying Part

430 of Chapter II of title 10 of the Code

of Federal Regulations. On February 2,

2001, pursuant to President Bush’s

Regulatory Review Plan, DOE published

a final rule postponing the effective date

from February 21, 2001, to April 23,

2001 (66 FR 8745).

Subsequently, ARI petitioned DOE for

reconsideration of the January 22, 2001,

final rule, and a group of environmental

advocacy organizations have responded

with a statement in opposition to

reconsideration. In its petition, ARI

acknowledges that the rulemaking

record will support a 20 percent

increase of the minimum required

energy efficiency levels in the existing

standards to a SEER of 12 with a

corresponding HSPF of 7.3. However,

ARI contends that DOE unfairly and

erroneously raised the standard levels

by 30 percent above the existing

standards to a SEER of 13 with a

corresponding HSPF of 7.7. On March

19, 2001, ARI also petitioned the United

States Court of Appeals for the Fourth

Circuit for judicial review of the final

rule.

Under the informal rulemaking

provisions of the Administrative

Procedure Act (APA), an agency by rule

may alter the ‘‘effective date’’ of a

previously published final rule (5 U.S.C.

551(4), 551(5), 553). The judicial review

provisions of the APA also provide for

a change of ‘‘effective date’’ as follows:

‘‘When an agency finds that justice so

requires, it may postpone the effective

date of action taken by it, pending

judicial review. . . .’’ (5 U.S.C. 705).

Once the effective date passes, the

standards set out in the January 22, 2001

final rule would become part of the

Code of Federal Regulations as an

effective final rule, and manufacturers

would have to begin the process of

coming into compliance by January 23,

2006. That process involves both

planning and capital expenditures.

DOE is of the view that ARI has raised

some substantial questions about the

legal sustainability of the January 22,

2001, final rule. Consistent with

Executive Order 12866 and

consultations with the Office of

Management and Budget, DOE intends

within the next 60 days to issue a

further notice of proposed rulemaking to

revise the standard levels set out in the

January 22, 2001, final rule and examine

the extent to which current minimum

required energy efficiency levels are to

be increased in 2006. In that notice,

DOE intends to propose a 12 SEER with

a corresponding 7.4 HSPF. DOE will

also invite public comment on its

explanation of the statutory authority to

make such a proposal upon

reconsideration. During the pendency of

ARI’s petition for judicial review and

the related petition for administrative

reconsideration, justice requires that

DOE postpone the effective date of the

January 22, 2001, final rule, in order to

avoid imposing on manufacturers an

obligation to undertake planning and

capital expenditures to come into

compliance by January 23, 2006, with a

rule DOE is reconsidering.

To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies

to this action, it is exempt from notice

and comment procedures based on the

good cause exceptions in 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3). Seeking public

comment and delaying the effect of

today’s action are impracticable,

unnecessary, and contrary to the public

interest for several reasons.

Postponement of the imminent effective

date of April 23, 2001, avoids confusion

among manufacturers as to whether to

begin the process of coming into

compliance. It avoids expenditures by

manufacturers in reliance on a rule with

respect to which there is a significant

likelihood of modification. It also

facilitates reconsideration of a final rule

that, if allowed to take effect, might well

result in a court order remanding the

rule under instructions for further

action thereby producing delay in

realizing the anticipated energy and cost

savings.

Issued in Washington, DC on April 18,

2001.

Eric J. Fygi,

Acting General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 01–9975 Filed 4–18–01; 2:13 pm]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P


 EE-RM-STD-98-440 COMMENT 312