## EE-RM/STD-98-440

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY central air conditioners and central air DOE is ofthe view that ARI has raised conditioning heat pumps that are not some substantial questions about the Office of Energy Efficiency and yet effective and will not be enforceable legal sustainability ofthe January 22, Renewable Energy against manufacturers until January 23, 2001, final rule. Consistent with 2006 (66 FR 7170). The existing Executive Order 12866 and 10 CFR Part430 standards require a Seasonal Energy consultations with the Office of [Docket No. EERM-98-440Efficiency Rating (SEER) of 10 for split Management and Budget, DOE intends [Docket No. EE-RM-systems with a corresponding Heating within the next 60 days to issue a RIN 1904-AA77 System Performance Rating (HSPF) of further notice ofproposed rulemaking to 6.8 and a SEER of 9.7 for single package revise the standard levels set out in the Energy Conservation Program for systems with a corresponding HSPF of January 22 2001 final rule and examine Consumer Products; Central Air 6.6 (42 U.S.C. 6295(d)(1)). The January th a extent t, which current minimum Conditioners and Heat Pumps Energy 22, 2001, final rule would require a e e e n t c h c u e n t Conservation Standards SEER of 13 for all systems with a be inred eneg effiienc levels are to corresonn of 77 be increased in 2006. In that notice, AGENCY: Office ofEnergy Efficiency and c o he E o n F n g EDE leof e J y DOE intends to propose a 12 SEER with
RenewabyDOE). E

, Dt of 22, 2001, notice of final rulemaking a corresponding 7.4HSPF. DOE will Energy (DOE). also invite public comment on its nergy forth February 21, 2001, as the effective x planation ofthe statutory authorit ACTION: Final rule; postponement of date for the purpose of modifying Part explanation ofthe statutory authority to effective date and reconsideration. 430 ofChapter II oftitle 10 ofthe Code make such aproposal upon
SUMMARY: In accordance with the of Federal Regulations. On February 2, reconsideration. During the pendency of memorandum ofJanuary 20, 2001, from 2001, pursuant to President Bush's ARI's petition forjudicial review and the Assistant to the President and Chief Regulatory Review Plan, DOE published the related petition for administrative of Staff, entitled "Regulatory Review a final rule postponing the effective date reconsideration, justice requires that Plan," published in the Federal Register from February 21, 2001, to April 23, DOE postpone the effective date ofthe

on January 24, 2001 (66 FR 7702), DOE 2001 (66 FR 8745). January 22, 2001, final rule, in order to temporarily delayed for 60 days (66 FR Subsequently, ARI petitioned DOE for avoid imposing on manufacturers an 8745, February 2, 2001) the effective reconsideration ofthe January 22, 2001, obligation to undertake planning and date ofthe final rule entitled "Energy final rule, and a group ofenvironmental capital expenditures to come into Conservation Program for Consumer advocacy organizations have responded compliance by January 23, 2006, with a Products; Central Air Conditioners and with a statement in opposition to rule DOE is reconsidering. Heat Pumps Energy Conservation reconsideration. In its petition, ARI To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies Standards published in the Federal acknowledges that the rulemaking to this action, it is exempt from notice Register on January 22, 2001 (66 FR record will support a 20 percent and comment procedures based on the 7170). DOE today gives notice of further increase ofthe minimum required good cause exceptions in 5 U.S.C. postponement of the effective date of energy efficiency levels in the existing 553(b(B) and 553(d)(3). Seeking public the January 22, 2001, final rule pending standards to a SEER of 12 with a 5 B and del

. Seeing puef the outcome ofpetitions bythe Air- corresponding HSPF of 7.3. However, comment and delayg the effect of Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute ARI contends thatDOE unfairly and today's action are impracticable, (ARI) for reconsideration by DOE and erroneously raised the standard levels unnecessary, and contrary to the public for judicial review by the United States by 30 percent aboe the existing interest for several reasons. Court ofAppeals for theFourth Circuit. standards to a SEER of 13 with a Postponementofthe imminent effectve DATES: The effective date of the rule corresponding HSPF of 7.7. On March date of April 23, 2001, avoids confusion amending 10 CFR Part 430 published at 19, 2001, ARI also petitioned the United among manufacturers as to whether to
66 FR 7170, January 22, 2001, is further States Court ofAppeals for the Fourth begin the process of coming into postponed from April 23, 2001, pending Circuit forjudicial review ofthe final compliance. It avoids expenditures by
te otome

of petitions rule. manufacturers in reliance on a rule with administrative reconsideration and Under the informal rulemaking respect to which there is a significant judicial review and further Federal provisions oftheAdministrative likelihood ofmodification. It also Register notice. This action is effective Procedure Act (APA), an agency by rule facilitates reconsideration ofa final rule immediately upon publication. may alter the "effective date" ofa that, if allowed to take effect, might well previously published final rule (5 U.S.C. result in a court order remanding the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill 551(4), 551(5), 553). Thejudicial review rule under instructions for further Holtzman, Office of General Counsel, provisions ofthe APA also provide for action thereby producing delay in (202)586-410,Dr Michael a change of"effective date" as follows: realizing the anticipated energy and cost jill.holtzmanb hq.doe.gov; Dr.Michael "When an agency finds thatjustice so savings. E. McCabe, Office ofEnergy Efficiency requires, itmay postpone the effective and Renewable Energy, (202) 586-0371, date of action taken by it, pending Issued in Washington, DC on April 18, ME.McCabe@ee.doe.gov; or Eugene judicial review. . ." (5 U.S.C. 705). 2001. Margolis, Office ofGeneral Counsel, Once the effective date passes, the Eric J.Fygi, (202) 586-9526, standards set out in the January 22, 2001 Acting GeneralCounsel. eugene.margolis@hq.doe.gov final rule would become part ofthe [FR Doc. 01-9975 Filed 4-18-01; 2:13 pm]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant Code ofFederal Regulations as an BILLING CODE 6450-01-P to section 325 ofthe Energy Policy and effective final rule, and manufacturers Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295), on would have tobegin the process of January 22, 2001, DOE published a coming into compliance by January 23, notice offinal rulemaking, setting forth 2006. That process involves both
energy conservation standards for planning and capital expenditures. 

## EE_RM/STO-98-440

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-98-440J

RIN 1904-AA77
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products; Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Energy Conservation Standards

AGENCY: 

### Office ofEnergyEfficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: 

### Fili.al rule; postponement of effective date andreconsideration.

SUMMARY: 

### In accordance withthe memorandum ofJanuary 20, 2001, from the Assistant to the President and Chief ofStaff, entitled "RegulatoryReview 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 ofthe final rule entitled "Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products; Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Energy Conservation Standards publishedin the Federal Register on January 22, 2001 (66 FR 7170). DOE today gives notice offurther postponement ofthe effective date of the January 22, 2001, final rule pending the outcome ofpetitions bytheAirConditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARl) 

### for reconsideration byDOE and forjudicial reviewby the United States Court ofAppeals for theFourthCircuit.

DATES: 

### The effective date oftherule amending 10CFR 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 iinmediately uponpublication.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

### Jill Holtzman, Office ofGeneral Counsel, (202) 586-3410, jill.holtzman@hq.doe.gov; Dr. Michael E. McCabe, Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, (202) 586-0371, ME.McCabe@ee.doe.gov; orEugene Margolis. Office ofGeneral Counsel, (202) 586-9526. eugene.margolis@hq.doe.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

### Pursuant
to section 325 ofthe Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.c. 6295). on January 22. 2001. DOE published a notice offinal rulemaking. setting forth energy conservation standards for central air conditioners and central air conditioning heatpumpsthat are not yet effective andwill notbe enforceable against manufacturers untilJanuary 23, 2006 (66 FR 

### 7170). Theexisting standardsrequire a Seasonal Energy Efficiency Rating (SEER) of 10 for split systems with a corresponding Heating SystemPerformanceRating (HSPF) of 6.8 and a SEER of9.7 for single package systems with a corresponding HSPF of 6.6 (42 U.S.C. 6295(d)(1)). TheJanuary 22, 2001, final rulewouldrequire a SEER of 13 for all systems with a corresponding HSPF of7.7.

The EFFECTIVE DATE 

### line oftheJanuary 22,2001, notice offinal rulemaking set forth February 21, 2001, as the effective date for the purpose ofmodifying Part 430 ofChapter II

### oftitle 10 ofthe Code ofFederalRegulations. OnFebruary 2, 2001, pursuanttoPresidentBush'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 oftheJanuary 22, 2001, final rule, and a group ofenvironmental**a~vocacy** 

### organizations have responded With a statement in oppositionto reconsideration. In its petition, ARI acknowledges that the rulemaking record will support a 20 percent increase ofthe minimumrequired energy efficiency levels inthe existing standards to a SEER of 12 with a corresponding HSPF of7.3. However, ARI contends thatDOE unfairly and erroneouslyraised the standard levels by 30 percent abope the existing standards to a SEER of 13 with a corresponding HSPF of7.7. 

### On March 19,2001,ARI also petitioned the United States Court ofAppeals for the Fourth Circuit forjudicial review ofthe final rule. /

Underthe in'formal rulemaking provisions oftheAdministrative Procedure Act (APA). an agency by rule may alter the "effective date" ofa previouslypublished final rule (5 

### U.S.C. 551(4). 551(5), 553). Thejudicial review provisions ofthe APA also provide for

a change of"effective date" as follows: "Whenanagency finds thatjustice so requires, it may postpone the effective date ofaction taken by it, pending judicial review

...." (5 U.S.c. 705). Once the effective date passes, the standards set outin the January 22. 2001 final rule wouldbecome part ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations as an effective final rule, and manufacturers would have tobegin the process of coming into compliance by January 23. 2006. That process involvesboth planning and capital expenditures. DOE is ofthe viewthat ARI hasraised

some substantial questions about the legal sustainability oftheJanuary 22, 2001, final rule. Consistent with Executive Order 12866 and consultations withthe Office of Management and Budget, DOE intends within the next 60 days to issue a**fu~her** 

### notice ofproposedrulemakingto 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. Inthatnotice, DOE intends to propose a 12 SEERwith

a corresponding 7.4 HSPF. DOE will also invitepublic comment on its explanation ofthe statutoryauthorityto make such a proposal upon reconsideration. During the pendencyof ARI's petition forjudicialreview and the related petitionfor administrative reconsideration,justice requires that DOE postpone the effective date ofthe January 22, 2001, final rule, inorderto avoid imposing on manufacturers an obligation to undertake planning and capital expenditures to come into complianceby January 23, 2006, with a rule DOE is reconsidering.

To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies
to this action, it is exemptfrom notice and commentproceduresbased onthe 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 oftheimminent effective date ofApril 23, 2001, avoids confusion among manufacturers as to whetherto begin the process ofcoming into compliance. It avoids expendituresby 

### manufacturers inreliance on a rule with respect to which there is a significant likelihood ofmodification. It 

### also facilitates reconsideration ofa final rule that. ifallowed to take effect, might well result in a court orderremanding the rule under instructions for further action thereby producing delay in realizing the anticipated energy and cost savings.

Issued inWashington. DC on

### April 18. 2001.
Eric 

### J. Fygi, ActingGeneral Counsel. [FR Doc. 01-9975 Filed 4-18-01; 2:13 

### pm]

BILUNG CODe 6450-01-P 

# --