59090 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 190 / Wednesday, October 1, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Colombia into the United States under 

a systems approach. 

One of the provisions of the systems 

approach, found in paragraph (b)(1) of 

§ 319.56–67, required the cape 

gooseberry to be produced in places of 

production that are registered with the 

national plant protection organization 

(NPPO) of Colombia. Another, found in 

paragraph (c)(1) of § 319.56–67, required 

trapping for Mediterranean fruit fly 

(Medfly, Ceratitis capitata) at registered 

places of production. Finally, paragraph 

(c)(2) of § 319.56–67 specified that 

capture of Medfly at a registered place 

of production would result in 

immediate cancellation of exports from 

farms within 5 square kilometers of the 

detection site, and required an 

additional 50 traps to be placed in the 

5 square kilometer area surrounding the 

detection site. 

Our intent was to prohibit exports 

from farms within a 5 kilometer radius 

(78.54 square kilometers) of a detection 

site, rather than 5 square kilometers. 

Cancelling exports from within 5 square 

kilometers of the detection site, 

however, would prohibit exports only 

from within a 1.26 kilometer radius of 

the detection site. 

The additional trapping would have 

to occur in this 5 square kilometers area 

surrounding the detection site. In other 

words, our intent was to specify that 

additional trapping would have to occur 

in an area circumscribed by a larger area 

from which exports would be 

prohibited. Due to drafting errors, 

however, neither the rule nor its 

supporting documents reflected this 

intent. 

Accordingly, we are amending 

paragraph (c)(2) of § 319.56–67 to 

specify that capture of Medfly at a 

registered place of production will 

result in immediate cancellation of 

exports from farms within a 5 kilometer 

radius (78.54 square kilometers) of the 

detection site, and to specify that an 

additional 50 traps must be placed 

within an area with a 1.26 kilometer 

radius (5 square kilometers) 

surrounding the detection site. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319 

Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, 

Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, 

Quarantine, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Rice, 

Vegetables. 

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR 

part 319 as follows: 

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 319 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701–7772, and 

7781–7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 

2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

■ 2. In § 319.56–67, paragraph (c)(2) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 319.56–67 Cape gooseberry from 

Colombia. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) All fruit flies trapped must be 

reported to APHIS immediately. Capture 

of C. capitata will result in immediate 

cancellation of exports from farms 

within a 5 kilometer radius (78.54 

square kilometers) of the detection site. 

An additional 50 traps must be placed 

within an area with a 1.26 kilometer 

radius (5 square kilometers) 

surrounding the detection site. If a 

second detection is made within 30 

days of a previous capture, eradication 

using a bait spray agreed upon by 

APHIS and the NPPO of Colombia must 

be initiated in the detection area. 

Treatment must continue for at least 2 

months. Exports may resume from the 

detection area when APHIS and the 

NPPO of Colombia agree the risk has 

been mitigated. 

* * * * * 

Done in Washington, DC, this 26th day of 

September 2014. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–23402 Filed 9–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket Number EERE–2014–BT–PET–0041] 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Certain Commercial and Industrial 

Equipment: Energy Conservation 

Standards for Walk-in Coolers and 

Freezers; Air-Conditioning, Heating, & 

Refrigeration Institute Petition for 

Reconsideration 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Petition for reconsideration; 

agency response. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE) received a petition from the AirConditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 

Institute (AHRI), requesting that DOE 

reconsider its June 3, 2014 final rule 

setting energy conservation standards 

for walk-in coolers and freezers. AHRI 

sought reconsideration of the final rule 

based on its view that errors 

purportedly committed by DOE led to 

the adoption of standards that were 

neither technologically feasible nor 

economically justified. DOE is denying 

the petition. 

DATES: This denial is effective on 

October 1, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: 

John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 

287–1692, or email: john.cymbalsky@

ee.doe.gov. 

Michael Kido, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 

586–8145, email: Michael.Kido@

hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) received a 

petition from the Air-Conditioning, 

Heating, and Refrigeration Institute 

(AHRI) dated July 30, 2014, requesting 

that DOE reconsider its final rule setting 

energy conservation standards for walkin coolers and freezers (‘‘WICFs’’ or 

‘‘walk-ins’’). Energy Conservation 

Standards for Walk-In Coolers and 

Freezers, Docket No. EERE–2008–BT– 

STD–0015, RIN 1904–AB86, 79 FR 

32050 (June 3, 2014) (‘‘WICF Final 

Rule’’ or, in context, ‘‘the Rule’’). 

DOE adopted the WICF Final Rule in 

accordance with the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’). EPCA, as amended, governs 

the manner in which DOE will 

implement its rulemaking process for 

prescribing energy conservation 

standards for various consumer 

products and certain commercial and 

industrial equipment. At issue in 

AHRI’s petition is the stringency of the 

energy conservation standards DOE 

adopted for refrigeration systems of 

WICFs. Those standards relied in part 

on certain modifications made to the 

walk-in test procedure that DOE 

adopted to ease the testing burden on 

refrigeration system manufacturers. See 

79 FR 27387 (May 14, 2014). DOE 

determined these standards would 

result in the significant conservation of 

energy and are technologically feasible 

and economically justified, thereby 

meeting the statutorily required 

elements for an energy conservation 

standard. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A). AHRI 

asserted that the standards adopted by 

DOE for walk-in refrigeration systems 

were based on what AHRI characterizes 

as ‘‘errors’’ that resulted in standards 

that were neither technologically 

feasible nor economically justified. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 190 / Wednesday, October 1, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 59091 

Unlike some other statutes governing 

standard-setting through rulemaking, 

EPCA contains no provision setting 

forth a procedure for agency 

reconsideration of already prescribed 

final rules that established or revised 

energy conservation standards. Instead, 

the legal framework established in 

EPCA by Congress provides a means to 

enable a person to seek amendment of 

DOE’s existing rules under certain 

circumstances, not reconsideration of a 

newly promulgated rule. See 42 U.S.C. 

6295(n). Accordingly, AHRI’s self-styled 

‘‘petition for reconsideration’’ is 

procedurally improper. 

Alternatively, even if DOE were to 

construe AHRI’s petition for 

reconsideration as seeking amendment, 

rather than reconsideration of the WICF 

rule, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(n), 

AHRI would still fail to establish a valid 

basis for granting the petition. First, 

consistent with the statutory structure 

described above and the general 

requirement that agencies provide an 

interested person the right to petition 

for ‘‘the issuance, amendment, or repeal 

of a rule,’’ see 5 U.S.C. 553(e), EPCA 

permits interested persons to petition 

DOE to amend its standards. See 42 

U.S.C. 6295(n). While that provision 

applies to any final rule, it also requires 

that the petition satisfy certain criteria. 

With regard to these criteria, DOE may 

only grant such a petition if, assuming 

no other information were considered, 

the petition provides evidence 

providing an adequate basis to amend 

the standard if the amended standard 

would result in the significant 

conservation of energy, would be 

technologically feasible, and would be 

cost effective, as described under 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II) (i.e., ‘‘the 

savings in operating costs throughout 

the estimated average life of the covered 

product in the type (or class) compared 

to any increase in the price of, or in the 

initial charges for, or maintenance 

expenses of, the covered products 

which are likely to result from the 

imposition of the standard’’). See 42 

U.S.C. 6295(n)(2). AHRI’s petition, 

which focuses on newly issued 

standards, which are not yet in effect, 

and makes claims regarding those 

standards and certain procedural steps, 

does not meet the prescribed criteria 

under the statute. Moreover, even if 

AHRI’s petition satisfied the criteria 

under 42 U.S.C. 6295(n), it does not 

establish a valid basis for amendment of 

the final rule because AHRI seeks an 

amended standard that would increase 

the maximum allowable energy use or 

decrease the minimum required energy 

efficiency of a covered product, contrary 

to EPCA. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1). 

Further, DOE notes that AHRI’s 

petition appears to reflect a fundamental 

misunderstanding of how to perform the 

calculations required to rate a given 

refrigeration component. Accordingly, 

AHRI’s petition is predicated on a 

flawed set of calculations and 

assumptions. 

While the issues raised in AHRI’s 

petition do not warrant amending the 

WICF standards, DOE believes that it 

would be beneficial to hold a public 

meeting to demonstrate how DOE’s test 

procedure and refrigeration system 

standards interact with each other and 

how manufacturers must calculate the 

efficiency of their respective 

refrigeration systems. The public 

meeting, which DOE had already 

planned to hold in response to inquiries 

regarding this interaction, will help 

ensure that stakeholders properly apply 

the test procedure when assessing the 

compliance of their equipment with the 

applicable standard. A parallel notice is 

also being published in the Federal 

Register today which contains details 

regarding this public meeting. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

23, 2014. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2014–23416 Filed 9–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0164; Directorate 

Identifier 2014–NE–02–AD; Amendment 39– 

17973; AD 2014–19–05] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca 

S.A. Turboshaft Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1A1, 1A2, 1B, 

1C, 1C1, 1C2, 1D, 1D1, 1E2, 1K1, 1S, 

1S1, 2B, 2B1, 2C, 2C1, 2C2, 2S1, and 

2S2 turboshaft engines. This AD 

requires an initial one-time vibration 

check of the engine accessory gearbox 

(AGB) on certain higher risk Arriel 1 

and Arriel 2 model engines. This AD 

also requires repetitive vibration checks 

of the engine AGB for all Arriel 1 and 

Arriel 2 engines at every engine shop 

visit. This AD was prompted by reports 

of uncommanded in-flight shutdowns 

on Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1 and Arriel 

2 engines following rupture of the 41- 

tooth gear forming part of the 41/23- 

tooth bevel gear located in the engine 

AGB. We are issuing this AD to prevent 

failure of the engine AGB, which could 

lead to in-flight shutdown and damage 

to the engine, which may result in 

damage to the aircraft. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

November 5, 2014. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in this AD 

as of November 5, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact 

Turbomeca, S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; 

phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40 00; telex: 570 

042; fax: 33 (0)5 59 74 45 15. You may 

view this service information at the 

FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 

New England Executive Park, 

Burlington, MA. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, 

call 781–238–7125. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2014– 

0164; or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this AD, the mandatory 

continuing airworthiness information 

(MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any 

comments received, and other 

information. The address for the Docket 

Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is 

Document Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Riley, Aerospace Engineer, Engine 

Certification Office, FAA, Engine & 

Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; 

phone: 781–238–7758; fax: 781–238– 

7199; email: mark.riley@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 by adding an AD that would 

apply to the specified products. The 

NPRM was published in the Federal 

Register on June 4, 2014 (79 FR 32195). 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES