19714 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

4. On page 1764, in the second

column, the last complete sentence in

the column is corrected to read, ‘‘New

paragraph (c)(1) requires that potable

water be used for ice, except that water

and ice used for chilling may be reused

in accordance with § 416.2(g), and new

paragraph (c)(2)(i) requires that chilling

equipment be operated in a manner

consistent with applicable pathogen

reduction performance standards and

the establishment’s HACCP plan.’’

§ 381.1 [Corrected]

5. On page 1770, in the third column,

in § 381.1, paragraph (b) is corrected by

removing the paragraph designation

‘‘(44)’’ from the definition for ready-tocook poultry.

§ 381.65 [Corrected]

6. On page 1771, in the first column,

in § 381.65, paragraph (e) is corrected

and paragraph (f) is added, to read as

follows:

* * * * *

(e) Poultry carcasses contaminated

with visible fecal material shall be

prevented from entering the chilling

tank.

(f) Detached ova may be collected for

human food and handled only in

accordance with 9 CFR 590.44 and may

leave the establishment only to be

moved to an official egg product

processing plant for processing. Ova

from condemned carcasses must be

condemned and treated as required in

§ 381.95.

§ 381.66 [Corrected]

7. On page 1771, in the second

column, in § 381.66, the first sentence in

paragraph (c)(1) is corrected to read as

follows:

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) Only ice produced from potable

water may be used for ice and water

chilling, except that water and ice used

for chilling may be reused in accordance

with § 416.2(g). * * *

Done at Washington, DC: April 12, 2001.

Thomas J. Billy,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 01–9495 Filed 4–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket No. EE–RM–94–403]

RIN 1940–AB67

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy; Energy

Conservation Program for Consumer

Products: Clothes Washer Energy

Conservation Standards

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Final rule; denial of

reconsideration and completion of

regulatory review.

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

8744, February 2, 2001) the effective

date of appendix J to subpart B of 10

CFR part 430 in the final rule entitled

‘‘Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products: Clothes Washer

Energy Conservation Standards’’

published in the Federal Register on

January 12, 2001 (66 FR 3314). By

petition dated March 13, 2001, the

Mercatus Center at George Mason

University and the Competitive

Enterprise Institute, on behalf of a

variety of organizations purporting to

represent consumer interests, petitioned

for reconsideration of the final rule.

DOE has considered the legal and policy

arguments in the petition for

reconsideration and has completed its

review of the final rule. Having

concluded that no further rulemaking

action is warranted, DOE hereby denies

the petition for reconsideration.

DATES: The April 13, 2001 effective date

of the rule amending appendix J to

subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 (66 FR

8744, February 2, 2001) is confirmed.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill

Holtzman, Office of General Counsel,

(202) 586–3410,

jill.holtzman@hq.doe.gov. or Bryan

Berringer, Office of Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy, (202) 586–0371,

bryan.berringer@ee.doe.gov. or Eugene

Margolis, Office of General Counsel,

(202) 586–9526,

eugene.margolis@hq.doe.gov.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on April 12,

2001.

Spencer Abraham,

Secretary of Energy.

[FR Doc. 01–9568 Filed 4–13–01; 1:00 pm]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket N. EE–RM–97–900]

RIN 1904–AA76

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products: Energy

Conservation Standards for Water

Heaters

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Final rule; denial of

reconsideration and completion of

regulatory review.

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

announced that it would be reviewing

the rule entitled ‘‘Energy Conservation

Program for Consumer Products: Energy

Conservation Standards for Water

Heaters; Final Rule’’ published in the

Federal Register on January 17, 2001

(66 FR 4474) to determine whether

further action is warranted. DOE has

now completed its review of that

regulation, and concludes that no

further rulemaking action is required.

The petitions for reconsideration filed

by the Gas Appliance Manufacturers

Association and the American Gas

Association are denied.

DATES: The effective date of the rule

remains January 20, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill

Holtzman, (202) 586–3410,

jill.holtzman@hq.doe.gov or Francine B.

Pinto, (202) 586–7432,

francine.pinto@hq.doe.gov., Office of

the General Counsel.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to section 325 of the Energy

Conservation and Policy Act (ECPA) (42

U.S.C. 6295), DOE published in the

Federal Register a final amended energy

conservation standard for residential

water heaters. This final rule did not

change the current efficiency levels for

oil-fired and instantaneous gas and

electric water heaters. The rule creates

a new class for tabletop water heaters

with no change in standards.

On February 2, 2001, in conformity

with President Bush’s Regulatory

Review Plan, DOE announced that it

would be reviewing the water heater

rule to determine whether further action

is warranted (66 FR 8745).

Subsequently, the Gas Appliance

Manufacturers Association (GAMA) and

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 19715

the American Gas Association (AGA)

filed petitions for reconsideration of the

final rule. GAMA also petitioned the

United States Court of Appeals for the

Fourth Circuit for judicial review (42

U.S.C. 6306).

Further, a coalition of energy

advocacy organizations, including

utilities, regional and state agencies,

environmental organizations, and

organizations that develop and run

energy-saving programs (hereinafter

referred to as ‘‘energy advocacy

coalition’’), submitted a letter on March

23, 2001, to the Secretary of Energy

strongly opposing the GAMA petition

for reconsideration and urging DOE to

deny the GAMA petition. Two of the

energy advocacy organizations,

American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy (ACEEE) and Natural

Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

intervened in the above-referenced court

proceeding.

I. Introduction

The GAMA petition for

reconsideration raised three major

complaints on issues concerning

venting problems, reduction of hot

water/safety risk, and DOE’s response to

the Department of Justice’s comment

concerning the use of a sole source

blowing agent. The AGA request for

reconsideration only addressed venting

and insulation issues.

The energy advocacy coalition gives

several reasons why GAMA’s petition

should be rejected. They are: the issues

have been fully discussed in the

rulemaking proceeding and properly

considered after opportunity for

extensive comments; the record shows

that GAMA’s issues are overstated and

have been adequately addressed; and

there is no legal basis for reducing the

standards. (Energy Advocacy Coalition

Letter, at 6).

DOE today denies the GAMA and

AGA petitions and concludes that no

further rulemaking action is warranted.

All of GAMA’s and AGA’s issues have

been previously discussed in the record

and fully resolved. This final rule is

supported by the rulemaking record.

The Technical Support Document (TSD)

along with the preamble to the final rule

describe the data and DOE’s analysis of

the data that supports the rule. The TSD

is available for review at http://

www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/

codes_standards/applbrf/

waterheater.htm.

This notice discusses the central

issues raised by GAMA. The AGA

petition raised the same issues.

II. Venting Problems

In its petition, GAMA claims that

DOE’s final rule will increase the

recovery efficiency, increasing the risk

of corrosion which reduces the margin

of safety in either the vent connector or

chimney. GAMA acknowledges that the

risk can be avoided by installing a more

expensive Type B vent connector.

GAMA asserts that DOE has

underestimated the number of

households that will need a Type B vent

connector. Furthermore, GAMA raises

the concern that a significant number of

consumers purchase residential gasfired water heaters from the retail

market without professional

installation.

The standard does not specify the

design or recovery efficiency of water

heaters. It is a performance standard

that requires a specific energy factor.

However, for the purpose of our

analysis, DOE assumed that the more

efficient gas-fired water heaters would

have a 78 percent recovery efficiency. In

most applications, there is no safety

problem with a 78 percent recovery

efficiency (66 FR 4484; TSD, Chapter

3.4.3, pp. 17–20). In certain situations,

a double wall, Type B vent connector is

needed to prevent corrosion caused by

condensation. The energy advocacy

coalition states that the potential for

condensation in water heating venting

systems exists at efficiency levels higher

than those set in the final rule (Energy

Advocacy Coalition Letter, p. 2).

DOE analyzed the additional costs for

Type B vent connectors to determine the

economic impact on consumers. DOE

estimated that a Type-B vent connector

may be needed in 11 percent of the

homes with 78 percent recovery

efficiency based on estimates from a Gas

Research Institute Study using AGA

survey data, data from the Energy

Information Administration’s

Residential Energy Conservation

Survey, and data from high efficiency

gas-fired water heaters installed in the

Northwest. As discussed in the final

rule, DOE assumed that vent connectors

would be needed in climates exceeding

5,000 Heating Degree Days (HDD),

where the water heater was installed in

the conditioned space, since the

combination of weather and design

would increase the possibility of

condensation of combustion gases

occurring either in the vent or chimney.

We used 5,000 HDD as a conservative

approach since no incidence of vent

system failure is associated with the

installation of high efficiency gas-fired

water heaters in the Northwest, even in

climates as cold or colder than 7,000

HDD (66 FR 4485; TSD, Chapter 3.4.3.2,

pg 19). Some commenters stated that

DOE was overestimating the problem

and should add no extra cost for Type

B vent connectors. DOE’s conclusion

that the amended energy conservation

standard for gas-fired water heaters is

economically justified is not changed by

the additional costs for Type B vent

connectors.

In response to GAMA’s concern

regarding proper installation for gasfired water heaters, we stated in the

final rule that there is no safety risk if

the venting system is correctly installed.

We also stated that manufacturers

should provide installation instructions

for Type B vents, and installers should

follow the National Fuel Gas Code

requirements and local codes for safe

installation of gas-fired water heaters

(66 FR 4485). The energy advocacy

coalition believes that if this is a

significant problem, consumers should

not be installing gas water heaters. This

rule does not set standards for the

installation of water heaters (Energy

Advocacy Coalition Letter, p. 3).

In addressing venting safety in the

final rule, DOE determined there are

water heaters currently on the market

that can meet the new standards

without reducing the margin of safety. A

review of the GAMA April 2000,

Consumer’s Certified Directory of

Certified Efficiency Ratings for Heating

and Water Heating Equipment shows a

number of existing models with a

recovery efficiency of 76 percent that

meet the standard adopted by DOE (66

FR 4484). The energy advocacy coalition

states that 24 percent of existing water

heaters can meet the new standard at

recovery efficiencies of 76 percent

(today’s norm).

In light of the above discussion on the

cost, safety, and installation of higher

recovery efficiency gas-fired water

heaters, DOE concludes that GAMA has

not presented a basis for further

rulemaking action with regard to the

venting issue.

III. Reduction of Available Hot Water/

Safety Risk

In its petition for reconsideration,

GAMA alleges that it did not have the

opportunity to comment on DOE’s

solution addressing size constrained

water heater applications. GAMA also

claims that DOE’s method for

addressing size constrained water

heaters will increase the risk of hot

water scald injuries for some consumers

and their families.

During the proceeding, DOE received

comments that in many cases

consumers will demand water heaters

with the same capacity and that will fit

in the same space. In order to fit in the

19716 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

same space, some water heaters will

have smaller tanks because of thicker

insulation to meet the amended

standard. Therefore, to compensate for

the reduction in hot water, DOE sought

comment in the preliminary workshops

and in the proposed rule on alternative

technologies that would reduce the

effects of smaller water heaters (65 FR

25077, 25084).

In response to DOE’s request for

information in the proposed rule,

Battelle submitted a comment

suggesting an increased thermostat set

point, the addition of a tempering valve,

and the use of a smaller water heater to

maintain the same energy content as the

larger water heater it would replace

(Battelle, No. 127, p. 12–16, Transcript,

June 20, 2000, pp. 135–136). This

solution is the least costly of several

alternatives discussed in the Battelle

report. GAMA, in its comment to the

proposed rule, urged DOE to adopt

Battelle’s analysis that contained the

solution used in the final rule (GAMA,

No. 160, p. 4).

DOE accounted for additional costs

for tempering valves in its life-cycle cost

analysis (66 FR 4477 and TSD, Chapter

3, 3–21). These added costs for

tempering valves did not change DOE’s

decision that the standard is

economically justified. Moreover, since

DOE’s final rule adopted a solution for

size constrained applications suggested

during the proceeding that GAMA

endorsed, there is no basis for GAMA’s

complaint that it did not have an

opportunity to present its viewpoint on

this issue.

With regard to GAMA’s assertion that

DOE’s method for addressing size

constrained applications will increase

the risk of hot water scald injuries,

DOE’s final rule is a performance

standard that does not mandate any

action by manufacturers that would

increase the risk of scalding. Tempering

valves are used to address potential

scalding problems. They are readily

available in the market. If the

replacement water heater is correctly

installed with a tempering valve when

the thermostat set point is above 140°F,

there will be minimal risk of scalding

injury (TSD, Chapter 3.4.4, pg 21). In

DOE’s view, the method for addressing

size-constrained water heaters in the

rule will not increase the risk of

scalding to consumers and their

families.

In light of the preceding discussion,

DOE correctly used a solution presented

in the record to address the issue of size

constrained water heaters in the final

rule.

IV. Alternative Insulation Blowing

Agents

GAMA claims that DOE’s analysis of

insulation materials is deficient and

unresponsive to Justice Department

antitrust concerns. During the entirety

of the rulemaking proceeding, there was

significant discussion concerning which

blowing agent would be available and

could substitute for HFC–141b, the

current blowing agent being used by the

water heater industry that will be

phased out by 2003. DOE’s analysis in

the proposed rule relied upon HFC–

245fa, an alternative that is available

from a single source. Manufacturers and

the Justice Department were concerned

that promulgating a standard based

upon a blowing agent that is supplied

by a sole source could adversely affect

competition if it were the only blowing

agent that could be used to meet the

standard.

In response, DOE sought to determine

whether there are alternative blowing

agents available that manufacturers

could use to meet the standard. We

identified two alternatives, HFC-134a

and pentane/cyclopentane. These had

been previously discussed in the

proposed rule. By determining through

further analysis that at least two other

blowing agents are available in the

market with comparable performance

and at approximately the same cost,

DOE eliminated the concern that

manufacturers must rely on a single

blowing agent from a sole source

supplier to meet the standard (TSD,

Chapter 3.4, pg. 12).

The energy advocacy coalition notes

that HFC–134a will be used by a major

U.S. refrigerator manufacturer. They

also state that pentane/cyclopentane is

viable because many European factories

have made the conversion and it is

cheaper per water heater. They claim

that these two alternative foam blowing

agents will provide competitive

pressure to the price of HFC-245fa

(Energy Coalition Letter, pp. 4–5).

However, the industry asserts that

DOE’s analysis of alternative foam

blowing agents is inadequate.

Furthermore, GAMA alleges that DOE’s

final rule is not justified in claiming that

water heaters using an HFC–134a

insulation blowing agent can achieve

the same energy factor as water heaters

using HFC–245fa.

To the contrary, DOE believes its

analysis is adequate to support DOE’s

finding that there are alternative

blowing agents to HFC–245fa that are

available to meet the new standard. DOE

performed an engineering analysis

which accounted for the energy

efficiency performance, as well as

manufacturers’ costs and the retail

prices and installation costs to

consumers. This analysis shows that

energy factors are the same for all three

blowing agents and costs are within a

few dollars of HFC–245fa. In the record

supporting DOE’s analysis, DOE show

the cost/pound for several foam

insulations, including HFC–245fa, HFC–

134a, and pentane/cyclopentane. These

costs were used in the analysis of the

alternative blowing agents ( TSD,

Chapter 3.4, pg. 11–17 and TSD,

Chapter 8.6, pp 83–85). The energy

advocacy coalition states that it

supports DOE’s analysis of insulation

cost and performance (Energy Advocacy

Coalition Letter, p. 3–4).

GAMA believes that HFC–134a and

HFC–245fa cannot achieve the same

water heater performance at the same

insulation thickness. As the final rule

stated, although there is a 10 percent

reduction in insulation effectiveness for

HFC–134a, the energy factor of water

heaters using HFC–134a is similar to

those using HFC–245fa or pentane/

cyclopentane as shown in our

engineering analysis. This issue was

discussed at a public workshop on

November 10, 1998 (Transcript, No. 38,

pp 14–15, 27–28). At that public

workshop, the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST)

presented the results of a study

demonstrating that insulation has a

small effect on water heater

performance (energy factor). (Thermal

Performance of Water Heaters Using

Alternative Blowing Agents, Fanney and

Zarr, November 10, 1998) NIST showed

that even a large change in insulation

effectiveness results in a small change

in energy factor. In the presentation,

NIST explained that when insulation

effectiveness is reduced by 50 percent,

the energy factor drops by .06 EF, a

small reduction. Since HFC–134a is

only 10 percent less effective than HFC–

245fa, the resulting change in

performance is minimal. In the

engineering analysis, DOE accounts for

the 10 percent reduction in insulation

effectiveness which results in an energy

factor of .90 EF for a 50 gallon electric

water heater. (TSD, Chapter 8.6, p.83–

84). The engineering analysis also

shows that water heaters insulated with

HFC–245fa and pentane/cyclopentane

have a .90EF at the same insulation

thickness. Therefore, DOE correctly

concluded that HFC–134a performs

comparably to HFC–245fa and pentane/

cyclopentane.

Finally, GAMA claims that the extent

of DOE’s analysis of the alternative

blowing agents was not equal to the

analysis of HFC–245fa. DOE made its

decision to only conduct additional

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 19717

engineering and cost analyses because

the results showed that the two blowing

agent alternatives can be used to achieve

similar performance for similar costs to

HFC–245fa. DOE estimates are

reasonable and address the concern of

the Department of Justice to provide

more than one choice of insulation

blowing agent with comparable

performance and at approximately the

same cost.

Based on the analysis of the three

different types of blowing agents, HFC–

245fa-, pentane/cyclopentane- and

HFC–134a, DOE concluded that water

heater manufacturers will have several

choices to reach the standard, including

blends of these blowing agents, and

therefore, will not have to rely on a sole

source supplier.

V. Conclusion

After careful consideration of the

GAMA and AGA petitions for

reconsideration before the Secretary of

Energy, a review of the letter from the

coalition of energy advocacy

organizations, and a detailed review of

the record that supports this final rule,

DOE hereby denies the petitions for

reconsideration and concludes that no

further action is warranted.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on April 12,

2001.

Spencer Abraham,

Secretary of Energy.

[FR Doc. 01–9569 Filed 4–13–01; 1:00 pm]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 719

48 CFR Parts 931 and 970

RIN 1990–AA27

Contractor Legal Management

Requirements; Department of Energy

Acquisition Regulation

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Final rule; completion of

regulatory review.

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

8746, February 2, 2001) the effective

date of the rule entitled ‘‘Contractor

Legal Management Requirements;

Department of Energy Acquisition

Regulation’’ published in the Federal

Register on January 18, 2001 (66 FR

4616). DOE has now completed its

review of that regulation and does not

intend to initiate any further rulemaking

action to modify its provisions and

confirms the effective date of April 23,

2001.

DATES: The effective date of the rule

published at 66 FR 8746, February 2,

2001, is confirmed as April 23, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laura Fullerton, (202) 586–3420,

laura.fullerton@hq.doe.gov; or Anne

Broker, (202) 586–5060,

anne.broker@hq.doe.gov.

Issued in Washington, DC.

Spencer Abraham,

Secretary of Energy.

[FR Doc. 01–9466 Filed 4–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 830

RIN 1901–AA34

Nuclear Safety Management

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Final rule; completion of

regulatory review.

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

8746, February 2, 2001) the effective

date of the rule entitled ‘‘Nuclear Safety

Management’’ published in the Federal

Register on January 10, 2001 (66 FR

1810). DOE has now completed its

review of that regulation, and does not

intend to initiate any further rulemaking

action to modify its provisions and

confirms the effective date of April 10,

2001.

DATES: The effective date of the rule

published at 66 FR 8746, February 2,

2001, is confirmed as April 10, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Black, Director, 301–903–3465,

Richard.Black@eh.doe.gov

Issued in Washington, D.C.

Spencer Abraham,

Secretary of Energy.

[FR Doc. 01–9459 Filed 4–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

12 CFR Part 261a

[Docket No. R–1102]

Rules Regarding Access to Personal

Information Under the Privacy Act

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Privacy Act, the Board of Governors of

the Federal Reserve System (Board) is

amending its Rules Regarding Access to

Personal Information under the Privacy

Act. Notice of this new system of

records, entitled Protective Information

System (BGFRS–31) is published in an

adjacent notice. This rule also makes a

technical correction to an earlier

document.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 21, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elaine M. Boutilier, Managing Senior

Counsel, Legal Division (202/452–2418),

Board of Governors of the Federal

Reserve System, 20th and Constitution,

NW., Washington, DC 20551.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Board’s Protective Services Unit (PSU)

was established to provide security for

the Chairman and other members of the

Board of Governors. To facilitate

security procedures, the PSU intends to

implement a software program that was

developed for law enforcement entities

to monitor activities of individuals

under investigation. The PSU plans to

use this system to monitor the

correspondence and/or activities of

individuals that are perceived to present

a possible threat to the safety of Board

members. Inclusion of individuals in

this system will result primarily from

correspondence received from such

individuals that is perceived to be

threatening to members of the Board.

Information may also be received from

law enforcement agencies that have

information regarding a potential threat

to members of the Board. The software

that is being acquired for this system

will allow the PSU to sort files by a

variety of subjects, including such

things as names, aliases, addresses, zip

codes, etc. This will permit the PSU to

obtain a better understanding of the

threat, if any, that is presented by an

individual or group of individuals.

Because this information consists of

investigatory material that is compiled

for the law enforcement purpose of

protecting members of the federal

government, it is exempt from certain

provisions of the Privacy Act, including