### Federal Register! Vol. 69, No. 158

### /Tuesday, August 17, 2004

### /Rules 

### and Regulations 50997

Therefore, forthe reasons given in the interimrule and in this document, we
are adopting the interim rule as a final rule without change.

This action also affirms the information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Orders 12372 and 12988, and the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Further, forthis action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review underExecutive Order 12866.
List ofSubjects in 7 CFR Part 301

Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE NOTICES



### • Accordingly,we are adopting as a final rule, without change, the interimrule that amended 7 CFR part 301 and that

was puhlished at 68 FR 43286—43287 on July 22, 2003.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701—7772: 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

Section 301.75—15 also issued under Sec. 204, Title 11, Pub. L. 106—113, 113 Stat. 1501A—293; sections 301.75—15 and 301.75— 16 also issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Pub. L. 106—224, 114 Stat. 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note).

Done inWashington, DC, this 11th day of August 2004. W. 

### Ron Dellaven, Administrator, AnimalandPlontHealth Inspection Service. [FR Doc. 04—18784 Filed 8—16—04; 6:45 am]

BILLING CODB 3410—34—P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part430 [Docket NumberEE—RM—98—440J
RIN 1904—A846
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products; Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Energy Conservation Standards

AGENCY: Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment. apply to residential central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps beginning on January 23, 2006. More specifically, this technical amendment replaces standard levels currently in the Code ofFederal Regulations, which were established by

a final rule puhlishedby DOE on May 23, 2002, with standard levels that were set forth in a final rule publishedby DOE on January 22, 2001. As explained in the Supplementary Information section ofthis notice, the U.S. Court of Appeals forthe Second Circuit has ruled that DOE’s withdrawal ofthe rule published onJanuary 22, 2001, was unlawful, and, therefore, that certain standards promulgated in the May 23, 2002, final rule are invalid. DOE has decided not to seek furtherreview of thatruling. Consequently, DOE is now revising its regulations consistentwith the court’s ruling.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 21, 2001. ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to littpil! www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ appliance_standards/residential! ac_central.litml and/orvisitthe U.S. Department ofEnergy, Forrestal Building, Room 1J—018 (Resource Room ofthe Building Technologies Program), 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, (202) 586—9127, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones at the abovetelephone numberfor additional information regarding visiting the Resource Room. Please note: The Department’s Freedom of Information Reading Room (formerly Room 1E—190 at the Forrestal Building) is no longerhousing rulemaking materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Raymond, Project Manager, Energy Conservation Standards for Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, Docket No. EERM—440, EE—2J/ Forrestal Building, U.S. Department of Energy, Office ofBuilding Technologies, EE—2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585—0121, (202) 586—9611. E-mail: michael.raymand@ee.dae.gav.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:


### I. Background

The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA) (Pub. L. 100—12) established energy efficiency standards forvarious

consumer products, including residential central air conditioners, and directed DOE to undertake periodic rulemakings to decide whetherto amend those standards. NAECA also amended the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) to provide, in section 325(o)(1), that when DOE reviews efficiency standards, it “may
not prescribe any amended standard which increases the maximum allowable energy use * * * or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency” ofa covered product (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)).

On January 22, 2001, DOE published



### a rule in the Federal Register amending the efficiency standard for central air conditioners established by NAECA by increasing the standard from 10 to 13 SEER (“seasonal energy efficiency ratio”), a 30% increase in energy efficiency. 66 FR 7170. The rule stated it would become effective on February 21, 2001, but manufacturers’ products would not have to meet the 13 SEER standard until January 23, 2006. On January 24, 2001, the President’s Chief ofStaffissued a memorandum asking Executive Branch agencies to review ongoing rulemaking proceedings and to postpone the effective dates ofany new regulations already published in the 

### Federal Registerbut notyet effective, pending completion ofsuch review. DOE accordingly issued a rule delaying the effective date afthe central air conditionerrule published on January 22, 2001, in orderto conductthat review. 66 FR 8745. DOE also received

apetition from the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ART), an association ofair conditioner manufacturers, asking DOE to reconsiderthe 13 SEER standard. On May 23, 2002, DOE withdrewthe 13 SEERrule and promulgated a new rule establishing a 12 SEER efficiency standard, a 20% increase in energy efficiency. 67 FR 36368.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and various public interest groups,joined by several state Attorneys General, filed suit in federal district court, and alternatively in the U.S. Court ofAppeals forthe Second Circuit, challenging DOE’s withdrawal ofthe 13 SEER rule and promulgation ofthe 12 SEER standard. Among other things, they alleged that section 325(o)(1) ofEPCA precluded DOE from adopting the 12 SEERrule.



### On January 13, 2004, the U.S. Court ofAppeals forthe Second Circuit decided that once DOE published the 13 SEERrule for central air conditioners in 

### the Federal Register, DOE was precluded from subsequently adopting a lower standard for those products. Thus, DOE’s actions ofwithdrawing the 13 SEER standard and promulgating the 12 SEER standard violated section 325(o)(1). Natural Resources Defense SUMMARY: The Department ofEnergy (DOE) is revising the Code ofFederal Regulations to incorporate certain energy conservation standards that will

### 50998 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 158/Tuesday, August 17, 2004/Rules and Regulations

CounciL eta]. v. 

### Abraham, 355 

### F.3d 179 (2nd Cir. 2004). The court’s written opinion disclaimed any intentto affect

a challenge to the 13 SEER standard that AM and certain manufacturers had filed in the U.S. Court ofAppeals forthe Fourth Circuit. Nonetheless, AM and the manufacturers whojoined it in the Fourth Circuit lawsuit subsequently withdrew their challenge to the 13 SEER rule, citing the need forregulatory certainty.

On April 2, 2004, DOE publicly announced that, in the interest ofgiving all affectedpersons regulatory certainty, DOE would not appeal or seek further review ofthe ruling ofthe U.S. Court of Appeals forthe Second Circuit. As a result, the 13 SEER standard will apply to covered conventional central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps manufactured

on or afterJanuary 23, 2006. Today’s technical amendment places those standards in the Code ofFederal Regulations.

II. 

### Summary ofToday’s Action

DOE is revising the energy conservation standards for split system and single package central air conditioners and central air conditioning heatpumps in 10 CFR 430.32(c)(2). The standards currently set forth in the Code ofFederal Regulations

are 12 SEER for split system and single package air conditioners, and 12 SEER, 7.4 HSPF (“heating system performance factor”) for split system and single package heat pumps. DOE is replacing these standards with the following standards established in the January 22, 2001 final rule: 13 SEER for split system and single package air conditioners, and
13 SEER, 7.7 HSPF for split system and single package heat pumps.

The January 22, 2001, final rule also established a separate product class of “space constrained products,” but it did not establish amended standard levels forthose products. DOE explained in the preamble to the January 22, 2001, final rule that it was concemedthat air conditioners and heat pumps intended to serve applications with severe space constraints would have difficulty in meeting the 13 SEER standard. 66 FR 7196. Therefore, DOE established a separate product class for space constrained products and reserved setting standard levels forthat class pending completion oflaterrulemaking proceedings. Subsequently, in the rulemaking culminating in the May 23, 2002, final rule, DOE determined that 12 SEER was the appropriate standard level for all space constrained products except those with through-the-wall condensers, andthe final rule established lower standards forthroughthe-wall products. 67 FR 36402—03, 36406. The standards established for space constrainedproducts in the May 23, 2002, final rule are unaffectedby the January 13, 2004, ruling ofthe U.S. Court ofAppeals forthe Second Circuit because the January 22, 2001, final rule
set no standards forthese products and, thus, section 325(o)(1) ofEPCA does not affectthe validity ofthe standards for these products that were published on May 23, 2002.

The May 23, 2002, final rule set forth

a compliance date ofJanuary 23, 2006, for all ofthe efficiency standards promulgated in thatrule, including the standards for space-constrained products. This is the same compliance date set forth in the January 22, 2001, final rule forthe standards promulgated in that rule. The May 23, 2002, rule’s preamble discussedwhy DOE was adopting the January 23, 2006, compliance date. 67 FR 36394. DOE recognizedthatby adopting that date, the time between publication ofthe May 23, 2002 rule and the compliance date would be less than the five-yearinterval provided in the statute (42 U.S.C. 6295(d)(3)(A)). DOE explained that when it cannot meet a statutory deadline to promulgate arule (as was the case with the products coveredby the January 22, 2001, and May 23, 2002, final rules), it generally will adjustthe date such rulebecomes enforceableto allow forthe same amount oflead time

as provided in the statute, but that in special circumstances DOE will not follow that practice. DOE stated it would set the effective date forthe standards adopted in the May 23, 2002, final rule at less than five years fromthe date ofpublication because all ofthe participants in the rulemaking, including representatives ofthe manufacturers who would have to comply with the standards and who had expressed a view about the matter, had agreed that five years oflead time was not needed for central air conditioner manufacturers to come into compliance with the standards adopted in the May 23, 2002, final rule. DOE stated, however, that 

### if, as aresult of unforeseen circumstances, a particular manufacturercould show hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of burdens, the effective date wouldbe subject to case-by-case exception pursuantto the authority ofthe DOE Office ofHearings and Appeals under section 504 ofthe Department ofEnergy OrganizationAct (42 U.S.C. 7194), as implemented at subpart B of 10 CFR 

### part 1003.

DOE is today adding to 

### §430.2 the definition of“space constrained product” that was containedin the January 22, 2001, final rule and adding the following standard levels set in the May 23, 2002, final rule: 12 SEER for space constrained air conditioners, and 12 SEER, 7.4 HSPF for space constrained heat pumps. The standards forthrough-the-wall air conditioners 

### and heatpumps, which fall within the definition of“space constrained product,” were set in the May 23, 2002, final rule, and are: 10.9 SEER, 7.1 HSPF for split systems and 10.6 SEER, 7.0 HSPF for single package systems. The definition of“through-the-wall air conditioner and heatpump” in 

### § 430.2 provides thatthis product class exists only forproducts manufactured priorto January 23, 2010. Afterthat date, the standards for space constrained products will apply to these throughthe-wall air conditioners and heat pumps.

The January 22, 2001, final rule did not establish a separate product class for covered central air conditioners that are small duct, high velocity systems, and the rule did not establish separate standards forthem; nor arethese products “space constrained products” 

### (see discussion at 66 FR 7197). Therefore, small duct, high velocity systems are coveredby the 13 SEER standard. However, in the May 23, 2002, notice offinal rulemaking, DOE explained that information obtained in the rulemaking proceeding indicated that the special characteristics ofsmall duct, high velocity systems made it unlikely such systems could even meet the 12 SEERI7.4 HSPF standard established for conventional products. 67 FR 36396. As a result, DOE included the NAECA-prescribedvalues for small duct, high velocity systems inthe Code ofFederal Regulations pending a later rulemaking to establish appropriate standards forthat product class. Because the Second Circuit’s ruling prevents DOE from adopting a standard lowerthan 13 SEER for small duct, high velocity systems, despite DOE’s later conclusion that it is unlikely such systems can meet even the lower 12 SEER standard, DOE has advised the two manufacturers ofthese systems of the procedure available to affected persons under section 504 ofthe Department ofEnergy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7194), which allows themto request relieffrom hardship or inequity caused by aregulation issued under EPCA.

Lastly, DOE is revising 

### § 430.2 to

remove several definitions that were included to implement DOE’s interpretation ofsection 325(o)(1) of EPCA contained in the preamble ofthe May 23, 2002, final rule. Because its

### Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 158/Tuesday, August 17, 2004/Rules and Regulations 

### 50999

interpretation has been rejectedby the U.S. 

### Court ofAppeals forthe Second Circuit, DOE is removing the definitions 

### of“effective date,” “maximum allowable energy use,” “maximum allowable wateruse,” and “minimum required energy efficiency.”

ifi. Procedural Requirements

A. Public Comment



### Section 553 

### ofthe Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) 

### generally requires agencies to provide notice and

an opportunity forpublic comment on substantive rules. The requirement does
not apply, however, ifthe agency 

### determines that notice and opportunity forpublic comment is “impracticable, 

### unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” DOE finds that good cause exists for dispensing with notice and opportunity forpublic comment in issuing today’s rule because those procedures 

### are unnecessary where, as here, the agency has no discretion in fashioning its rule. Today’s final rule simply conforms the Code ofFederal Regulations to the order ofthe U.S. Court ofAppeals forthe Second Circuit, and DOE has no discretionto deviate from the court’s ruling. Forthis reason, DOE has characterized 

### today’s rule as a “technical amendment” in the Action line atthe beginning ofthis notice of final rulemaking.

B. Review UnderExecutive Order 12866

The Office ofInformation 

### and Regulatory Affairs ofthe Office of 

### Management and Budget (0MB) has determined thattoday’s regulatory action is a “significantregulatory action” underExecutive Order 12866, 

### “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, DOE submitted today’s notice to 0MB for clearance under the 

### Executive Order. 0MB has completed its review.

C. Review Underthe Regulotory FlexibilityAct



### The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation ofan initial regulatory flexibility 

### analysis forany rule thatby law must be proposed forpublic comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant 

### economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall 

### entities. As required by Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration ofSmall Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts ofits rules on small entities are properly considered during the rulemaking process (68 FR 7990). DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office ofGeneral Counsel’s Web site: 

### http:// www.gc.doe.gov. DOE today is simply revising the Code ofFederal Regulations
to comply with the order ofthe U.S. Court ofAppeals forthe Second Circuit. Because the energy conservation standards in this rule were established in priorfinal rules thathave taken effect, today’s rule does not establish any new requirements for any entity. On this basis, DOE certifies that this final 

### rule will nothave a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities.

D. Review Underthe Poperwork Reduction Act

This rulemaking will impose no new information orrecordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 0MB clearance is notrequired underthe PaperworkReduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

E. Review Underthe Notionol EnvironmentolPolicyAct

DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class ofactions that are 

### categorically excluded from review underthe National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the Department’s implementing regulations at 10 CFR

### part 1021. This rule is a technical amendmentthatreinstates, pursuantto 

### court order, amended energy conservation standards for central air 

### conditioners and heat pumps thatwere published in the Federal Register on January 22, 2001. DOE has therefore determined thatthis rule is coveredby the Categorical Exclusion in paragraph A6 to subpartD, 10 CFR

### part 1021, which applies to rulemakings that are strictly procedural. Accordingly, neither

an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 

### required.

F. Review UnderExecutive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies

orregulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. The 

### Executive Orderrequires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion ofthe States and carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies
to have an accountable process to

ensure meaningful and timely inputby State and local officials in the development ofregulatory policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development ofsuch regulations (65 FR 13735). DOE has examined today’s final rule and has determinedthat it does not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or

on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment. State regulations that may have existed onthe products that are the subject oftoday’s final rule

were preemptedby the Federal standards established in NAECA. States

can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

C. Review UnderExecutive Order 12988

With respectto the review ofexisting regulations andthe promulgation of

new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR4729, February 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conductratherthan a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, ifany; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law orregulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, ifany; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney 

### General. Section 3(c) ofExecutive Order 12988 

### requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light ofapplicable standards in section 3(a) and section 

### 3(b) to determine whetherthey are met

or it is unreasonable to meet one or

more ofthem. DOE has completed the requiredreview and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

### 51000 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 158/Tuesday, August 17, 2004/Rules and Regulations

H. Review Underthe Unfunded Mondotes ReformAct of1995

Title II ofthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104—4) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects ofFederal regulatory actions

on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. With respectto

a proposed regulatory action thatmay result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

orby the private sector of$100 million

ormore (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 ofthe Act requires a Federal agency to publish estimates ofthe resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy (2 U.S.C. 1532(a),(b)). The Act also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely inputby elected officers ofState, local, and tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” andrequires an agency plan forgiving notice and opportunity for timely inputto potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement ofpolicy on its process for intergovernmental consultation underthe Act (62 FR 12820) (also available at http:// www.gc.doe.gov). The rule published today does not contain any Federal mandate; it only incorporates into the Code ofFederal Regulations standards set forth in rules promulgated in 2001 and 2002.

L Review Underthe Treasuryand General GovernmentAppropriations Act, 1999

Section 654 ofthe Treasury and General GovernmentAppropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105—277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This rule would nothave any impact an the autonomy or integrity ofthe family as
an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.



### I. Review UnderExecutive Order 12630

DOE has determined pursuant to Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation would notresult in any takings which mightrequire compensation underthe Fifth Amendmentto the United States Constitution. K, Review Underthe Treasuryand General GovernmentAppropriations Act, 2001

The Treasury and General GovernmentAppropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations ofinformation to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuantto general guidelines issued by 0MB. OMB’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed today’s final rule underthe 0MB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistentwith applicable policies in those guidelines.

L. Review UnderExecutive Order 13211

Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly AffectEnergy Supply, Distribution, orUse,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office ofManagement and Budget, a Statement ofEnergy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined

as any actionby an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation ofa final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action underExecutive Order 12866, or any
successor order; and (2) is likely to have

a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use ofenergy, or (3) is designatedby the Administrator of 

### OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement ofany adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and ofreasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. Today’s regulatory action would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use ofenergy and, therefore, is not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement ofEnergy Effects.

M. Congressional Notification

As requiredby 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will reportto Congress on the promulgation oftoday’s rule prior to its effective date. The reportwill state that it has been determined thatthe rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
N. Approval ofthe Office ofthe Secretary

The Secretary ofEnergy has approved publication oftoday’s rule. 

### List ofSubjects in 10 

### CFRPart 430 Administrative practice and procedure, Energy conservation, Household appliances.

Issued inWashington, DC, onAugust4, 2004. DavidK. Garman, AssistantSecretary, EnergyEfficiencyond RenewableEnergy.

• Forthereasons setforth inthe preamble, Part 430 ofChapterII ofTitle 10, Code ofFederal Regulations, is amended as set forth below:



### PART430—ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

I 1. Theauthority citation forpart430 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291—6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

• 2. Section430.2 is amendedby:



### • a. Removingthe definitions for “effective date,” “maximum allowable energy use,” “maximum allowable water use,” and “minimum required energy efficiency”; and



### • b. Addinga definition of“space constrained product” in alphabetical order to read as follows:


### §430.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

Space constrainedproduct means a central air conditioner orheat pump:

(1) Thathas rated cooling capacities

no greaterthan 30,000 BTU/hr;

(2) That has an outdoor or indoor unit having at least two overall exterior dimensions or an overall displacement that:

(i) Is substantially smallerthan those ofotherunits that are:

(A) Currently usually installed in sitebuilt single family homes; and

(B) Ofa similar cooling, and, ifa heat pump, heating capacity; and

(ii) Ifincreased, would certainly result in a considerable increase in the usual cost ofinstallation or would certainly result in a significant loss in the utility ofthe product to the consumer; and

(3) Ofa product type that was available for purchase in the United States as ofDecember 1, 2000.

* * * * *

• 3. Section430.32 ofsubpartC is amended by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:


### §430.32 Energy andwaterconservation standards and effective dates.

* * * * *

(c) * * * (2) Central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps manufactured on or afterJanuary 23,

### Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 158/Tuesday, August 17, 2004/Rules and Regulations 51001

2006, shall have Seasonal Energy 

### Efficiency Ratio and Heating Seasonal Performance Factorno less than:

Seasonal Heating energy seasonal Product class efficiency performance ratio factor (SEER) (HSPF)

(i) Split system air conditioners 13 (ii) Split system heat pumps 13 7.7 (iii) Single package air conditioners 13 (iv) Single package heat pumps 13 7.7 (v)(A) Through-the-wall air conditioners and heat pumps-split system 1 10.9 7.1 (v)(B) Through-the-wall air conditioners and heat pumps-single package 1 10.6 7.0 (vi) Small duct, high velocity systems 13 7.7 (vii)(A) Space constrained products-air conditioners 12 (vii)(B) Space constrained products-heat pumps 12 7.4

1 As defined in 

### §430.2, this product class applies to products manufactured prior to January 23, 2010.

* * * * * [FR Doc. 04—18533 Filed 8—16—04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01—P

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM



### 12 CFR Part 201
[Regulation A]

Extensions of Credit by Federal 

### Reserve Banks

AGENCY: Board of

### Governors ofthe Federal Reserve System.
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Board 

### ofGovernors ofthe Federal Reserve System (Board) has adopted final amendments to its Regulation A to reflect the Board’s approval ofan increase in the primary credit rate at each Federal Reserve Bank. The secondary credit rate at each Reserve Bank automatically increased by formula as a result ofthe Board’s primary creditrate action.

DATES: The amendments to part 201 

### (Regulation A) are effectiveAugust 17, 2004. The rate changes for primary and secondary credit were effective on the dates specified in 12 CFR 201.51, as amended.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

### JenniferJ. Johnson, Secretary ofthe Board (202/452—3259); for users of 

### Telecommunication Devices forthe Deaf (TDD) only, contact 202/263—4869.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Reserve Banks make primary and secondary credit available to depository institutions as a backup

source offunding on a short-term basis, usually overnight. The primary and secondary creditrates are the interest
rates thatthe twelve Federal Reserve Banks charge for extensions ofcredit under these programs. In accordance with the Federal Reserve Act, the primary and secondary credit rates are established by the boards ofdirectors of the Federal Reserve Banks, subjectto the review and determination ofthe Board.

The Board approved requests by the Reserve Banks to increase by 25 basis points the primary credit rate in effect
at each ofthe twelve Federal Reserve Banks, thereby increasing from 2.25 percent to 2.50 percent the rate that each Reserve Bank charges for extensions ofprimary credit. As a result ofthe Board’s action on the primary credit rate, the rate that each Reserve Bank charges for extensions of secondary credit automatically increased from 2.75 percent to 3.00 percent under the secondary credit rate formula. The final amendments to Regulation A reflect these rate changes.

The 25-basis-point increase in the primary credit rate was associated with

a similarincrease in the target forthe federal funds rate (from 1.25 percentto 1.50 percent) approvedby the Federal Open Market Committee (Committee) and announced at the same time. A
press release announcing these actions indicated that:

The Conmdtteebelieves that, even after this action, the stance ofmonetary policy remains accommodative and, coupled with robustunderlying growth in productivity, is providing ongoing supportto economic activity. Inrecentmonths, output growth has moderated andthe pace ofimprovement in labormarket conditions has slowed. This softness likely owes importantly to the substantialrise in energy prices. The economy nevertheless appears poised to

resume a strongerpace ofexpansion going forward. Inflation has been somewhat elevated this year, though a portion ofthe rise inprices seems to reflecttransitory factors.

The Committee perceives the upside and downsiderisks to the attaimnent ofboth sustainable growth and price stability forthe next few quarters are roughly equal. With underlying inflation still expected to be relatively low, the Committee believes that policy accommodation canbe removed at a pace that is likely to be measured. Nonetheless, the Committee will respond to changes in economic prospects as needed to fulfill its obligation to maintain price stability. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Board certifies that the new primary and secondary credit rates will not have a significantly adverse economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities 

### because the final rule does not impose any additional requirements on entities affectedby the regulation.

Administrative Procedure Act

The Board did not follow the 

### provisions of5 U.S.C. 553(b) relating to 

### notice and public participation in connection with the adoption ofthese amendments because the Board forgood

cause determined that delaying implementation ofthe new primary and 

### secondary creditrates in orderto allow notice and public comment wouldbe 

### unnecessary and contrary to the public interest in fostering price stability and sustainable economic growth. Forthese

same reasons, the Board also has not 

### provided 30 days prior notice ofthe effective date ofthe rule under section 553(d).

12 CFR ChapterII

List ofSubjects in 12 CFR Part 201

Banks, Banking, Federal Reserve 

### System, Reporting and recordkeeping. Authority and Issuance



### • Forthereasons setforthinthe preamble, the Board is amending 12 CFR 

### ChapterII to read as follows: