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)

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.

[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