```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 211 (Friday, October 31, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64705-64711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25922]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0049]
RIN 1904-AD38

Energy Conservation Program: Procedures, Interpretations, and 
Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation 
Standards for Consumer Products

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, DOE.

ACTION: Request for information (RFI).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Through this RFI, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is 
commencing a notice-and-comment rulemaking to consider amending its 
``Process Improvement Rule,'' with specific focus to clarify its 
process related to the promulgation of direct final rules (DFRs). The 
issues for discussion and public comment in this RFI include those 
raised in recent litigation concerning energy conservation standards 
for gas furnaces, central air conditioners and heat pumps, which has 
since been settled.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information responding to 
this RFI submitted no later than December 30, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at  http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested 
persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2014-BT-
STD-0049 or regulatory information number (RIN) 1904-AD38, by any of 
the following methods.
    1. Email: ConsumerProducts2014STD0049@ee.doe.gov. Include the RIN 
(1904-AD38) in the subject line of the message. Submit electronic 
comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or ASCII file format, and 
avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption.
    2. Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 
Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue 
SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on 
a compact disk (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include 
printed copies.
    3. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 
600, Washington, DC 20024. Phone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, please 
submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include 
printed copies.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number and/or RIN for this rulemaking. No facsimiles (faxes) 
will be accepted.
    Docket: A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0049. This Web 
page contains a link to the docket for this rulemaking on the 
www.regulations.gov site. The www.regulations.gov Web page will contain 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 
287-1692. Email: John.Cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Johanna Hariharan, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6307. Email: Johanna.Hariharan@hq.doe.gov.

    For further information on how to submit a comment and review other 
public comments, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by 
email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
II. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment and Information
    A. Interested Persons
    B. Adverse Comments
    C. Recommended Standard
III. Public Participation
Appendix A: Material Submitted by Entities Participating in 
Litigation
    A. HARDI Letter (October 9, 2014)
    B. AHRI Letter (October 10, 2014)
    C. ACCA Letter (October 10, 2014)

I. Authority and Background

    The Department of Energy's appliance standard program is conducted 
pursuant to Title III, Part B \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation 
Act of 1975 (Pub. L. 94-163, 42 U.S.C. 6291, et seq. ``EPCA''). Under 
EPCA,\2\ the energy conservation program consists essentially of four 
parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation 
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. In 1987, 
EPCA was amended to establish by law national efficiency standards for 
certain appliances and a schedule for DOE to conduct rulemakings to 
periodically review and update these standards. National Appliance 
Energy Conservation Act, Pub. L. 100-12 (1987). The standards must be 
designed to ``achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency 
which the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and 
economically justified.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the 
new or amended standard must ``result in significant conservation of 
energy.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This part was originally titled Part B. It was redesignated 
Part A in the United States Code for editorial reasons.
    \2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the 
statute, as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing 
Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (Dec. 18, 
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE typically prescribes energy conservation standards by informal, 
notice-and-comment, rulemaking proceedings, consistent with the 
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and EPCA. DOE has codified this 
process in its regulations at 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A 
through a final rule promulgated on July 15, 1996, titled ``Procedures, 
Interpretations and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy 
Conservation Standards for Consumer Products'' (``Process Improvement 
Rule''). 61 FR 36974.
    The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-140) 
amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE authority to issue a 
direct final rule (DFR) to establish energy conservation standards. A 
DFR is a rulemaking proceeding in which an agency issues a final rule 
without an opportunity for prior public comment. DOE may issue a DFR 
upon receipt of a joint proposal from a group of ``interested persons 
that are fairly representative of relevant points of view,'' provided 
DOE determines the energy conservation standards recommended in the 
joint proposal conform with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).\3\ 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)) Simultaneous with the issuance of a DFR, DOE 
must also issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) containing the 
same energy conservation standards in the DFR. Following publication of 
the DFR, DOE must solicit public comment for a

[[Page 64706]]

period of at least 110 days; then, not later than 120 days after 
issuance of the DFR, the Secretary must determine whether any adverse 
comments ``may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the DFR,'' 
based on the rulemaking record and specified statutory provisions. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(B), (C)(i)) Upon withdrawal, the Secretary must 
proceed with the rulemaking process under the NOPR that was issued 
simultaneously with the DFR and publish the reasons the DFR was 
withdrawn. (42 U.S.C. 6295(C)(ii)) If the Secretary determines not to 
withdraw the DFR, it becomes effective as specified in the original 
issuance of the DFR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ DOE must issue simultaneously a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NOPR) identical to the DFR. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE exercised this authority by publishing a DFR on June 27, 2011 
(``2011 DFR'') that established energy conservation standards for 
residential furnaces, central air conditioners, and heat pumps 
(collectively referred to as heating, ventilating, and air conditioning 
(HVAC) products), including regional standards for particular types of 
products in specified States. 76 FR 37408.\4\ In response, American 
Public Gas Association filed a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit 
on December 23, 2011, challenging the validity of the rule. Various 
environmental and commercial interest groups joined each side of the 
case, reflecting various viewpoints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This rule became effective on October 25, 2011, following a 
determination issued by DOE on October 24, 2011. 76 FR 67037 (Oct. 
31, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 11, 2014, all parties filed a joint motion presenting 
final terms of settlement in the case (``Joint Motion''). Among other 
things, the Joint Motion tasked DOE with initiating a notice-and-
comment rulemaking proceeding to clarify its process related to the 
promulgation of DFRs by amending the DOE Process Improvement Rule.\5\ 
The D.C. Circuit granted the Joint Motion on April 24, 2014. American 
Public Gas Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, No. 11-1485 (D.C. Cir.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Under the terms of the joint motion, DOE must initiate this 
notice-and-comment rulemaking within 180 days of a D.C. Circuit 
judgment implementing the agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To fulfill its responsibilities under the Joint Motion, DOE is 
initiating a notice-and-comment rulemaking proceeding to clarify its 
process related to DFRs by publishing this RFI. As per the Joint 
Motion, this RFI includes, verbatim, material submitted by letter from 
certain entities participating in the litigation, including Heating, 
Air-Conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI), 
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), and Air 
Conditioning Contractors of America (ACCA), which is appended to this 
RFI. DOE will evaluate the comments received and undertake a further 
notice-and-comment process to consider amending the Process Improvement 
Rule to explicitly address DFRs.

II. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment and Information

    In this RFI, DOE intends to gather the information necessary to 
undertake a further notice-and-comment process to consider DFR-related 
amendments to the Process Improvement Rule. DOE specifically invites 
public comment on three issues: (1) When a joint statement with 
recommendations related to an energy or water conservation standard 
would be deemed to have been submitted by ``interested persons that are 
fairly representative of relevant points of view,'' thereby permitting 
use of the DFR mechanism; (2) the nature and extent of ``adverse 
comments'' that may provide the Secretary a reasonable basis for 
withdrawing the DFR, leading to further rulemaking under the 
accompanying NOPR; and (3) what constitutes the ``recommended standard 
contained in the statement,'' and the scope of any resulting DFR. Each 
area of public comment is explained in more detail below.

A. Interested Persons

    Under EPCA, DOE may use the DFR mechanism ``[o]n receipt of a 
statement that is 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, and contains 
recommendations with respect to an energy or water conservation 
standard.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)) In the 2011 DFR, DOE determined 
that a consensus agreement submitted by a broad cross-section of 
manufacturers who produced the subject HVAC products, their trade 
associations, and environmental and energy-efficiency advocacy 
organizations (``Consensus Agreement'') constituted the joint statement 
required by EPCA.\6\ 76 FR 37408, 37422 (June 27, 2011). DOE did not 
read EPCA as requiring absolute agreement by all interested parties, 
since the Secretary has discretionary authority to determine if a joint 
agreement meets the requirement for representativeness. Id. DOE also 
reasoned that no single party should be deemed to have a veto power 
over use of the DFR mechanism. Id. Consequently, DOE considers 
consensus agreements on a case-by-case basis to determine if they meet 
the statutory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Although States were not signatories to the Consensus 
Agreement, they did not express any opposition to it. 76 FR 37408, 
37422 (June 27, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this RFI, DOE specifically requests comments on its DFR process, 
as reflected in the 2011 DFR determination. DOE also requests general 
comments on factors supporting a determination that DOE has received a 
``joint statement'' submitted by ``interested persons that are fairly 
representative of relevant points of view.''

B. Adverse Comments

    Under EPCA, the Secretary shall withdraw a DFR no later than 120 
days after publication (110 days for comment submittal, 10 days for 
comment review period) if (1) ``the Secretary receives 1 or more 
adverse public comments relating to the direct final rule;'' and (2) 
``based on the rulemaking record . . . the Secretary determines that 
such adverse public comments or alternative joint recommendation may 
provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final rule.'' (42 
U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)(i)) \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ If the DFR is withdrawn, the Secretary will proceed with the 
rulemaking process under the NOPR that was issued simultaneously 
with the DFR. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)(ii)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To meet this requirement in the 2011 DFR, DOE created a balancing 
test. DOE considered the substance of all adverse comments received 
(rather than quantity) and weighed them against the anticipated 
benefits of the Consensus Agreement and the likelihood that further 
consideration of the comments would change the results of the 
rulemaking. 76 FR 37408, 37422 (June 27, 2011). DOE did not consider 
adverse comments that had been previously raised and addressed at an 
earlier stage in the rulemaking proceeding. Id.
    DOE requests comments on the balancing test approach to managing 
adverse comments, as articulated in the 2011 DFR. DOE also requests 
comments on the nature and extent of such ``adverse comments'' that may 
provide the Secretary a reasonable basis for withdrawing the DFR.

C. Recommended Standard

    Under EPCA, the Secretary must determine that a ``recommended 
standard contained in the statement'' satisfies the statutory 
requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i)) This 
determination requires the same type of analysis that DOE conducts 
whenever it considers energy conservation standards.

[[Page 64707]]

Accordingly, in the 2011 DFR, DOE certified that the energy 
conservation standard adopted achieved the ``maximum improvement in 
energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically 
justified and will result in significant conservation of energy.'' 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o); 76 FR 37408, 37422 (June 27, 2011). Accordingly, DOE 
adopted the amended energy conservation standards for residential 
central air conditioners, heat pumps, and furnaces. 76 FR 37408, 37422 
(June 27, 2011).
    DOE requests comments on what constitutes the ``recommended 
standard contained in the statement,'' as well as the scope of any 
resulting DFR.
    Although comment is particularly welcome on the issues discussed 
above, DOE also requests comments on any other topics pertaining to the 
DFR process.

III. Public Participation

    DOE invites all interested parties to submit, in writing by 
December 30, 2014, comments and information on matters addressed in 
this rulemaking and on other matters relevant to the DFR process. As 
per the Joint Motion, this RFI includes, verbatim, material submitted 
by letter from certain entities participating in the litigation, 
including HARDI, AHRI, and ACCA, which is appended to this RFI. After 
the close of the comment period, DOE will begin collecting data and 
reviewing the public comments. These actions will be taken to aid in 
the potential development of a Process Improvement Rule NOPR.
    DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of 
the process for developing rules. DOE actively encourages the 
participation and interaction of the public during the comment period 
at each stage of the rulemaking process. Interactions with and between 
the members of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues 
and assist DOE in the rulemaking process.

Confidential Business Information

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information he or 
she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public 
disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery/
courier two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked 
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be 
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential'' 
with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these 
documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own 
determination about the confidential status of the information and 
treat it according to its determination. Factors of interest to DOE 
when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential 
include: (1) A description of the items; (2) whether and why such items 
are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) 
whether the information is generally known by or available from other 
sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available 
to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 
explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which 
would result from public disclosure; (6) when such information might 
lose its confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why 
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 24, 2014.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy.

Appendix A: Material Submitted by Entities Participating in Litigation

    As per the Joint Motion, this RFI includes, verbatim, material 
submitted by letter from certain entities participating in the 
litigation, including HARDI, (AHRI, and ACCA. DOE received the 
materials directly from the entities listed above. These materials 
represent the views of those entities. DOE has not altered or edited 
these letters in any way other than formatting necessary for 
publication in the Federal Register.

A. HARDI Letter (October 9, 2014)

October 9, 2014.
Mr. Daniel Cohen, U.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies 
Program, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585
Re: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Request for Information 
Regarding Direct Final Rule (DFR) Process Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295 
(p)(4)

    Mr. Cohen, Thank you for the opportunity to provide the U.S. 
Department of Energy (``DOE''), all stakeholders, and the general 
public with the views of the Heating, Air-Conditioning & 
Refrigeration Distributors International (``HARDI'') regarding DOE's 
direct final rulemaking (``DFR'') authority under the Energy Policy 
and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 6201-6422, as amended (``EPCA'') 
and, specifically, EPCA's DFR provision, codified at 42 U.S.C. 
6295(p)(4).
    Experience has shown that EPCA's DFR process can be both a boon 
and a bane to not only stakeholders but also DOE. On the one hand, 
there are circumstances where use of the DFR process benefits all 
involved, not only allowing DOE to set energy-efficiency standards 
on an expedited basis using a less resource-intensive alternative to 
normal notice and comment rulemaking, but also allowing affected 
stakeholders to work together to craft a proposal for energy-
efficiency standards that not only meet EPCA's statutory 
requirements but accommodate the needs of all involved. Indeed, used 
appropriately, the DFR process can serve as a vehicle through which 
industry can work with efficiency and environmental advocates to 
craft and propose standards that are both technically and 
economically feasible and result in tremendous energy savings. By 
the same token, EPCA's DFR process is susceptible to overuse and 
could be mistakenly employed to establish highly controversial and 
impracticable energy-conservation standards over substantial 
stakeholder objection based on an agreement among a narrow subset of 
interested parties, which excludes input from a broad array of 
affected stakeholders. DOE's Plan for Clarification of DOE Direct 
Final Rule Process provides an opportunity to achieve a constructive 
balance between under- and overuse of the DFR process, reflecting 
EPCA's DFR provision's statutory text, purpose, and legislative 
history.
    We look forward to working with DOE to clarify the DFR process 
through common-sense, practical regulations reconciling the due 
process-based procedural safeguards of normal notice and comment 
rulemaking with the worthy goal of expediting the process if, but 
only if, there is a genuine consensus agreement among all affected 
stakeholders. To this end, HARDI respectfully submits its views, and 
the reasons for those views, on the following issues:
    (1) When a joint statement with recommendations related to an 
energy or water conservation standard would be deemed to have been 
submitted by ``interested persons that are fairly representative of 
relevant points of view,'' thereby permitting use of the DFR 
mechanism;
    (2) the nature and extent of ``adverse comments'' that may 
provide the Secretary a reasonable basis for withdrawing the DFR, 
leading to further rulemaking under the accompanying notice of 
proposed rulemaking (``NOPR''); and
    (3) what constitutes the ``recommended standard contained in the 
statement,'' and the scope of any resulting DFR.

I. Importance of Clarification of DOE's Direct Final Rule Process to 
General Public, Consumers, and Industry Stakeholders

    By way of background, DOE's Plan for Clarification of DOE Direct 
Final Rule Process arose from the settlement of a lawsuit, American 
Public Gas Association (APGA) v. DOE, No. 11-1485 (D.C. Cir.). In 
brief, DOE received a joint comment from a narrow subset of 
interested parties and used this as the basis for issuing a DFR 
setting highly controversial energy-efficiency standards for 
furnaces, air conditioners, and heat pumps in June 2011. HARDI and 
other

[[Page 64708]]

``interested persons'' were not part of the negotiations leading to 
the joint comment and did not agree to the energy-efficiency 
standards it proposed. DOE subsequently received over thirty adverse 
comments, including comments from HARDI and other stakeholders, 
pointing out substantial issues of concern. Ultimately, this led to 
protracted litigation involving eleven participants representing an 
incredibly diverse cross-section of interests: HVAC distributors, 
contractors, and manufacturers; natural gas distributors; consumer, 
energy-efficiency, and environmental advocates; and DOE. In early 
2014, a settlement agreement was reached in which all eleven 
participants agreed to a notice and comment process to clarify the 
circumstances under which DOE could use the DFR process to set 
standards. The circumstances surrounding the lawsuit and settlement, 
while expensive and potentially avoidable, illustrate the pressing 
need for clarification of DOE's DFR authority under EPCA moving 
forward in the interest of ensuring that the same situation does not 
arise again.
    The pressing need for clarification is underscored by the fact 
that DOE's DFR authority under EPCA affects myriad industries: 
manufacturers of a wide range of consumer products, including 
furnaces, air conditioners, boilers, refrigerators, freezers, heat 
pumps, water heaters, pool heaters, direct heating equipment, 
dishwashers, clothes washers and dryers, various lamps, kitchen 
ranges and ovens, faucets, showerheads, urinals, microwaves, and 
other consumer products falling within the ambit of the statute; 
distributors of the foregoing consumer products, as well as 
contractors and installers--tens of thousands of small businesses; 
energy suppliers, such as natural gas distributors; and utilities. 
In addition, consumers are affected by energy-conservation standards 
that DOE establishes under EPCA, which may, among other things, 
substantially increase the up-front cost of products that are 
necessities of modem life, such as furnaces, air conditioners, and 
refrigerators.
    These energy-conservation standards impact the day-to-day lives 
of millions of people. For this reason, they are often classified as 
``major rules,'' which means that they have been deemed ``likely to 
result in . . . an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or 
more'' or ``a major increase in costs'' or ``significant adverse 
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, 
innovation or on the ability of'' American companies ``to compete 
with foreign-based enterprises.'' \8\ In other words, the stakes are 
often high when DOE promulgates regulations implementing EPCA, 
whether via the DFR process or through normal notice and comment 
rulemaking. Given that EPCA requires DOE to establish energy-
conservation standards at regular intervals, it is expected that DOE 
frequently will use the DFR process to promulgate ``major rules'' 
establishing energy-conservation standards for consumer products, 
notwithstanding adverse comments on those rules.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 804(2).
    \9\ See, e.g., Notice of Effective Date and Compliance Dates for 
Direct Final Rule, Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation 
Standards for Dishwashers, 77 FR 59,712 (Oct. 1, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. History of DOE's DFR Authority Under EPCA

    HARDI believes that DOE's communications to Congress requesting 
legislation authorizing DOE to issue and confirm DFRs setting 
energy-efficiency standards under EPCA outline the proper framework 
for regulations clarifying the scope of this authority, the 
circumstances in which DOE may issue a DFR, and, perhaps more 
importantly, the circumstances requiring withdrawal of a DFR. In 
this regard, in 2006, then-Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman 
wrote to the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives ``to 
transmit legislation to authorize the Secretary of Energy to use 
expedited procedures to promulgate rules establishing energy 
conservation standards,'' which included proposed legislation 
granting DOE authority to set standards through the DFR process: 
\10\

    \10\ Letter from Samuel J. Bodman, Secretary of Energy, to The 
Honorable J. Dennis Hastert, at 1 (March 23, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ``The proposed legislation would provide expedited procedures 
for rulemaking in a defined set of circumstances. It would authorize 
special rulemaking procedures that would allow the Secretary to 
prescribe energy conservation standards by direct final rule. Use of 
this authority would be limited to circumstances in which, in 
response to an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, 
representatives of all relevant interests (including manufacturers 
of covered products, efficiency advocates and State officials) 
negotiate on their own initiative and submit a joint comment to the 
Department of Energy (DOE) proposing an energy conservation standard 
for a product. If the Secretary determines that the jointly proposed 
standard meets the substantive requirements of the law for that 
product, the Secretary would be authorized to publish a notice of 
direct final rulemaking incorporating the recommended standard. The 
Secretary simultaneously would publish a notice of proposed 
rulemaking, incorporating the regulatory language of the direct 
final rule and providing a public comment deadline before the 
effective date of the direct final rule. If there is no objection to 
the jointly proposed standard, the direct final rule would become 
effective 120 days after the notice is published. If any person 
files a significant adverse comment on the notice of proposed 
rulemaking, the Secretary would be required to withdraw the direct 
final rule and move forward under the procedures of existing law to 
consider the comments and publish a standard notice of final 
rulemaking.
    This proposed legislation would permit DOE, in the absence of 
apparent stakeholder objection, to expedite a rulemaking by going 
directly from an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to a notice 
of final rulemaking with a summary statement of basis and purpose, 
even though there is no emergency that would justify waiver of 
notice and comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act 
(APA), 5 U.S.C. 553. Since the rational basis test under the APA (5 
U.S.C. 706) would apply to judicial review of a direct final rule in 
the event that an interested person filed a petition for review, DOE 
would have to be cautious in determining that the stakeholder 
agreement represents the views of all relevant stakeholder 
interests.'' \11\

    \11\ Id. at 1-2 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's testimony before Congress on the scope of its requested 
DFR authority provides another important touchstone for regulations 
clarifying DOE's DFR process. For example, Assistant Secretary 
Alexander Karsner told Congress that DOE's DFR ``legislative 
proposal would allow the Department to move directly to a final rule 
for certain products when a clear consensus for standards exist 
among the manufacturers, efficiency advocates and other 
stakeholders.'' \12\ Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary John 
Mizroch echoed that message to Congress:

    \12\ Achieving--At Long Last--Appliance Efficiency Standards, 
Hearing Before H. Subcomm. On Energy and Air Quality, 110th Cong., 
8, 16 (2007) (Alexander Karsner, Asst. Sec., DOE), available at 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-l10hhrg39512/html/CHRG-l10hhrg39512.htm (last visited July 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ``To shorten the time for a completed standard by nearly one-
third, Secretary Bodman recently requested authorization from 
Congress to streamline the rulemaking process and allow the 
Department to go to a direct final rule for certain products when a 
clear consensus for a standard exists among manufacturers, 
efficiency advocates, the Government and other stakeholders.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Energy Efficiency Promotion Act of 2007: Hearing on S. 1115 
Before S. Comm. On Energy and Nat'l Resources, 110th Cong. 4, 6 
(2007) (John Mizroch, Principal Deputy Ass. Sec., DOE), available at 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-l10shrg36640/html/CHRG-l10shrg36640.htm (last visited July 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress accepted then-Secretary Bodman's proposal in 2007 
through Section 308 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 
2007, codified at 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), which reflects DOE's, and 
Congress's, intent to limit use of the expedited DFR process to 
circumstances where genuine consensus exists among all affected 
stakeholders. HARDI agrees with DOE that ``Congress adopted almost 
exactly the language DOE had . . . proposed'' in draft legislation 
attached to Secretary Bodman's letter to Congress.\14\ In part for 
this reason, regulations clarifying DOE's DFR authority under EPCA 
should be consistent with Secretary Bodman's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Brief for the Respondent, APGA v. DOE, Case No. 11-1485, 
Doc. #1386024, at 13 (D.C. Cir. July 26, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, regulations clarifying DOE's DFR authority should 
be consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)'s plain language. That 
provision authorizes DOE to set standards through DRFs only under 
limited circumstances. To do so, DOE must first receive ``a 
statement . . . submitted jointly

[[Page 64709]]

by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant 
points of view (including representatives of covered products, 
States, and efficiency advocates) . . . [that] contains 
recommendations with respect to an energy . . . conservation 
standard[.]'' \15\ Then DOE must ``determine[] that the recommended 
standard contained in the [joint] statement'' complies with EPCA's 
other requirements for new or amended energy-conservation 
standards.\16\ If DOE determines that a joint statement recommending 
energy-conservation standards satisfies these requirements, then it 
may issue a DFR setting a standard \17\ and must solicit public 
comment for at least 110 days with respect thereto.\18\ If DOE 
``receives 1 or more adverse public comments . . . that the 
Secretary determines . . . may provide a reasonable basis for 
withdrawing the direct final rule under subsection (o) [of EPCA] . . 
. or any other applicable law,'' DOE must withdraw the DFR.\19\ DOE 
must make this determination within 10 days or less of the close of 
the comment period,\20\ which, as a practical matter, does not 
provide DOE sufficient time to evaluate the merits of adverse 
comments or conduct a complex cost-benefit analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A).
    \16\ 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i).
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(B).
    \19\ 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)(i) (emphasis added).
    \20\ Compare 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(B) (requiring comment period 
of ``at least 110 days''), with 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)(i) (DOE must 
determine whether to withdraw DFR ``[n]ot later than 120 days'' 
after publication).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HARDI agrees with DOE that the statute requires the agency to 
consider adverse comments cumulatively.\21\ HARDI also agrees with 
DOE \22\ that the statute requires the agency to either confirm the 
DFR or withdraw the DFR in its entirety.\23\ The statutory text also 
makes clear that DOE must withdraw a DFR if it receives adverse 
comments that could possibly provide a reasonable basis for 
withdrawal. Congress's deliberate decision to use ``may'' language, 
coupled with the 10-day-or-less withdrawal period, confirms that 
Congress chose to give DOE narrow authority to set uncontroversial 
standards through DFRs based on genuine, broad-based consensus 
agreements among stakeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Notice of Effective Date and Compliance Dates for Direct 
Final Rule, Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation 
Standards for Residential Furnaces and Residential Central Air 
Conditioners and Heat Pumps, 76 FR 67,037, 67,050 (Oct. 31, 2011).
    \22\ See id. at 67,037.
    \23\ 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Recommendations for Definitions Clarifying DOE's DFR Authority

    In light of the above, HARDI believes that defining key 
statutory language in EPCA's DFR provision, as outlined below, would 
have various long-term benefits for DOE, all stakeholders, and the 
general public:
     Reduce the potential for litigation and thereby reduce 
the likelihood of delayed implementation of energy-conservation 
standards.
     Ensure that regulated parties and others who will incur 
compliance- and enforcement-related and other monetary costs as a 
result of energy-conservation standards will have a seat at the 
table and a meaningful opportunity to participate in the process.
     Prevent a narrow subset of interested parties 
(advocating either unduly stringent or unduly lax standards) from 
forcing those standards on the regulated community (and/or other 
interested parties, including efficiency advocates) without their 
consent.
     Provide a framework that will allow the expedited DFR 
process to be used as intended in circumstances where a clear 
consensus exists among all relevant interests, including 
manufacturers, efficiency advocates, and other stakeholders (which 
may include distributors, contractors, energy suppliers, utilities, 
consumers, and other market participants, depending on the substance 
of the proposed DFR).
     Enable DOE to work with stakeholders to develop DFR 
standards that will, on the one hand, ensure that relevant 
stakeholders will always have a seat at the table, but, on the other 
hand, prevent a single individual from derailing a DFR through 
submission of a frivolous comment on Regulations.gov.
    Accordingly, HARDI respectfully suggests the following 
definitions of key statutory language in EPCA's DFR provision, 42 
U.S.C. 6295(p)(4):

(1) ``Interested Parties That Are Fairly Representative of Relevant 
Points of View''

    In his or her determination, the Secretary shall consider 
whether the petitioners fairly represent the spectrum of opinions 
that have been presented to the Department as being interested in 
the products or efficiency standard at issue. There is no 
requirement that all possible commenters join in a petition, and all 
such persons will have an opportunity to comment on the DFR and 
potentially submit an ``adverse comment'' that will require 
withdrawal of a DFR. However, a petition must represent the views of 
all relevant stakeholder interests (which may include distributors, 
contractors, energy suppliers, utilities, consumers, and other 
market participants, depending on the substance of the proposed 
DFR).
    (a) Representatives of manufacturers of covered products, 
States, and efficiency advocates are necessary parties to any joint 
statement forming the basis of a direct final rule. No presumption 
shall arise that a joint statement submitted solely by 
representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and 
efficiency advocates has been submitted by interested parties that 
are fairly representative of relevant points of view.
    (b) A joint statement recommending that the Secretary exercise 
his or her optional authority under 42 U.S.C. 6295(O)(6) to set 
regional standards for furnaces, central air conditioners, or heat 
pumps cannot form the basis of a direct final rule unless 
representatives of the market participants listed in 42 U.S.C. 
6295(O)(6)(D)(ii) are signatories to that joint statement 
(consumers, manufacturers, product distributors, contractors, and 
installers).
    Rationale for Proposed Definition 1: Proposed Definition 1 is 
designed to clarify language in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A) authorizing 
DOE to issue a DFR if, and only if, it receives ``a statement that 
is 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)[.]'' \24\ Particularly against the backdrop of then-
Secretary Bodman's proposal, Congress's use of the word 
``including'' makes clear that the list of necessary parties to the 
joint statement is nonexhaustive, as the stakeholders ``that are 
fairly representative of relevant points of view'' will vary based 
on the content of the DFR. For example, EPCA itself lists additional 
stakeholders who necessarily have relevant points of view for DFRs 
setting regional energy conservation standards, as it requires DOE 
to ``consider the impact of the additional regional standards on 
consumers, manufacturers, and other market participants, including 
product distributors, dealers, contractors, and installers.'' \25\ 
Elsewhere, DOE has recognized that energy suppliers may be relevant 
parties.\26\ The same holds true with respect to utilities.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A) (emphasis added).
    \25\ 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(6)(D)(ii).
    \26\ Notice of Effective Date and Compliance Dates for Direct 
Final Rule, Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation 
Standards for Residential Furnaces and Residential Central Air 
Conditioners and Heat Pumps, 76 FR 67,037, 67,050 (Oct. 31, 2011).
    \27\ 10 CFR pt. 430, Appendix A, Subpart C, Sec.  8(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rationale for Proposed Definition (l)(a): Proposed Definition 
(l)(a) is designed to clarify Congress's intent that while 
manufacturers of covered products, States, and energy-efficiency 
advocates are necessary parties to any joint statement forming the 
basis of a DFR, those parties may not be sufficient, depending on 
the substance of the proposed standard.
    Rationale for Proposed Definition (l)(b): Proposed Definition 
(l)(b) reflects Congress's intent, as expressed by the plain text of 
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(6)(d)(ii), that if DOE wishes to exercise its 
option of setting regional energy-conversation standards, the agency 
``shall . . . consider the impact of the additional regional 
standards on consumers, manufacturers, and other market 
participants, including product distributors, dealers, contractors, 
and installers.'' This mandatory directive reflects Congress's 
recognition of the practical reality that regional energy-
conservation standards are not only unprecedented in the industry 
but also impact a far wider array of stakeholders--including tens of 
thousands of small businesses (e.g., distributors, contractors) and 
consumers--than a national base standard. Regional standards 
effectively make a consumer product that would be legal in one part 
of the country illegal in another part of the country and impose 
substantial compliance-and enforcement-related costs on entire 
industries--from large manufacturers to independent contractors--
which are fundamentally different from the costs imposed by a single 
national base standard. In light of the unique challenges posed by 
regional standards, this definition would ensure that any joint 
statement

[[Page 64710]]

recommending that DOE set EPCA-optional regional standards reflects 
the views of relevant stakeholders who bear the brunt of the 
enforcement- and compliance-related costs associated with those 
standards.

(2) ``Adverse Public Comments'' That ``May Provide a Reasonable 
Basis for Withdrawing the Direct Final Rule''

    Any one or more comments, considered as a whole, that provide a 
plausible basis for disputing material facts, analyses, or 
conclusions in the petition or DFR, even if not accepted by the 
Department as valid or dispositive, but which, if accepted, could 
possibly affect the proposed standard in stringency or structure, 
will require the Secretary to withdraw the DFR. In general, adverse 
comments should address technical, economic, energy, and legal 
arguments that are contained in the petition and in the DFR. In 
general, overly broad and general statements opposing regulations or 
questioning the motivation of petitioners will not be considered 
sufficient. The Secretary shall not make conclusive determinations 
on the merits of public comments. Comments will be considered 
cumulatively.
    Rationale for Proposed Definition 2: Proposed Definition 2 
attempts to strike the appropriate balance between establishing a 
standard for withdrawal that is so high that issuance of a DFR 
virtually ensures its confirmation, regardless of how controversial 
it may be and irrespective of the merits of substantive objections 
to it, and a standard so low that any individual can derail a DFR--
and ruin productive negotiations--simply by submitting a frivolous 
comment on the Internet. We believe that this proposed definition 
reflects Congress's intent that DOE should not make conclusive 
determinations on the merits of public comments, which must be 
considered cumulatively, or engage in extrastatutory cost-benefit 
analysis based on those comments. We also believe that this proposed 
definition will prove beneficial by placing the emphasis on 
practical and legal arguments, as opposed to ideologically driven 
opposition that is more appropriately addressed through the 
political process. As a practical matter, this will ensure that DFRs 
that are the product of broad agreement among relevant stakeholders 
are confirmed, while those that prove to be controversial among 
those who will actually bear their costs are withdrawn.

(3) ``The Recommended Standard Contained in the Statement''

    Any DFR issued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i) shall 
contain only the recommended standard contained in the joint 
statement authorizing the Secretary to issue the DFR. The Secretary 
shall not include in any DFR issued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 
6295(p)(4)(A)(i) any energy-conservation standards, including but 
not limited to standby and off-mode energy-conservation standards, 
that are not specifically recommended in the joint statement that 
authorizes issuance of that DFR.
    Rationale for Proposed Definition 3: Proposed Definition 3 is 
intended to ensure that the broad array of stakeholders that 
negotiate and then submit consensus-based energy-conservation 
standards via a petition for a DFR get what they bargained for--no 
more, and no less. In the past, DOE has issued and confirmed DFRs 
containing energy-conservation standards (e.g., standby and off-mode 
standards for air conditioners) that are outside of the scope of 
standards proposed in a joint comment used as the basis for the DFR. 
Setting standards through the DFR process that are not recommended 
in the joint statement will needlessly disturb the settled 
expectations of the parties that submit it. This may have a chilling 
effect on the legitimate use of the DFR mechanism to set 
noncontroversial consensus standards. Proposed Definition 3 provides 
certainty to stakeholders that when they submit a joint statement 
asking DOE to issue a DFR setting particular standards, DOE will 
either issue a DFR establishing those, and only those, standards, or 
publish a notice of a determination explaining why a DFR cannot be 
issued based on the statement, as required by EPCA.
    HARDI appreciates the opportunity to contribute to this process. 
We hope that our comments and proposed DFR definitions are viewed as 
constructive and open the conversation about meaningful DFR reform 
on a positive note. We look forward to working with DOE to craft 
regulations that promote the public interest, codify and clarify 
Congress's intent, and provide meaningful long-term benefits to all 
stakeholders, as well as DOE.

     Respectfully submitted,

Jonathan A. Melchi,

Director of Government Affairs, HARDI

B. AHRI Letter (October 10, 2014)

October 10, 2014.

Mr. Daniel Cohen, Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, 
Regulation and Energy Efficiency, Office of General Counsel, U.S. 
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Room 6A179 
Washington, DC 20585.

Re: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Request for Information 
Regarding Direct Final Rule (DFR) Process Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295 
(p)(4)

    Dear Mr. Cohen: These comments are submitted by the Air-
Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) \28\ in 
accordance with the settlement of the American Public Gas 
Association (APGA) v. DOE litigation \29\ on April 24, 2014. The 
purpose of this letter is to provide DOE with information on the 
following issues, as set forth in the settlement agreement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute 
(AHRI) is the trade association representing manufacturers of air 
conditioning, heating, commercial refrigeration, and water heating 
equipment. An internationally recognized advocate for the industry, 
AHRI develops standards for and certifies the performance of many of 
these products. AHRI's 300+ member companies manufacture quality, 
efficient, and innovative residential and commercial air 
conditioning, space heating, water heating, and commercial 
refrigeration equipment and components for sale in North America and 
around the world.
    \29\ American Public Gas Association (APGA) v. DOE, No. 11-1485 
(D.C. Cir.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. When a joint statement with recommendations related to an 
energy or water conservation standard would be deemed to have been 
submitted by ``interested persons that are fairly representative of 
relevant points of view,'' thereby permitting use of the DFR 
mechanism;
    2. The nature and extent of ``adverse comments'' that may 
provide the Secretary a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct 
final rule, leading to further rulemaking under the accompanying 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR);
    3. What constitutes the ``recommended standard contained in the 
statement,'' and the scope of any resulting direct final rule; and
    4. Any other issues pertaining to the DFR process.
    In general,\30\ AHRI concurs with the definitions of key terms 
proposed by the Heating, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration 
Distributors International (HARDI). Of particular concern to AHRI is 
issue number three (3), regarding the scope of the DFR. The DFR 
establishing energy efficiency standards for residential central air 
conditioning and furnaces \31\ included non-consensus ``off-mode'' 
standards for residential air conditioners and heat pumps. AHRI has 
repeatedly objected to the inclusion of these standards, both 
because they were not part of the negotiated consensus agreement, 
and because they were promulgated without the statutorily required 
test procedure. Although the non-negotiated off-mode standards 
included in the DFR (which was first published over three years ago) 
will be effective January 1, 2015, DOE has yet to publish a final 
test procedure for those standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Given the preemption provisions in EPCA, AHRI does not 
believe that States are required parties for all DFR statements, but 
that ``interested persons'' should be determined by the subject 
matter of the energy conservation standard at issue.
    \31\ 76 FR 37,408 (June 27, 2011)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The non-consensus off-mode standards DOE included in the DFR are 
contrary to the statutory requirements and overall framework of the 
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), which requires 
promulgated test procedures to be included in new or amended 
efficiency standards.\32\ Under that framework, test procedures are 
included with the applicable standard, which is effective five years 
after the publication date.\33\ This provides manufacturers with the 
necessary time to test products to ensure compliance with new or 
amended efficiency levels and make the appropriate certifications to 
DOE. Any lesser time frame for implementation results in test 
procedures that are unduly burdensome to conduct, as manufacturers 
will not have sufficient time to test products for certification and 
compliance purposes. As AHRI has repeatedly noted, it is arbitrary 
and capricious to set standards, or even to evaluate standards 
levels, until a test procedure has been established to determine

[[Page 64711]]

actual performance and what is economically and technically 
feasible. Inclusion of the non- consensus off-mode standards in the 
DFR was thus entirely inappropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)
    \33\ See, e.g., the process rule at 7(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The inclusion of the off-mode standards in the DFR despite the 
lack of a final test procedure, in violation of EPCA's statutory 
requirements, illustrates the importance of clarifying that any DFR 
issued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i) should contain only 
the recommended consensus standard contained in the joint statement 
authorizing the Secretary to issue the DFR. As HARDI notes in its 
proposed definition, the Secretary should be prohibited from 
including any energy conservation standards, including but not 
limited to standby and off-mode energy conservation standards that 
are not specifically recommended in the joint statement that 
authorizes the issuance of the DFR.
    In the settlement agreement, DOE agreed to initiate a notice and 
comment rulemaking to clarify its process related to the 
promulgation of DFRs. The purpose of this rulemaking is to consider 
amending the DOE ``process rule'' promulgated July 15, 1996, titled 
``Procedures, Interpretations and Policies for Consideration of New 
or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products,'' 
and codified at Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 430, Title 10, Code 
of Federal Regulations.\34\ AHRI believes that the process by which 
DOE will issue DFRs clearly pertains to, and in fact is inextricably 
linked with, its overall rulemaking process as set forth in the 
process rule, and that DOE must consider and solicit comment on 
other amendments to the process rule in connection with this notice 
and comment rulemaking. For example, the process rule addresses 
consideration of ``Joint Stakeholder Recommendations'' and states 
that DOE will identify any necessary modifications to established 
test procedures when initiating the standards development process, 
and that modifications will be proposed early in the standards 
development process. It also states that ``Final, modified test 
procedures will be issued prior to the NOPR on proposed standards.'' 
As noted above, this did not happen regarding the non-negotiated 
off-mode standards DOE included in the DFR for central air 
conditioners and heat pumps. There are also several other recent 
examples of DOE's publication of energy conservation standards when 
the related test procedures were final only after issuance of the 
related NOPR or final rule.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Joint Motion of all Parties and Intervenors to Vacate in 
Part and Remand for Further Rulemaking, American Public Gas 
Association (APGA) v. DOE, No. 11-1485 (D.C. Cir.) at 12.
    \35\ See, e.g., Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial 
Refrigeration Equipment, 79 FR 17,726 (Mar. 28, 2014); Energy 
Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers, 79 FR 
32,050 (June 3, 2014); and Energy Conservation Standards for 
Residential Furnace Fans, 79 FR 38,130 (July 3, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It has been nearly 20 years since the process rule was 
promulgated, and the quantity of DOE rulemaking and complexity of 
DOE's analysis has changed significantly. The inclusion of guidance 
on the DFR process will be a substantial change to the process rule, 
one that should be considered as part and parcel of DOE's overall 
rulemaking. Both for that reason, and to ensure that the DFR process 
that DOE sets forth through the current proceedings are consistent 
with DOE's overall guidance on new or revised energy conservation 
standards for consumer products, DOE should solicit and consider 
comments on the DFR process and amendments and improvements to the 
process rule as a whole.
    AHRI appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. If 
you have any questions regarding this submission, please do not 
hesitate to contact me.

 Sincerely,

Amy Shepherd,

General Counsel.

C. ACCA Letter (October 10, 2014)

October 10, 2014

Mr. Daniel Cohen, Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, 
Regulation, & Energy Efficiency, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585.

RE: Intervener Letter in response to the Plan for Clarification of 
DOE Direct Final Rule Process

    Dear Assistant General Counsel Cohen: ACCA submits this letter 
for inclusion in the notice of proposed rulemaking materials 
referenced in the Plan for Clarification of DOE Direct Final Rule 
Process (Plan for Clarification) appended to the Joint Motion of All 
Parties and lnterveners to Vacate in Part and Remand for Further 
Rulemaking filed as part of the APGA v. US Department of Energy 
litigation.
    The Plan for Clarification indicates that DOE will invite public 
comment on issues related to the Direct Final Rule Process through a 
request for information (RFI), specifically:
    (1) When a joint statement with recommendations related to an 
energy or water conservation standard would be deemed to have been 
submitted by ``interested persons that are fairly representative of 
relevant points of view,'' thereby permitting use of the DFR 
mechanism;
    (2) The nature and extent of ``adverse comments'' that may 
provide the Secretary a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct 
final rule, leading to further rulemaking under the accompanying 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR);
    (3) What constitutes the ``recommended standard contained in the 
statement,'' and the scope of any resulting direct final rule; and
    (4) Any other issues pertaining to the DFR process.
    The Plan for Clarification also states that DOE will ``undertake 
a further notice and comment process to consider amending the final 
rule promulgated on July 15, 1996, entitled `Procedures, 
Interpretations and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised 
Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products,' codified at 
Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 430, Title 10, Code of Federal 
Regulations.''

``Interested Persons That Are Fairly Representative of Relevant 
Points of View''

    ACCA believes the meaning of the phrase ``interested persons 
that are fairly representative of relevant points of view'' with 
regard to the constituents or stakeholders to a joint statement 
filed for consideration under the DFR process is determined by the 
scope of the standard or rule. There are many analyses undertaken by 
DOE during the rulemaking process that look to various stakeholders 
for comment in developing the Technical Support Document (TSD), 
including the analysis of energy use, markup, life cycle costs, and 
payback period. If the purpose of the use of a DFR is to expedite a 
rulemaking process, stakeholders who would typically be interested 
in the results found in the TSO should be assumed to be ``interested 
persons.''
    In addition, as part of any guidance, DOE should encourage any 
parties looking to develop a joint statement to consider all 
potential stakeholders listed in previous rulemakings on the same 
subject.

``Adverse Comments''

    ACCA believes that more clearly defining ``adverse comments'' 
and the phrase ``reasonable basis ``are critical in improving the 
DFR development process and reducing the chances of a DFR being 
rejected for consideration or withdrawn by the Secretary. The 
factors in determining the nature of the adverse comments should be 
informed by the stakeholders filing those comments and the 
substantiation of the comments. ACCA agrees with the definition 
submitted by the Heating, Air-Conditioning, & Refrigeration 
Distributors International because it strikes the proper balance 
that ensures legitimate concerns will be reviewed and acknowledged.

``Recommended Standard Contained in the Statement and the Scope of 
Any Resulting Direct Final Rule''

    ACCA believes this issue is relatively simple. DOE must consider 
the joint submission as a single proposal that cannot be cherry-
picked. Should the joint submission include provisions that are 
outside the purview or jurisdiction of EPCA, or include elements 
that DOE prefers not to accept, then DOE must reject the joint 
submission with a public notice of it reasons.
    Clarification of the DFR process and a follow up review of the 
Process Rule are necessary steps to improving the rulemaking process 
going forward. ACCA appreciates the opportunity to participate in 
the initiation of these efforts. Should you have further questions, 
please do not hesitate to contact me.

 Respectfully,

Charlie McCrudden

Senior Vice President, Government Relations.

[FR Doc. 2014-25922 Filed 10-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```