[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32628-32633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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