81 FR 32628 - Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment: Energy Conservation Standards for Small, Large, and Very Large Air-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment and Commercial Warm Air Furnaces
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 100 (May 24, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 100 (May 24, 2016)
| Page Range | 32628-32633 | |
| FR Document | 2016-12279 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2016)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 32628-32633] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-12279] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 431 [Docket Number EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007 and EERE-2013-BT-STD-0021] RIN 1904-AC95 and 1904-AD11 Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment: Energy Conservation Standards for Small, Large, and Very Large Air- Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment and Commercial Warm Air Furnaces AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Confirmation of effective date and compliance dates for direct final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') published a direct final rule to establish amended energy conservation standards for small, large, and very large air-cooled commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment and commercial warm air furnaces in the Federal Register on January 15, 2016. DOE has determined that the comments received in response to the direct final rule do not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final rule. Therefore, DOE provides this notice confirming adoption of the energy conservation standards established in the direct final rule and announcing the effective date of those standards. DATES: The direct final rule published on January 15, 2016 (81 FR 2420) became effective on May 16, 2016. Compliance with the amended standards in this final rule will be required for small, large, and very large air-cooled commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment listed in this final rule starting on January 1, 2018, for the first set of standards and January 1, 2023, for the second set of standards. Compliance with the amended standards established for commercial warm air furnaces in this final rule is required starting on January 1, 2023. ADDRESSES: The dockets, which include Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the dockets are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available. A link to the docket Web page for small, large, and very large air- cooled commercial package air conditioning [[Page 32629]] and heating equipment can be found at: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007. A link to the docket Web page for commercial warm air furnaces can be found at: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0021. The www.regulations.gov Web page will contain instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. For further information on how to review the dockets, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: [email protected]. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 286-1692. Email: [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Authority and Rulemaking Background As amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007''), Public Law 110-140 (December 19, 2007), the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (``EPCA'' or, in context, ``the Act'') authorizes DOE to issue a direct final rule (i.e., a ``direct final rule'') establishing an energy conservation standard for a product on receipt of a statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates) as determined by the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary''). That statement must contain recommendations with respect to an energy or water conservation standard that are in accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. A notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') that proposes an identical energy efficiency standard must be published simultaneously with the direct final rule and a public comment period of at least 110 days provided. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). This provision also applies to the equipment at issue in this direct final rule. See 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(1) Not later than 120 days after issuance of the direct final rule, if DOE receives one or more adverse comments or an alternative joint recommendation is received relating to the direct final rule, the Secretary must determine whether the comments or alternative recommendation may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or other applicable law. If the Secretary makes such a determination, DOE must withdraw the direct final rule and proceed with the simultaneously-published NOPR, and publish in the Federal Register the reason why the direct final rule was withdrawn. Id. During the rulemaking proceedings to consider amending the energy conservation standards for small, large, and very large air-cooled commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment (referred to herein as air-cooled commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (``CUACs'' and ``CUHPs'')) and commercial warm air furnaces (``CWAFs''), interested parties commented that DOE should convene a negotiated rulemaking to develop standards that will result in energy savings using technology that is feasible and economically justified. In addition, AHRI and ACEEE submitted a joint letter to the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (``ASRAC'') requesting that it consider approving a recommendation that DOE initiate a negotiated rulemaking for air-cooled commercial package air conditioners and commercial furnaces. (EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007-0080) ASRAC carefully evaluated this request and the Committee voted to charter a working group to support the negotiated rulemaking effort requested by these parties. Subsequently, after careful consideration, DOE determined that, given the complexity of the CUAC/CUHP rulemaking and the logistical challenges presented by the related CWAF proposal, a combined effort to address these equipment types was necessary to ensure a comprehensive vetting of all issues and related analyses that would be necessary to support any final rule setting standards for this equipment. To this end, while highly unusual to do so after issuing a proposed rule, DOE solicited the public for membership nominations to the working group that would be formed under the ASRAC charter by issuing a Notice of Intent to Establish the Commercial Package Air Conditioners and Commercial Warm Air Furnaces Working Group To Negotiate Potential Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Package Air Conditioners and Commercial Warm Air Furnaces. 80 FR 17363 (April 1, 2015). The CUAC/CUHP-CWAF Working Group (in context, ``the Working Group'') was established under ASRAC in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act--with the purpose of discussing and, if possible, reaching consensus on a set of energy conservation standards to propose or finalize for CUACs, CUHPs and CWAFs. The Working Group was to consist of fairly representative parties having a defined stake in the outcome of the proposed standards, and would consult, as appropriate, with a range of experts on technical issues. DOE received 17 nominations for membership. Ultimately, the Working Group consisted of 17 members, including one member from ASRAC and one DOE representative.\1\ The Working Group met six times (five times in- person and once by teleconference). The meetings were held on April 28, May 11-12, May 20-21, June 1-2, June 9-10, and June 15, 2015.\2\ As a result of these efforts, the Working Group successfully reached consensus on energy conservation standards for CUACs, CUHPs, and CWAFs. On June 15, 2015, it submitted a Term Sheet to ASRAC outlining its consensus recommendations, which ASRAC subsequently adopted.\3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The group members were John Cymbalsky (U.S. Department of Energy), Marshall Hunt (Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison, and Southern California Gas Company), Andrew deLaski (Appliance Standards Awareness Project), Louis Starr (Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance), Meg Waltner (Natural Resources Defense Council), Jill Hootman (Trane), John Hurst (Lennox), Karen Meyers (Rheem Manufacturing Company), Charlie McCrudden (Air Conditioning Contractors of America), Harvey Sachs (American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy), Paul Doppel (Mitsubishi Electric), Robert Whitwell (United Technologies Corporation (Carrier)), Michael Shows (Underwriters Laboratories), Russell Tharp (Goodman Manufacturing), Sami Zendah (Emerson Climate Technologies), Mark Tezigni (Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association, Inc.), Nick Mislak (Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute). \2\ In addition, most of the members of the ASRAC Working Group held several informal meetings on March 19-20, 2015, March 30, 2015, and April 13, 2015. The purpose of these meetings was to initiate work on some of the analytical issues raised in stakeholder comments on the CUAC NOPR. \3\ Available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007-0093. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- After carefully considering the consensus recommendations submitted by the Working Group and adopted by ASRAC related to amending the energy conservation standards for CUACs, CUHPs, and CWAFs, DOE determined that these recommendations, which were submitted in the form of a single Term Sheet from the Working Group, comprised a statement submitted by interested persons who are fairly representative of relevant points of view on this matter. In reaching this determination, DOE took into consideration the fact that the Working Group, in conjunction with ASRAC [[Page 32630]] members who approved the recommendations, consisted of representatives of manufacturers of the covered equipment at issue, States, and efficiency advocates--all of which are groups specifically identified by Congress as relevant parties to any consensus recommendation. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)) As delineated above, the Term Sheet was signed and submitted by a broad cross-section of interests, including the manufacturers who produce the equipment at issue, trade associations representing these manufacturers and installation contractors, environmental and energy-efficiency advocacy organizations, and electric utility companies. Although States were not direct signatories to the Term Sheet, the ASRAC Committee approving the Working Group's recommendations included at least two members representing States--one representing the National Association of State Energy Officials (``NASEO'') and one representing the State of California.\4\ Moreover, DOE does not read the statute as requiring a statement submitted by all interested parties before the Department may proceed with issuance of a direct final rule. By explicit language of the statute, the Secretary has the discretion to determine when a joint recommendation for an energy or water conservation standard has met the requirement for representativeness (i.e., ``as determined by the Secretary''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ These individuals were Deborah E. Miller (NASEO) and David Hungerford (California Energy Commission). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the Secretary must also determine whether a jointly-submitted recommendation for an energy or water conservation standard satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. As stated in the direct final rule, in making this determination, DOE conducted an analysis to evaluate whether the potential energy conservation standards under consideration would meet these requirements. This evaluation is the same comprehensive approach that DOE typically conducts whenever it considers potential energy conservation standards for a given type of product or equipment. DOE applies the same principles to any consensus recommendations it may receive to satisfy its statutory obligation to ensure that any energy conservation standard that it adopts achieves the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified and will result in the significant conservation of energy. Upon review, the Secretary determined that the Term Sheet submitted in the instant rulemaking comports with the standard-setting criteria set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B). Accordingly, the consensus-recommended efficiency levels, included as the ``recommended trial standard level (TSL)'' for CUACs/CUHPs and as TSL 2 for CWAFs were adopted as the amended standard levels in the direct final rule. 81 FR at 2422. In sum, as the relevant statutory criteria were satisfied, the Secretary adopted the consensus-recommended amended energy conservation standards for CUACs, CUHPs, and CWAFs set forth in the direct final rule. The standards for CUACs and CUHPs are set forth in Table 1, with the CUAC and CUHP cooling efficiency standards presented in terms of an integrated energy efficiency ratio (``IEER'') and the CUHP heating efficiency standards presented as a coefficient of performance (``COP''). The IEER metric will replace the currently used energy efficiency ratio (``EER'') metric on which DOE's standards are currently based. The two-phase standards and compliance dates apply to all equipment listed in Table 1 manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on the dates shown in that table. For CWAFs, the amended standards, which prescribe the minimum allowable thermal efficiency (``TE''), are shown in Table 2. These standards apply to all equipment listed in Table 2 manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on January 1, 2023. These compliance dates were set forth in the direct final rule published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2016 (81 FR 2420). For a detailed discussion of DOE's analysis of the benefits and burdens of the amended standards pursuant to the criteria set forth in EPCA, please refer to the relevant sections of the direct final rule. (81 FR 2420 (January 15, 2016)) As required by EPCA, DOE also simultaneously published an SNOPR proposing the identical standard levels contained in the direct final rule. DOE considered whether any adverse comment received during the 110-day comment period following the direct final rule provided a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule and continuation of this rulemaking under the SNOPR. As noted in the direct final rule, it is the substance, rather than the quantity, of comments that will ultimately determine whether a direct final rule will be withdrawn. To this end, DOE weighs the substance of any adverse comment(s) received against the anticipated benefits of the Consensus Agreement and the likelihood that further consideration of the comment(s) would change the results of the rulemaking. DOE notes that to the extent an adverse comment had been previously raised and addressed in the rulemaking proceeding, such a submission will not typically provide a basis for withdrawal of a direct final rule. Table 1--Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Small, Large, and Very Large Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposed energy Equipment type Heating type conservation standard Compliance date ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Small Commercial Packaged AC and HP (Air-Cooled)-->=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity: AC............................... Electric Resistance 12.9 IEER.............. January 1, 2018. Heating or No Heating. 14.8 IEER.............. January 1, 2023. All Other Types of 12.7 IEER.............. January 1, 2018. Heating. 14.6 IEER.............. January 1, 2023. HP............................... Electric Resistance 12.2 IEER, 3.3 COP..... January 1, 2018. Heating or No Heating. 14.1 IEER, 3.4 COP..... January 1, 2023. All Other Types of 12.0 IEER, 3.3 COP..... January 1, 2018. Heating. 13.9 IEER, 3.4 COP..... January 1, 2023. [[Page 32631]] Large Commercial Packaged AC and HP (Air-Cooled)-->=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity: AC............................... Electric Resistance 12.4 IEER.............. January 1, 2018. Heating or No Heating. 14.2 IEER.............. January 1, 2023. All Other Types of 12.2 IEER.............. January 1, 2018. Heating. 14.0 IEER.............. January 1, 2023. HP............................... Electric Resistance 11.6 IEER, 3.2 COP..... January 1, 2018. Heating or No Heating. 13.5 IEER, 3.3 COP..... January 1, 2023. All Other Types of 11.4 IEER, 3.2 COP..... January 1, 2018. Heating. 13.3 IEER, 3.3 COP..... January 1, 2023. Very Large Commercial Packaged AC and HP (Air-Cooled)-->=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity: AC............................... Electric Resistance 11.6 IEER.............. January 1, 2018. Heating or No Heating. 13.2 IEER.............. January 1, 2023. All Other Types of 11.4 IEER.............. January 1, 2018. Heating. 13.0 IEER.............. January 1, 2023. HP............................... Electric Resistance 10.6 IEER, 3.2 COP..... January 1, 2018. Heating or No Heating. 12.5 IEER, 3.2 COP..... January 1, 2023. All Other Types of 10.4 IEER, 3.2 COP..... January 1, 2018. Heating. 12.3 IEER, 3.2 COP..... January 1, 2023. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 2--Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Warm Air Furnaces ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thermal Equipment class Input capacity * efficiency ** (Btu/h) (percent) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gas-Fired Furnaces................ >=225,000 Btu/h..... 81 Oil-Fired Furnaces................ >=225,000 Btu/h..... 82 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * In addition to being defined by input capacity, a CWAF is ``a self- contained oil- or gas-fired furnace designed to supply heated air through ducts to spaces that require it and includes combination warm air furnace/electric air conditioning units but does not include unit heaters and duct furnaces.'' ** Thermal efficiency is at the maximum rated capacity (rated maximum input), and is determined using the DOE test procedure specified at 10 CFR 431.76. II. Comments on the Direct Final Rule The California Investor Owned Utilities (``IOUs''),\5\ the Joint Efficiency Advocates,\6\ and Lennox International, Inc. (``Lennox'') supported the Term Sheet recommendations and DOE's adoption of the standard levels in the direct final rule. (California IOUs, No. 116 at pp. 1-3; Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 119 at p. 1; Lennox, No. 121 at pp. 1-2) \7\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Gas Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison. \6\ Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Alliance to Save Energy, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, California Energy Commission, Consumer Federation of America, National Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, and Northwest Power and Conservation Council. \7\ Comments received in regards to the direct final rule while filed in the dockets for both the CUAC/CUHP (Docket No. EERE-2013- BT-STD-0007) and CWAF (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0021) rulemakings, are identified using the CUAC docket number. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Joint Efficiency Advocates also noted that the Term Sheet recommended that DOE initiate a test procedure rulemaking for CUACs and CUHPs by January 1, 2016 and issue a final rule by January 1, 2019, with the primary focus of the rulemaking being to better represent fan energy use. The Joint Efficiency Advocates requested that DOE give some public indication of its commencement of work on the test procedure. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 119 at pp. 1-2) The California IOUs also commented that while the January 1, 2016 initiation date has passed, DOE should initiate this test procedure rulemaking as soon as possible to address fan energy use and the lack of high ambient test conditions above 95 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) to account for conditions regularly experienced in the desert Southwest. (California IOUs, No. 116 at p. 2) DOE appreciates these comments regarding the CUAC/CUHP test procedure and is considering these potential changes to the test procedure in a future rulemaking. DOE notes that any amendments adopted in this future test procedure rulemaking would not be required for use to determine compliance with the energy conservation standards promulgated by this direct final rule. The California IOUs commented that as DOE conducts future standards and test procedure rulemakings for these equipment, it should explore different options for standards that will improve efficiency and also contribute to peak load reduction for CUACs and CUHPs. The California IOUs stated that DOE could consider the following actions in future rulemakings: Revisiting the possibility of a dual metric for EER and IEER; an IEER test point at an ambient temperature above 95[emsp14][deg]F; and using energy modeling software to predict equipment performance at peak conditions. (California IOUs, No. 116 at p. 3) The Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (``AHRI'') submitted a letter committing to [[Page 32632]] continue to certify and publish EER values (at 95[emsp14][deg]F) for CUAC and CUHP equipment covered under this rulemaking in its directory of certified products once the IEER metric becomes the new Federal energy efficiency descriptor. AHRI noted that this commitment was not part of the term sheet and should not be considered as a comment to the SNOPR. (AHRI, No. 118 at p. 1) The California IOUs and Joint Efficiency Advocates both supported AHRI's commitment to continue publishing full- load EER test values, as this information is important for the design and implementation of utility incentive programs that incentivize consumers to purchase equipment that has high performance in both part load and peak load conditions. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 119 at p. 2) DOE appreciates these comments regarding CUAC and CUHP full-load efficiency. DOE notes that AHRI's commitment to continuing to require verification and reporting of EER was discussed and agreed upon by interested parties during the ASRAC Working Group meetings. However, DOE noted that it could not be included as part of the Term Sheet because it was not a recommendation for a specific DOE action. (ASRAC Public Meeting, No. 102 at pp. 79-83, 113-116) DOE recognizes that AHRI's commitment to continuing to require verification and reporting of EER for its certification program would allow utilities, and others, to consider full-load efficiency in their energy efficiency programs. DOE will review its statutory authority at the time it conducts a future standards rulemaking for CUACs and CUHPs to explore options to separately consider full-load efficiency. DOE also received two comments that discussed the market failures addressed by the direct final rule and made suggestions for actions that would complement the standards. Arthur Laciak commented that by establishing more stringent energy efficiency standards, DOE addressed the principal-agent problem (i.e. where a building manager purchases the equipment, but the tenants pay the energy bill), but the consumer is no better informed about the energy savings of more efficient equipment than the minimum standards. He stated that DOE should encourage Congress to provide DOE greater authority to disseminate information regarding CUACs and CUHPs to better inform consumers of the cost savings of purchasing more efficient equipment. (Laciak, No. 120 at pp. 7-8) Paul Melmeyer commented that DOE's economic analysis and justification for the updated standards are cogent and convincing, but he pointed to various ways that DOE can ensure that the direct final rule accomplishes the stated statutory and regulatory objectives. These include programs of labeling or consumer education, formulating plans to ensure low-income individuals are not adversely affected, and crafting a plan to conduct retrospective analysis on various DOE predictions. (Melmeyer, No. 122 at pp. 10-11) DOE acknowledges the suggestions made by the commenters. III. Department of Justice Analysis of Competitive Impacts EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is likely to result from new or amended standards. It also directs the Attorney General of the United States (``Attorney General'') to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii). See also 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(1) (applying 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) to CUACs, CUHPs, and CWAFs). DOE published an SNOPR containing energy conservation standards identical to those set forth the direct final rule and transmitted a copy of the direct final rule and the accompanying technical support document (``TSD'') to the Attorney General, requesting that the U.S. Department of Justice provide its determination on this issue. DOE has published DOJ's comments at the end of this notice. DOJ reviewed the amended standards in the direct final rule and the final TSD provided by DOE. As a result of its analysis, DOJ concluded that the amended standards issued in the direct final rule are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on competition. IV. National Environmental Policy Act Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (``NEPA''), DOE has determined that the rule fits within the category of actions included in Categorical Exclusion (``CX'') B5.1 and otherwise meets the requirements for application of a CX. See 10 CFR part 1021, App. B, B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and App. B, B(1)-(5). The rule fits within the category of actions because it is a rulemaking that establishes energy conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment, and for which none of the exceptions identified in CX B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made a CX determination for this rulemaking, and DOE does not need to prepare an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement for this rule. DOE's CX determination for this rule is available at http://energy.gov/nepa/categorical-exclusion-cx-determinations-cx. V. Conclusion In summary, based on the discussion above, DOE has determined that the comments received in response to the direct final rule for amended energy conservation standards for CUACs, CUHPs, and CWAFs do not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule. As a result, the amended energy conservation standards set forth in the direct final rule became effective on May 16, 2016. Compliance with these amended standards is required for small, large, and very large CUACs and CUHPs starting on January 1, 2018, for the first set of standards and January 1, 2023, for the second set of standards. Compliance with the amended standards established for CWAFs is required starting on January 1, 2023. Issued in Washington, DC, on May 13, 2016. David Friedman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Appendix [The following letter from the Department of Justice will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.] U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division RFK Main Justice Building 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530-0001 (202) 514-2401/(202) 616-2645 (Fax) March 15, 2016 Anne Harkavy Deputy General Counsel for Litigation, Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 Re: Energy Conservation Standards for Small, Large, and Very Large Air-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment and Commercial Warm Air Furnaces Doc. Nos. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007 and EERE-2013-BT-STD-0021 Dear Deputy General Counsel Harkavy: I am responding to your January 15, 2016, letter seeking the views of the Attorney General about the potential impact on competition of proposed energy conservation standards for certain types of commercial warm air furnace equipment, commercial air- conditioning equipment and commercial heat pump equipment. Your request was submitted under Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of [[Page 32633]] the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (ECPA), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V), which requires the Attorney General to make a determination of the impact of any lessening of competition that is likely to result from the imposition of proposed energy conservation standards. The Attorney General's responsibility for responding to requests from other departments about the effect of a program on competition has been delegated to the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division in 28 CFR 0.40(g). In conducting its analysis, the Antitrust Division examines whether a proposed standard may lessen competition, for example, by substantially limiting consumer choice or increasing industry concentration. A lessening of competition could result in higher prices to manufacturers and consumers. We have reviewed the proposed standards contained in the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (81 FR 2111 & 2420, January 15, 2016) and the related Technical Support Documents. Based on this review, our conclusion is that the proposed energy conservation standards for commercial warm air furnace equipment, commercial air-conditioning equipment, and commercial heat pump equipment are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on competition. Sincerely, William J. Baer [FR Doc. 2016-12279 Filed 5-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
![32628 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
of one or more SMRs and a basis on a licensed thermal power rating greater under 10 CFR part 50 of this chapter or
which SMR fees are calculated. than 250 MWt and or less than or equal a combined license issued under 10 CFR
* * * * * to 2,000 MWt, the variable rate is based part 52 after the Commission has made
Variable fee means the annual fee on the difference between the maximum the finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g),
component paid by the first bundled fee and the minimum fee, divided by shall pay the annual fee for all licenses
unit on a site with a licensed thermal 1,750 MWt (the variable fee licensed held for an SMR site. The annual fee
power rating greater than 250 MWt and thermal rating range). For additional will be determined using the cumulative
less than or equal to 2,000 MWt; or the bundled units with a licensed thermal licensed thermal power rating of all
annual fee component paid by power rating less than or equal to 2,000 SMR units and the bundled unit
additional bundled units on a site that MWt, the variable rate is based on the concept, during the fiscal year in which
have a licensed thermal power rating of maximum fee divided by 2,000 MWt. the fee is due. For a given site, the use
less than or equal to 2,000 MWt. The ■ 5. In § 171.15, redesignate paragraph of the bundled unit concept is
variable fee is the product of the (e) as paragraph (f) and add new independent of the number of SMR
bundled unit thermal power capacity (in paragraph (e) to read as follows: plants, the number of SMR licenses
the applicable range) and the variable
§ 171.15 Annual fees: Reactor licenses issued, or the sequencing of the SMR
rate.
Variable rate means a per-MWt fee and independent spent fuel storage licenses that have been issued.
factor applied to all bundled units on licenses. (2) The annual fees for a small
site with a licensed thermal power * * * * * modular reactor(s) located on a single
rating less than or equal to 2,000 MWt. (e)(1) Each person holding an site to be collected by September 30 of
For the first bundled unit on a site with operating license for an SMR issued each year, are as follows:
Bundled unit thermal power rating Minimum fee Variable fee Maximum fee
First Bundled Unit
0 MWt ≤250 MWt ......................................................................................................................... TBD N/A N/A
>250 MWt ≤2,000 MWt ................................................................................................................ TBD TBD N/A
>2,000 MWt ≤4,500 MWt ............................................................................................................. N/A N/A TBD
Additional Bundled Units
0 MWt ≤2,000 MWt ...................................................................................................................... N/A TBD N/A
>2,000 MWt ≤4,500 MWt ............................................................................................................. N/A N/A TBD
(3) The annual fee for an SMR DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY adoption of the energy conservation
collected under paragraph (e) of this standards established in the direct final
section is in lieu of any fee otherwise 10 CFR Part 431 rule and announcing the effective date
required under paragraph (b) of this [Docket Number EERE–2013–BT–STD–0007 of those standards.
section. The annual fee under paragraph and EERE–2013–BT–STD–0021] DATES: The direct final rule published
(e) of this section covers the same on January 15, 2016 (81 FR 2420)
RIN 1904–AC95 and 1904–AD11 became effective on May 16, 2016.
activities listed for power reactor base
annual fee and spent fuel storage/reactor Energy Conservation Program for Compliance with the amended
decommissioning reactor fee. Certain Industrial Equipment: Energy standards in this final rule will be
Conservation Standards for Small, required for small, large, and very large
* * * * * air-cooled commercial package air
Large, and Very Large Air-Cooled
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day conditioning and heating equipment
Commercial Package Air Conditioning
of May. listed in this final rule starting on
and Heating Equipment and
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. January 1, 2018, for the first set of
Commercial Warm Air Furnaces
Maureen E. Wylie, standards and January 1, 2023, for the
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and second set of standards. Compliance
Chief Financial Officer.
Renewable Energy, Department of with the amended standards established
[FR Doc. 2016–11975 Filed 5–23–16; 8:45 am]
Energy. for commercial warm air furnaces in
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
ACTION: Confirmation of effective date this final rule is required starting on
and compliance dates for direct final January 1, 2023.
rule. ADDRESSES: The dockets, which include
Federal Register notices, public meeting
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of attendee lists and transcripts,
Energy (‘‘DOE’’) published a direct final comments, and other supporting
rule to establish amended energy documents/materials, is available for
conservation standards for small, large, review at www.regulations.gov. All
and very large air-cooled commercial documents in the dockets are listed in
package air conditioning and heating the www.regulations.gov index.
equipment and commercial warm air However, some documents listed in the
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
furnaces in the Federal Register on index, such as those containing
January 15, 2016. DOE has determined information that is exempt from public
that the comments received in response disclosure, may not be publicly
to the direct final rule do not provide a available.
reasonable basis for withdrawing the A link to the docket Web page for
direct final rule. Therefore, DOE small, large, and very large air-cooled
provides this notice confirming commercial package air conditioning
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 May 23, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24MYR1.SGM 24MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_32728/page/1.svg)
![32632 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
continue to certify and publish EER justification for the updated standards industrial equipment, and for which
values (at 95 °F) for CUAC and CUHP are cogent and convincing, but he none of the exceptions identified in CX
equipment covered under this pointed to various ways that DOE can B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made
rulemaking in its directory of certified ensure that the direct final rule a CX determination for this rulemaking,
products once the IEER metric becomes accomplishes the stated statutory and and DOE does not need to prepare an
the new Federal energy efficiency regulatory objectives. These include Environmental Assessment or
descriptor. AHRI noted that this programs of labeling or consumer Environmental Impact Statement for
commitment was not part of the term education, formulating plans to ensure this rule. DOE’s CX determination for
sheet and should not be considered as low-income individuals are not this rule is available at http://
a comment to the SNOPR. (AHRI, No. adversely affected, and crafting a plan to energy.gov/nepa/categorical-exclusion-
118 at p. 1) The California IOUs and conduct retrospective analysis on cx-determinations-cx.
Joint Efficiency Advocates both various DOE predictions. (Melmeyer,
supported AHRI’s commitment to No. 122 at pp. 10–11) DOE V. Conclusion
continue publishing full-load EER test acknowledges the suggestions made by In summary, based on the discussion
values, as this information is important the commenters. above, DOE has determined that the
for the design and implementation of comments received in response to the
III. Department of Justice Analysis of
utility incentive programs that direct final rule for amended energy
Competitive Impacts
incentivize consumers to purchase conservation standards for CUACs,
equipment that has high performance in EPCA directs DOE to consider any CUHPs, and CWAFs do not provide a
both part load and peak load conditions. lessening of competition that is likely to reasonable basis for withdrawal of the
(Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 119 at result from new or amended standards. direct final rule. As a result, the
p. 2) It also directs the Attorney General of amended energy conservation standards
DOE appreciates these comments the United States (‘‘Attorney General’’) set forth in the direct final rule became
regarding CUAC and CUHP full-load to determine the impact, if any, of any effective on May 16, 2016. Compliance
efficiency. DOE notes that AHRI’s lessening of competition likely to result with these amended standards is
commitment to continuing to require from a proposed standard and to required for small, large, and very large
verification and reporting of EER was transmit such determination to the CUACs and CUHPs starting on January
discussed and agreed upon by interested Secretary within 60 days of the 1, 2018, for the first set of standards and
parties during the ASRAC Working publication of a proposed rule, together January 1, 2023, for the second set of
Group meetings. However, DOE noted with an analysis of the nature and standards. Compliance with the
that it could not be included as part of extent of the impact. See 42 U.S.C. amended standards established for
the Term Sheet because it was not a 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii). See also CWAFs is required starting on January
recommendation for a specific DOE 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(1) (applying 42 U.S.C. 1, 2023.
action. (ASRAC Public Meeting, No. 102 6295(o) to CUACs, CUHPs, and
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 13,
at pp. 79–83, 113–116) DOE recognizes CWAFs). DOE published an SNOPR
2016.
that AHRI’s commitment to continuing containing energy conservation
David Friedman,
to require verification and reporting of standards identical to those set forth the
direct final rule and transmitted a copy Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy
EER for its certification program would
Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
allow utilities, and others, to consider of the direct final rule and the
full-load efficiency in their energy accompanying technical support Appendix
efficiency programs. DOE will review its document (‘‘TSD’’) to the Attorney [The following letter from the Department
statutory authority at the time it General, requesting that the U.S. of Justice will not appear in the Code of
conducts a future standards rulemaking Department of Justice provide its Federal Regulations.]
for CUACs and CUHPs to explore determination on this issue. DOE has
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
options to separately consider full-load published DOJ’s comments at the end of
efficiency. this notice. Antitrust Division
DOE also received two comments that DOJ reviewed the amended standards RFK Main Justice Building 950 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530–0001
discussed the market failures addressed in the direct final rule and the final TSD (202) 514–2401/(202) 616–2645 (Fax)
by the direct final rule and made provided by DOE. As a result of its
March 15, 2016
suggestions for actions that would analysis, DOJ concluded that the
complement the standards. Arthur amended standards issued in the direct Anne Harkavy
Deputy General Counsel for Litigation,
Laciak commented that by establishing final rule are unlikely to have a Regulation and Enforcement, U.S.
more stringent energy efficiency significant adverse impact on Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585
standards, DOE addressed the principal- competition. Re: Energy Conservation Standards for Small,
agent problem (i.e. where a building Large, and Very Large Air-Cooled
manager purchases the equipment, but IV. National Environmental Policy Act
Commercial Package Air Conditioning
the tenants pay the energy bill), but the Pursuant to the National and Heating Equipment and Commercial
consumer is no better informed about Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Warm Air Furnaces Doc. Nos. EERE–
the energy savings of more efficient (‘‘NEPA’’), DOE has determined that the 2013–BT–STD–0007 and EERE–2013–
equipment than the minimum rule fits within the category of actions BT–STD–0021
standards. He stated that DOE should included in Categorical Exclusion Dear Deputy General Counsel Harkavy:
encourage Congress to provide DOE (‘‘CX’’) B5.1 and otherwise meets the I am responding to your January 15, 2016,
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
greater authority to disseminate requirements for application of a CX. letter seeking the views of the Attorney
information regarding CUACs and See 10 CFR part 1021, App. B, B5.1(b); General about the potential impact on
1021.410(b) and App. B, B(1)–(5). The competition of proposed energy conservation
CUHPs to better inform consumers of
standards for certain types of commercial
the cost savings of purchasing more rule fits within the category of actions warm air furnace equipment, commercial air-
efficient equipment. (Laciak, No. 120 at because it is a rulemaking that conditioning equipment and commercial heat
pp. 7–8) Paul Melmeyer commented establishes energy conservation pump equipment. Your request was
that DOE’s economic analysis and standards for consumer products or submitted under Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 May 23, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24MYR1.SGM 24MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_32728/page/5.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 32633
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as authority to enforce CMPs to evaluate B. CMPs Issued Under the Farm Credit
amended (ECPA), 42 U.S.C. those CMPs each year to ensure that Act
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V), which requires the they continue to maintain their
Attorney General to make a determination of deterrent value and promote compliance The Farm Credit Act provides that
the impact of any lessening of competition any Farm Credit System (System)
that is likely to result from the imposition of
with the law.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation is
institution or any officer, director,
proposed energy conservation standards. The
Attorney General’s responsibility for effective on August 1, 2016. employee, agent, or other person
responding to requests from other participating in the conduct of the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
departments about the effect of a program on affairs of a System institution who
Michael T. Wilson, Policy Analyst, violates the terms of a cease-and-desist
competition has been delegated to the
Office of Regulatory Policy, Farm order that has become final pursuant to
Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust
Division in 28 CFR 0.40(g). Credit Administration, McLean, VA section 5.25 or 5.26 of the Farm Credit
In conducting its analysis, the Antitrust 22102–5090, (703) 883–4124, TTY Act must pay up to a maximum daily
Division examines whether a proposed (703) 883–4056, amount of $1,000 3 during which such
standard may lessen competition, for Or violation continues. This CMP
example, by substantially limiting consumer Autumn Agans, Attorney-Advisor,
choice or increasing industry concentration.
maximum was set by the Farm Credit
Office of General Counsel, Farm
A lessening of competition could result in Amendments Act of 1985, which
Credit Administration, McLean, VA
higher prices to manufacturers and amended the Farm Credit Act. Orders
22102–5090, (703) 883–4082, TTY
consumers. issued by the FCA under section 5.25 or
(703) 883–4056.
We have reviewed the proposed standards 5.26 of the Farm Credit Act include
contained in the Supplemental Notice of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: temporary and permanent cease-and-
Proposed Rulemaking (81 FR 2111 & 2420, I. Objective desist orders. In addition, section
January 15, 2016) and the related Technical 5.32(h) of the Farm Credit Act provides
Support Documents. The objective of this regulation is to that any directive issued under sections
Based on this review, our conclusion is adjust the maximum CMPs for inflation 4.3(b)(2), 4.3A(e), or section 4.14A(i) of
that the proposed energy conservation with an initial ‘‘catch-up’’ adjustment
standards for commercial warm air furnace the Farm Credit Act ‘‘shall be treated’’
through an interim final rulemaking as a final order issued under section
equipment, commercial air-conditioning (IFR) to retain the deterrent effect of
equipment, and commercial heat pump 5.25 of the Farm Credit Act for purposes
equipment are unlikely to have a significant
such penalties. of assessing a CMP.
adverse impact on competition. II. Background Section 5.32(a) of the Farm Credit Act
Sincerely, A. Introduction also states that ‘‘[a]ny such institution or
William J. Baer person who violates any provision of
Section 3(2) of the 1990 Act, as the [Farm Credit] Act or any regulation
[FR Doc. 2016–12279 Filed 5–23–16; 8:45 am]
amended, defines a civil monetary issued under this Act shall forfeit and
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
penalty 1 as any penalty, fine, or other pay a civil penalty of not more than
sanction that: (1) Either is for a specific $500 4 per day for each day during
monetary amount as provided by which such violation continues.’’ This
FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION Federal law or has a maximum amount CMP maximum was set by the
provided for by Federal law; (2) is Agricultural Credit Act of 1987, which
12 CFR Part 622 assessed or enforced by an agency was enacted in 1988, and amends the
RIN 3052–AD16 pursuant to Federal law; and (3) is Farm Credit Act. Current, inflation-
assessed or enforced pursuant to an adjusted CMP maximums are set forth
Rules of Practice and Procedure; administrative proceeding or a civil in existing § 622.61 of FCA regulations.5
Adjusting Civil Money Penalties for action in the Federal courts.2
Inflation The FCA imposes and enforces CMPs The FCA also enforces the Flood
through the Farm Credit Act and the Disaster Protection Act of 1973,6 as
AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration. amended by the National Flood
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as
ACTION: Final rule. amended. FCA’s regulations governing Insurance Reform Act of 1994,7 which
CMPs are found in 12 CFR parts 622 and requires FCA to assess CMPs for a
SUMMARY: This regulation implements pattern or practice of committing certain
623. Part 622 establishes rules of
inflation adjustments to civil money specific actions in violation of the
practice and procedure applicable to
penalties (CMPs) that the Farm Credit National Flood Insurance Program. The
formal and informal hearings held
Administration (FCA) may impose or existing maximum CMP for a violation
before the FCA, and to formal
enforce pursuant to the Farm Credit Act under the Flood Disaster Protection Act
investigations conducted under the
of 1971, as amended (Farm Credit Act), of 1973 is $2,000.8
Farm Credit Act. Part 623 prescribes
and pursuant to the Flood Disaster
rules with regard to persons who may
Protection Act of 1973, as amended by 3 The inflation-adjusted CMP in effect on
practice before the FCA and the
the National Flood Insurance Reform November 2, 2015, for a violation of a final order
circumstances under which such
Act of 1994 (Reform Act), and further is $1,100 per day, as set forth in § 622.61(a)(1) of
persons may be suspended or debarred FCA regulations.
amended by the Biggert-Waters Flood
from practice before the FCA. 4 The inflation-adjusted CMP in effect on
Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (Biggert- November 2, 2015, for a violation of the Farm Credit
Waters Act). The Federal Civil Penalties Act or a regulation issued under the Farm Credit
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
1 While the 1990 Act, as amended by 1996 and
Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as 2015 Acts, uses the term ‘‘civil monetary penalties’’ Act is $750 per day, as set forth in § 622.61(a)(2)
amended by the Debt Collection for these penalties or other sanctions, the Farm of FCA regulations.
5 Prior adjustments were made under the 1990
Improvement Act of 1996 (1996 Act) Credit Act and the FCA Regulations use the term
‘‘civil money penalties.’’ Both terms have the same Act.
and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation 6 42 U.S.C. 4012a.
meaning. Accordingly, this rule uses the term ‘‘civil
Adjustment Act of 2015 (2015 Act) money penalty’’, and both terms may be used 7 Pub. L. 103–325, title V, 108 Stat. 2160, 2255–
(collectively, 1990 Act, as amended), interchangeably. 87 (September 23, 1994).
requires all Federal agencies with the 2 See 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. 8 Pub. L. 112–141, 126 Stat. 405 (July 6, 2012).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 May 23, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24MYR1.SGM 24MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_32728/page/6.svg)
Document Created: 2016-05-24 05:21:39
Document Modified: 2016-05-24 05:21:39
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Confirmation of effective date and compliance dates for direct final rule. | |
| Dates | The direct final rule published on January 15, 2016 (81 FR 2420) became effective on May 16, 2016. Compliance with the amended standards in this final rule will be required for small, large, and very large air-cooled commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment listed in this final rule starting on January 1, 2018, for the first set of standards and January 1, 2023, for the second set of standards. Compliance with the amended standards established for commercial warm air furnaces in this final rule is required starting on January 1, 2023. | |
| Contact | Mr. John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 286-1692. Email: [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 32628 | |
| RIN Number | 1904-AC95 and 1904-AD11 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR