[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 101 (Friday, May 26, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24211-24214]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10869]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 101 / Friday, May 26, 2017 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 24211]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE-2014-BT-STD-0048]
RIN 1904-AD37
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Confirmation of effective date and compliance date for direct
final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 6, 2017, the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'')
published in the Federal Register a direct final rule to establish new
energy conservation standards for residential central air conditioners
and heat pumps. DOE has determined that the comments received in
response to that direct final rule do not provide a reasonable basis
for withdrawing it. Therefore, DOE is providing notice confirming the
adoption of the energy conservation standards established in that
direct final rule and announces the effective dates of those standards.
DATES: The direct final rule for residential air conditioners and heat
pumps published on January 6, 2017 (82 FR 1786) became effective on May
8, 2017. Compliance with the residential air conditioners and heat
pumps standards in the direct final rule will be required on January 1,
2023.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, which includes 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 docket are listed
in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in
the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt
from public disclosure.
The docket Web page can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0048. The docket web page contains simple
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket.
For further information on how to review the docket, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 586-6636 or by
email: [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Antonio Bouza, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 586-4563. Email: [email protected].
Ms. Johanna Jochum, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6307. Email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Authority
As amended by the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, Public
Law 114-11 (April 30, 2015), the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(``EPCA'' or, in context, ``the Act''), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C.
6291-6309, as codified), authorizes DOE to issue 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.
42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). 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.
When making a determination whether to withdraw a direct final
rule, DOE considers the substance, rather than the quantity, of
comments. To this end, DOE weighs the substance of any adverse
comment(s) received against the anticipated benefits of the consensus
recommendations 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. If the
Secretary makes such a determination, DOE must withdraw the direct
final rule and proceed with the simultaneously published NOPR. DOE must
publish in the Federal Register the reasons why the direct final rule
was withdrawn.
DOE determined that it did not receive any adverse comments
providing a basis for withdrawal as described above for the direct
final rule that is the subject of this document--residential central
air conditioners (``CACs'') and heat pumps (``HPs''). As such, DOE did
not withdraw the direct final rule and allowed it to go final on its
effective date. Although not required under EPCA, DOE customarily
publishes a summary of the comments received during the 110-day comment
period and its responses to those comments.\1\ This document contains
such a summary, as well as DOE's responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., Notice of effective date and compliance dates for
direct final rule, 76 FR 67037 (Oct. 31, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
During the rulemaking proceeding to consider amended energy
conservation standards for CACs and HPs, DOE received a statement
submitted by an Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory
Committee
[[Page 24212]]
(``ASRAC'') that a consensus had been reached by a negotiated
rulemaking working group for CACs and HPs (the ``the CAC/HP Working
Group'' or, in context, the ``Working Group''). The CAC/HP Working
Group consisted of 15 members, including one member from ASRAC and one
DOE representative, with the balance comprising representatives of
manufacturers of the covered products at issue, efficiency advocates,
and utility representatives. The CAC/HP Working Group submitted to
ASRAC a Term Sheet, that, in the commenters' view, would satisfy the
EPCA requirements at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), and ASRAC voted unanimously to
adopt these consensus recommendations. (CAC/HP Term Sheet, Docket No.
EERE-2014-BT-STD-0048, No. 0076)
After careful consideration of the Term Sheet related to amended
energy conservation standards for CACs and HPs, the Secretary has
determined that the recommendations contained therein are compliant
with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), and were submitted by interested persons who
are fairly representative of relevant points of view on this matter, as
required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i) for the issuance of a direct
final rule.
DOE conducted separate test procedure rulemakings simultaneously
with the energy conservation standard rulemaking to amend the DOE
central air conditioners and heat pumps test procedure. As per the
request of the CAC/HP Working Group, the analyses documented in this
direct final rule are based on the DOE test procedure at the time of
the 2015-2016 Negotiations. Efficiency levels selected on the basis of
these analyses were then translated to efficiency levels based on the
amended test procedure. This methodology was first advocated by
Carrier/United Technologies Corporation (``UTC'') and adopted by
stakeholders during the Negotiations. (ASRAC Public Meeting, No. 87 at
p. 48) This methodology is also reflected in the CAC/HP Term Sheet.
Thus, DOE notes that while amended standard levels presented in Table
III-1 in this notice (and in the Table I-1 of the direct final rule)
are in terms of the test procedure that was in place at the time of the
CAC/HP Working Group Negotiations, the standard levels added to the
regulatory text are in terms of the test procedure as amended.
Ultimately, DOE found that the standard levels recommended in the
Term Sheet would result in significant energy savings and are
technologically feasible and economically justified. Table II-1
documents the amended standards for central air conditioners and heat
pumps based on the DOE test procedure at the time of the 2015-2016
Negotiations. The amended standards correspond to the recommended trial
standard level (``TSL'') and are expressed in terms of Seasonal Energy
Efficiency Ratio (``SEER''), Energy Efficiency Ratio (``EER''), and
Heating Seasonal Performance Factor (``HSPF''). The amended standards
are the same as those recommended by the Working Group. These amended
standards will apply to all central air conditioners and heat pumps
listed in Table II-1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United
States starting on January 1, 2023. The amended standards listed in
Table II-1 will result in less energy consumption for these products
than the current standards, which remain in effect until January 1,
2023.
Table II-1--Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Based
on the DOE Test Procedure at the Time of the 2015-2016 Negotiations
[Recommended TSL]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Southeast * Southwest **
Product class -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEER HSPF SEER SEER EER
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Split-System Air Conditioners 14 .............. 15 15 *** 12.2/10.2
with a Certified Cooling
Capacity <45,000 Btu/h.........
Split-System Air Conditioners 14 .............. 14.5 14.5 *** 11.7/10.2
with a Certified Cooling
Capacity >=45,000 Btu/h........
Split-System Heat Pumps......... 15 8.8 .............. .............. ..............
Single-Package Air Conditioners 14 .............. .............. .............. 11.0
[dagger].......................
Single-Package Heat Pumps 14 8.0 .............. .............. ..............
[dagger].......................
Space-Constrained Air 12 .............. .............. .............. ..............
Conditioners [dagger]..........
Space-Constrained Heat Pumps 12 7.4 .............. .............. ..............
[dagger].......................
Small-Duct High-Velocity Systems 12 7.2 .............. .............. ..............
[dagger].......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Southeast includes: The states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, the
District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories.
** Southwest includes the states of Arizona, California, Nevada, and New Mexico.
*** The 10.2 EER amended energy conservation standard applies to split-system air conditioners with a seasonal
energy efficiency ratio greater than or equal to 16.
[dagger] The energy conservation standards for single-package, small-duct high-velocity and space-constrained
product classes remain unchanged from current levels.
III. Comments on the CAC/HP Direct Final Rule
Of the 24 substantive comments received in response to the direct
final rule, 20 were from interested parties that expressed support for
the direct final rule and its outcome. (All comments are available for
public viewing at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0048.) Among these commenters, eight manufacturers and one trade
group all commented positively on finalizing the rule based on
manufacturing certainty.
Three consumer groups, three utility representatives, three State
representatives, and six environmental advocacy groups all commented in
support of the significant economic benefits to consumers and
ratepayers that the direct final rule would provide. In particular, the
three consumer groups stated that that withdrawing the rule would
increase the cost to taxpayers in initiating further rulemaking
activity. The consumer groups also pointed out that life-cycle cost
savings published in the direct final rule are realized in every region
of the country and that total cost of ownership is lower with the
amended standard. The utility representatives, states, and
environmental advocates agreed, observing that the lower standard in
the northern climate would alleviate costs to those customers, while
the EER requirement in the hot
[[Page 24213]]
southwest would reduce stress on the grid and other reliability
problems with peak demand. The environmental advocates suggested that
DOE had underestimated the benefits of the rule to consumers, due to
the alignment of the refrigerant phase-outs.
Other interested parties submitted comments that did not support
the CAC/HP direct final rule. The following sections discuss these
specific comments and DOE's determination that the comments do not
provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule.
A. Manufactured Housing
DOE received a comment from a manufacturer that attended many of
the Working Group meetings. The manufacturer stated in its comments
that it supported the rule generally but that the Working Group and the
direct final rule should have excluded manufactured housing air
conditioners based on the niche nature of the product and the potential
inability of these products to meet the adopted efficiency levels. In
response, DOE notes that the Working Group discussed this issue in
detail. In recognition of the unique installation characteristics of
manufactured home products that impact efficiency, the Working Group
agreed to amend the accompanying test procedure to the direct final
rule to require a lower default fan power value for manufactured homes
(406 W/1000 CFM) compared to more conventional products addressed by
the direct final rule (i.e. split systems). This difference will enable
manufacturers of these products to obtain more representative results
under the modified test procedure by accounting for the unique
characteristics of these systems--the net effect of which would be to
mitigate the penalizing effect of the current procedure. DOE proposed
the new, unique default fan power value for manufactured home products
in a related August 2016 CAC/TP test procedure supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking and received comments in support of its approach
from other manufacturers of manufactured housing air conditioners,
leading it to finalize it in the January 2017 CAC/HP test procedure
final rule. See 82 FR 1426 (Jan. 5, 2017). Thus, because the comment
has already been accounted for in other rulemaking proceedings, DOE
does not consider this comment to provide a basis for withdrawal.
B. Cost/Benefit Analysis
Two think tanks and one individual generally commented that the
costs (regulatory and consumer) published in the CAC/HP direct final
rule were too high. In particular, one commenter suggested that the
high conversion costs required from manufacturers could result in an
INPV decline and manufacturers would move production outside the United
States. Two other commenters noted that consumers could see price
increases in central air conditioners due to higher installed costs;
one commenter additionally noted that the percent of negatively
impacted consumers did not justify the TSL levels published in the CAC/
HP direct final rule. Finally, one commenter stated that DOE did not
meet the rebuttable presumption laid out in EPCA.
In response, DOE notes that all of these issues were discussed in
detail during the Working Group negotiations. Those discussions
recognized that, although consumers in some regions would bear a higher
net cost than consumers in other regions, the national average at the
recommended TSL is cost-justified when examining the standard
articulated in the direct final rule as a whole. DOE notes that EPCA
does not require it to choose the standard level with the least
consumer cost, or the least cost to manufacturers, but only to assess
those, among other costs and benefits (using the 7 factors articulated
at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)) and determine whether the burdens outweigh the
benefits. In this case, the recommended TSL met that standard, and
DOE's analysis and conclusions would not change based on the comments
received. Thus, DOE does not consider these comments to provide a basis
to justify a withdrawal of this direct final rule under EPCA.
C. Consumer Groups as Interested Parties
DOE received a comment from an individual who commented that
consumers and those representing consumers' interests did not have
input in the rulemaking process, and thus the Working Group Term Sheet
was not a ``statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are
fairly representative of relevant points of view.'' In response, DOE
disagrees and believes that (1) consumers' interests were represented
in the rulemaking process and; (2) that the Working Group Term Sheet
was a consensus recommendation made by interested persons fairly
representative of relevant points of view. Although consumer groups
were not direct signatories to the Term Sheet, the ASRAC Committee
approving the CAC/HP Working Group's recommendations included one
member representing Consumers' Union. In addition, representatives of
State governments participated in the Working Group, who directly
represent the consumers that live in those states. DOE also received
many comments from members of the public and other consumer advocacy
groups in support of the direct final rule.
IV. 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. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) For the direct final rule
discussed in this document, DOE published a NOPR 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 (``DOJ'')
provide its determination on this issue. DOE has published DOJ's
comments at the end of this document.
DOJ reviewed the new standards in the direct final rule and the
direct final rule TSD discussed in this document. As a result of its
analysis, DOJ concluded that the new standards issued in this direct
final rule are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on
competition. DOJ further noted that the standards established in this
direct final rule were the same as recommended standards submitted in
the consensus recommendations signed by industry participants who
believed they could meet the standards (as well as other interested
parties).
V. Social Cost of Carbon
DOE notes that the direct final rule discussed in this notice
preceded Executive Order 13783's requirement to revise future analyses
involving carbon monetization. See 82 FR 16093 (March 31, 2017). The
direct final rule included an analysis that examined the impacts
associated with the social cost of carbon. These values, which were
ancillary to the primary analyses that DOE conducted to determine
whether the standards adopted in the rule were justified under the
statutory criteria
[[Page 24214]]
prescribed under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), did not change the results of DOE's
analyses. Accordingly, while the inclusion of these values helped in
providing additional detail regarding the impacts from the rule, those
details played no role in determining the outcome of DOE's decision
under EPCA.
VI. National Environmental Policy Act
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(``NEPA''), DOE has determined that this direct final 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 Appendix B, B(1)-(5).
This rule fits within the category of actions because it is a
rulemaking establishing 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 them.
DOE's CX determination that applies to this direct final rule is
available at http://energy.gov/nepa/categorical-exclusion-cx-determinations-cx.
VII. Conclusion
In summary, based on the discussion above, DOE has determined that
the comments received in response to the direct final rule for new
energy conservation standards for CAC and HPs do not provide a
reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule. As a result,
the energy conservation standards set forth in this direct final rule
became effective on May 8, 2017. Compliance with the standards
articulated in this direct final rule will be required on January 1,
2023.
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 22, 2017.
Daniel R Simmons,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Appendix
[The following letter will not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations]
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
BRENT SNYDER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Main Justice Building
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
(202) 514-2401/(202) 616-2645 (Fax)
March 7, 2017
Daniel Cohen
Assistant General Counsel
Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585
Dear Assistant General Counsel Cohen:
I am responding to your January 13, 2017, letter seeking the
views of the Attorney General about the potential impact on
competition of proposed energy conservation standards for
residential central air conditioners and heat pumps. Your request
was submitted under Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act, as amended (ECPA), 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and 43 U.S.C. 6316(a), 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 Sec. 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 Direct
Final Rule (82 Fed. Reg. 1786, January 6, 2017). We have also
reviewed supplementary information submitted to the Attorney General
by the Department of Energy. Based on this review, our conclusion is
that the proposed energy conservation standards for residential
central air conditioners and heat pumps are unlikely to have a
significant adverse impact on competition.
Sincerely,
Brent Snyder.
[FR Doc. 2017-10869 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P