[Federal Register: April 20, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 77)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20191]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20ap01-5]
[[Page 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
Air-Conditioning 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