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 of the 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 of the 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 Part 430 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 of proposed 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 of Energy Efficiency and c o he E

o nF n g E DE le of 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 of the statutory authorit ACTION: Final rule; postponement of date for the purpose of modifying Part explanation of the statutory authority to

effective date and reconsideration. 430 of Chapter II of title 10 of the Code make such a proposal upon

SUMMARY: In accordance with the of Federal Regulations. On February 2, reconsideration. During the pendency of

memorandum of January 20, 2001, from 2001, pursuant to President Bush's ARI's petition for judicial 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 of the

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 of the January 22, 2001, obligation to undertake planning and

date of the final rule entitled "Energy final rule, and a group of environmental 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 of the 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 of petitions by the Air- corresponding HSPF of 7.3. However, comment and delayg the effect of

Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute ARI contends that DOE 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 of Appeals for the Fourth 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 of Appeals for the Fourth begin the process of coming into

postponed from April 23, 2001, pending Circuit for judicial review of the 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 of the Administrative likelihood of modification. It also

Register notice. This action is effective Procedure Act (APA), an agency by rule facilitates reconsideration of a final rule

immediately upon publication. may alter the "effective date" of a 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). The judicial review rule under instructions for further

Holtzman, Office of General Counsel, provisions of the 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 that justice so savings. E. McCabe, Office of Energy Efficiency requires, it may postpone the effective

and Renewable Energy, (202) 586-0371, date of action taken by pending it, Issued in Washington, DC on April 18,

ME.McCabe@ee.doe.gov; or Eugene judicial review. . ." (5 U.S.C. 705). 2001.

Margolis, Office of General Counsel, Once the effective date passes, the Eric J. Fygi,

(202) 586-9526, standards set out in the January 22, 2001 Acting General Counsel.

eugene.margolis@hq.doe.gov final rule would become part of the [FR Doc. 01-9975 Filed 4-18-01; 2:13 pm]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant Code of Federal Regulations as an BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

to section 325 of the Energy Policy and effective final rule, and manufacturers

Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295), on would have to begin the process of

January 22, 2001, DOE published a coming into compliance by January 23,

notice of final rulemaking, setting forth 2006. That process involves both

energy conservation standards for planning and capital expenditures.

EE-RM-STD-98-440 COMMENT 201

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 of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy (DOE). 

ACTION: Fili.al 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 

(ARl) 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 

iinmediately 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 

a~vocacy 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 abope 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 in'formal 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 

fu~her 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] 

BILUNG CODe 6450-01-P 

--