EE-RM-STD-98-440 COMMENT 209

EE-RM/STD-98-440 

IN THE 1J1\1TED STATES C01.,JRT OF APPt: A.LS 

FOR THE SECO~D CIRCL1T 

STATE OFl\TEW YORK, 

STATE OF CON1\~CTICt:T, 

Petitioners, 

-againstSPENCER ABRAHAM, AS SECRET A..R Y 

OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARD1B\T 

OF ENERGY, and UNITED STATES 

DEPARTIvfENT OF E~l£RGY, 

Respondents. 

------_. 

PETITIO}," FOR RE'lTJ="W 

Docket No. 

Pursuant to Rule 15 of the Ffderal Rules of Appdlate Procedure, the States of 

~ew York and Connecticut ("Petitioners") r.ereby petition the Cour: for review of a final 

rJle Fublished by respondent :he enited Sutes Depa..-..rnent of Energy ("Department of 

Energy" or "DOE') in the Federal Register c;: April 20, 2001, 66 Feci. Reg. 20191. '",'hiet 

;:ostpc·ned iLdefinitely the e:"fective date of :C:CE' s Fir.a] Rule em:::ed Er:e:-g'" 

Conser'\'a~ion P:ooram for Consume:- Pro~L:c~: Ce;:;:-al Air Cond:~:2'ne;5 "'10 Heat 

P'Jmps Ene:2"V Conser."'3tior: Standards: 66 Fed. Reg. i170 (Jal1. 22, :001) ('Final 

Conservation Rule"). The Aprii 20, ':001 final rJle. referred to herein as ti:.c "April'::O:~ 

Delay Rule," is attached her~o as Exhil;:t A. 

Petitioners funher seek review of a re:3ted final rule, published in the Federal 

Register on February 2,2001,66 Fed. Reg. 87':'5, by which DOE first purported to dei.ay 

the effec!ive date of the Final Conservation Rwe. The February 2,2001 final rule, 
EE-RM/STD-8-440o-_ ?

-2- I

referred to herein as the "February 2 1dDelay Rule," is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

Petitioners challenge the Februar, 2^ Delay Rule to the extent that the review of its

legality is necessary to determine the legality of the April 20C' Delay Rule.

Petitioners file this Petition for Review protectively. Petitioners believe that the

Departmenr of Energy did not act under any starutory authorirt in issuing the February

2' Delay Rule or the April 20 'h Delay Rule challenged herein, and that no statutory

provision for judicial review by this Court appTies. For this reaso.I, Pettioners believe

that jurisdiction over these claims proper! , lies in - United States Distri:' Court pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Accordinzgl, pe:itioners ar:. fiing corterpoianeousi with this

Petition a Complaint in the United S-taes District Court for the Southern Di;trict of New

York. challenging the February 2" and April 20' hDelay Rules identified above pursuant

to the Admrinistrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. ss 55! ei sec.

In the event that it is determined that DOE issued these two final rules pursuant to

§ 6295(d) of the Energy Polic' and Conservation Act ("EPCA"), 42 U.S.C. C 6295(d),

however. jurisdiction would lie in this Court pursuan. tO 42 .S.C. 6306((), which u.C. [6306('c'~(i, 'hich

provides for judicil review b* a Uni:ed States Curt of Ap.ea2s f rules 'prescribed

under section... 6295 of this tide," zd venue would be proper in this Court pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 6306(b)(1).

The February 2nd and April 20'

" Delay Rules are arbitrary, capricious, contrary to

statute and othevrise not in accordance with law. For these and other reasons, if it is

deterrrned that this Court has jurisdiction over these claims. P2:itioners respectfully

request that this Court hold that these rules are unlawful, and vacate and set them aside.

In addition, DOE announced in the April 20'

" Delay Rule its intention "within the

EE-RM-STD-98-440 COMMENT 209

., 

-.r..-

referred to herein as the "February 2nd Delay Rule," is anached hereto as Exhibit B. 

Petitioners challenge the February 2"<! Delay Rule to the extent that the review of its 

legality is necessary to determine the legality of the April 20'~' Delay Rule. 

Petitioners file this Petition for Review protectively. Petitioners believe tllat the 

Department of Energy did not act under any starutory authority fro issuing the February 

2f1d Delay Rule or the April 20th Delay Rule challenged herem, and that no statutory 

provision for judicial review by this Coun applies. For this reaSO.1, Petltioners believe 

that jurisdiction over these claims proj:'erl,' lies 1':: z Cr.ited Stales ~)istri:l Court purSUZl.I:! 

to 28 FS.C. § 1331. Accord:::£Iy, ;:e:itio."li~rS a.r:~ ::!i:lg cor:le;r.pOlaneou~:y with th.is 

Petition a Complaint in the enited S:.:.tes Distric-t Court for the Southern Di~)trict oiNew 

York. challenging the February 2M and April 20'~ Delay Rules identified aoove pursuant 

to the Administrati\'e Procedure Act, 5 V.S.c. §§ 551 el seq. 

In the even! that it is de:ennir:ec that DOE issued !::ese m'o final rules pursuant to 

§ 6295(d) of the Energy Policy and Cc::servation Act C'EPCA"), 42 C.S.c. § 6295(d), 

however, jurisdiction would lie in th;s Court pu:-suar.~ to 42 '_".S.c. § 6306(b(1), which 

provides for judicial ;-eview cy.3. Cni:ec States COL:11 of '';~'Fea;s of rules "J:~escnbed 

under section ... 6295 of this title," ':"l.C venue would be Fof:er ir. this Cour. pursua.'lt to 

42 G.S.C. § 6306(b)(l). 

The February 2nd and April 20\~ Delay Rules are arbitrary, capricious, contrary to 

statute an.d oilier.vise not m accordance \\ith lav.·. For these a..'lC other reasons, if it is 

dete:rrinec ~~at this Court has jurisdic:ion over these claims. P~!itioners respectfully 

request that this Court hold that t!lese :--..:les are unlawful, and vacate a:1C set them aside. 

In addition, DOE all.'1ounced ir: the April 20th Delay R...:ie its intention "within the 
-.3- EE-RM/STD-98-440-^9-,t ,

next 60 days to issue a fr .her notice of proposed rulemaking to revise the standard levels

set out in the January 22, 200] final rule [the Final Conservation Rule]'' and to propose a

new r:le with lower enerzv efficiency standards than those set forth in the Final

Conservation Rule. See Exhibit B. Petitioners respectfully request that, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2201(a), this Court enter a declaratory judcment that the Department of Energy

is prohibited from "revising" downward the energy efficiency levels set forth in the Final

Conservation Rule. See 42 U.S.C. § 6295(o)(1) ("[t]he Secretary may not pre;cribe any

amended standard which ... decreases the minimum required energy efficiencyi] of z

covered product").

On behalf of the people residing L. the Petitioner States as well as on behalf of

themselves as consumers of elecricity, the Petitioners have strong environmental, public

health and consumer interests in the prornt :mplermentation of the Final Conservation

Rule. The Final Conserva:;cn Rule will save energy, lower enerE bills, reduce air

pollu:ion emissions and related pubiic health impacts, reduce the likelihood of electricit,

short-Tes and blackouts, a=-.. help :o avoid same of the need to build new power plants.

DOE's attempts to delay t-.e effec:ve date c. -he Final Ccnser,'ation Rule has harmed

plainrfis by delaying these - nefi:s. The Peti:ioners believe that irmpiementation of all

reasonably feasible energy ^cnservation measures is an essential component of any longterm sioution to America's energ, needs. In addition, DOE's planned revision of the

Final Conservation Rule tc reduce the energE efficiency standards will adversely affect

all citizens in the Petitioner States, in economic as well as environmental and public

health areas.

EE-RM-STD-98-440 COMMENT 209

"I 

-~- EE-RM/STD-9~-440 -1Ft/or:;, 

next 60 days to issue a f:.:.::her notice of p:oposed mlemaking to revise the standard leveis 

set out in the January 2=. 200J final rule [the Final Conservation Rule]'" and to propose a 

new r.:.le with lower energy efficiency stancards than those set forth in the Final 

Conservation Rule. See Exhibit B, Petitioners respectfully request that, pursuant to 28 

U.S.c. § 2201(a): this Court enter a declaratory judgment that the Department of Energy 

is prohibited from "revisir.g" dOWJ1\\Ql'd the energy efficiency levels set fonh in the Final 

Conservation Rule. See 42 U.S.C. § 6295(0)(1) (,,[t]he Secretary may not pre;cribe any 

ame:-.:ed standard which ... decr:!ases the ::::::imum rquired energy efficiencyl] 0[(., 

covered product'). 

On behalf of the pe~ple residing ir: ~he Pet::ioner States as v.-ell as on behalf of 

themselves as consumers of electricity, t.l-;e Petitioners have stror:g environmental, pt4blic 

heaJr:: and consumer interes:s in the prorr:p: ;r.;plementation of L1e Final Conservation 

Rule. The Final Conserva::cn Rule will save energy, lower energy bills, reduce air 

pollu::on emissions and re:ated p'..!olic healti:. impacts, reduce the likelihood of elecnicity 

shon..:.ges a."'lC blaCKouts, 2:.: help :0 avoic s:::-ne of the need to build nev, power plants. 

DOE"s attempts to delay t:::, effec::ve date c::.~e final Ccnservation Rde has harr:1ed 

plain:::fs by delaying these: :'::1efi:s. The Pe::::oners believe tha~ impie:nemation of all 

reasor.ably feasible energy:.cnservation rnez,S'.:.res is an essential ccmponer.t of any longterm s::iution:o America's e:lergy needs. In addition, DOE's pla.'U1ed revision of the 

Final Conservation Rule tc :-educe the en erg;' ~fficiency standards will adversely affect 

all ciuens in the Petitione: States, in econor..:c as well as environ.-nental and public 

health areas. 
-4- EE-RM/STD-98440-/~' .'

A list of respondents upon whom the Clerk of the Court should serve this petition,

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 6306(b)(1), is attached as Exhibit C hereto.

Respectfully Submrined,

Dated: June 18, 2001 ELIOT SPITZER

ATTORN'EY GENERAL

STATE OF NEW YORK

By: /A A\ ( 

PETER H. LEHNER

D. SCOTT BASSINSON

Assistant Attome Gyneral

Environmental Protection S ureau

The Capitol

Albany, New York

(518) 473-5843

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL

STATE OF CO.NNECTCUT

By: C /o)

MARK KINDALL

Assistant Attorrme, General

55 Elm Street

P.O. Box 120

Hanford. CT 061. -0120

Tel: S60-8Ce-5250

Fax: 860-80S-52S6

EE-RM-STD-98-440 COMMENT 209

·4- EE-RM/STD.98-440-#~ tl,/ 

A liSt ofrespondents "(;pon whom the CJerk of the COll.."t should serve this petition, 

pursuant to 42 to.S.C. § 6306(b)(l), is attached as Exhibit C hereto. 

Dated: June 18,2001 

By: 

By: 

Respect..~lly Subrr.ined, 

ELIOT SPITZER 

AlTO~'\~Y GB'ERA.L 

5T ATE OF NEW YORK 

PETER 

/A~ H. LEH?\E.R 

D. SCOTT BASSIN:)O~ 

Assistant Attorney G!~neral 

Environmental P:otectlon 3lreau 

The Capitol 

Albany, New York 

(518) 473·5843 

RICHARD BLl;ME.~rnAL 

A TTOR..'NEY GE>-~RAL 

STATE OF CO~:-':ECTICLT 

/~ c-.l l L ~~W (! '-) 

MARK KINDALL 

Assistant Attomey Gene:-z.l 

55 Elm Street 

P.O. Box 120 

Hanford. CT 061 ~ ; -012 C 

Tel: 860-8C8·5::0 

Fax: 860·808·5: 86 
EE-RM/STD-98-440--: <? a

A

EE-RM-STD-98-440 COMMENT 209

A 
EE-RM-STD-98-440 COMMENT 209 federal Register/Vo!. 66. No. 77.' r·rida\· .. A.prii 20. 2001 'Rules and Regulations 20191 

~d~PARTMENTOFENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

10 CFR Pan 430 

[Docket No. EE-RM-9~1 

RlN 1to4-AAT7 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Produc:1S; Central Air 

Conditioners and Heat Pumps Energy 

Conservation Standards 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiencv and 

Renewable Energy. DepanmeOl of' 

Energy (DOE). 

ACT10N: Final rule: postponement of 

effective ciate and reconsiderallon. 

SUMMARY: In accordance wllh the 

memorandum of January 20. 2001. from 

the Assistant tc the Premienl and Chiei 

of Staff. entitled "Relnllatorv RevIew 

Plan." publlsheci in ihe Federal Rellister 

on Ianuarv 24. 2001 166 F"R 7:'::;::). DOE 

temoorarij\' delaved for 60 days: 66 FR 

8745. Febroarv 2'.2001) the eilectl\'e 

date of the final rule entitled "E:lergy 

Conservation ProlZTam for Consumer 

Products: Cenua(. ... ir Conciitioners and 

Heal Pumps Energy Conservation 

Standards published in the FederaJ 

Register on lanuar\, 22. 2001 !66 F"R 

il70). DOE tocay gJ .... es notice cf further 

postponement of the effective cate of 

the January 2::. :.!DOl. fbal rule pendim! 

the outcome oi pelitior:s OV the ·.-\IT· -

Conciitionmg anc Refrigerimon institute 

(ARJ) for reconSIderation [)\' DOE and 

for judicial reVlew bv the United States 

Court of Appeais for"the Fount: Circull. 

OATES; The effecll .... e ciate of the ruie 

amencing 10 eFR Pan 430 ot:oilshed at 

66 F"R 7170. lanuarv 2::. ::001. is further 

postponeei from .,,-pril 23. 2001. ::lending 

the outccme oi oetillons ior . . 

admJnlstrallve reconsJceratJc:1 and 

juriicial re\,ew and further federaJ 

Rf!gister notice. This action is eifectlve 

immecilateiy :.:;::::m pubiication. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill 

Holtzman. Office of General CC'JnseJ. 

(202) 585-3410. 

jill.holtzman@ho.aoe.llov: Dr. ~tichael 

E. McCabe. Offic'e of Enenrv EfF.ciencv 

and Renewable Ene~v. (:t02) 586-0371 

M'E.McCabe@ee.doe.go .... : or EUl1ene . 

Margolis. Office of Generai Counsel. 

(202) 585-9526. 

eugene.margoiis~hq.rioe.go\' 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: P".!:suanl 

to section 325 of the Energy P-;Iicy anri 

Conser .... atJon .'\Cl (42 U.S.c. 6:: 951. on 

January 22. ::001. DOE oublis;-'eei a 

notice of iinal ruiemaklnl<. sell::11l iorth 

energy cc::ser.ation standarcis ::::Jr 

central air conditioners and central air 

conditioning heat Dumps that are not 

yet effectlve-and ~i11 n~t be enforceable 

against manuiacturers untillanuarv 23. 

2006 (66 FR 7170). The eXISting . 

standards require a Seasonal Energy 

Efficiency Rating (SEER) of 10 for split 

systems with a corresponding Heating 

System Performance Rating (HSPFl of 

6.8 and a SEER of 9.7 for singJe package 

systems with a corresponaing i-iSPF of 

6.6 (42 V.S.c. 6295(d)(1 )). The Januarv 

::2. 2001. final ruJe would requlfe a " 

SEER of 13 for all svstems with a 

corresponciing HSPF of i.i. 

The EFFECTIVE DATE line of the Januarv 

22.2001. notice of final rulemaking set' 

forth Februarv 21. 2001. as lbe effective 

date for the purpose of modifying Part 

430 of Chapter II of title 10 of t.'e Cooe 

of Federal Regulations. On Februarv 2. 

2001. pursuant to President Bush's' 

Re@uJatoJ"\' Review Plan. DOE published 

a finai rule poslponmg the effective date 

from Februarv 21. ::001. to :\oril :.!3. 

::001 166 FR a7 45 J. • 

Subseouentlv. :\RJ petltIonec DOE for 

reconS1Ceratl011 of th~ January:.!::. 2001. 

finaJ ruie. and a group of environmental 

advocacy organizations have responded 

with a statement in opposition 10 

reconsideration. In its petition .. AJU 

acknowledges that the rulema.k.ing 

record will suppon a 20 percent 

increase of the mmimum requueci 

energy efficienC'y ieveis In the eXlstms 

standarcis to a SEER of 12 with a 

corresponding HSPF of i.3. However. 

ARJ contencis lbat DOE uniairiv and 

erroneously raised the standard levels 

by 30 percent above the existing 

standarcis to a SEER of 13 with a 

corresponding HSPF of -;:' On March 

19.2001. :\'RJ also petltJonec the L;nitec 

States CO'JJ1 of .,\ppeais for the Fourth 

Circwt for iudicial' reVJew oi the final 

ruie. 

Linder the informal :-uiemaK:m: 

prOVisions of the AdmmistrauveProcedure Act (APA). an agen::v ov rule 

may alter the "effective ciate" o'f a . 

previou!::: ::mblisheri final rule (5 U.S.c. 

551(4). 551\5;. :'53). :-::e iudiclaJ review 

provisions 0; the AP .... also DT:;\'leie ior 

a chan~e oi .. e:1ec:ti\'e date': as follows: 

"When an agency finris that justice so 

requires. it may postpone the effective 

date of action taken by it. pending 

judicial review. . ." [5 V,S.c. 70S). 

Once the effective date passes. the 

standards set out in the januar\' 2::. 2001 

final rule would become-pan of the 

Code of Federal Rerulations as an 

effective final rule.-and manuiacturers 

would have to begin the process of 

coming into compliance bv Januan' 23. 

:W06. That process lDvoh'es both . 

planning and capllal expenditures. 

DOE is of the view that ARJ has raIsed 

some substantial questions about the 

legal sustainability of the Januarv 22. 

2001. final rule. Consistent Wlth' 

Execullve Order 12866 and 

conSllltations with the Office oi 

Management and Budget. DOE intends 

within the next 60 davs to issue a 

further notice of prop~sed rulemaiUng to 

reVlse the standard levels set out in the 

January 22. 2001. final rule and examine 

the eXlent to which C'W'Tent minimum 

required energy efficiency levels are to 

be increased in 2006. In that notice. 

DOE intends to propose a 12 SEER with 

a corresponding 7.04 HSPF. DOE will 

also invite public comment on its 

explanation of the statutorv authoritv to 

make such a proposal upon . 

reconsideration. During the pendency of 

ARI's petition for Judicial revle ..... anci 

the related petition for admir.istratille 

reconsideration. justice requires thaI 

DOE postpone the effective date of tle 

1anuarv 2Z. 2001. final rule. in oreier to 

aVOid imposing on manuiacturers an 

obligation to undena.ke plannmg anri 

capital expenditures 10 come into 

compliance by January 23. :2006. wllh a 

rule DOE is reconsiciering. 

To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies 

to this action. it is exempt from notice 

and comment procedures based on lbe 

good cause exceptions in 5 V.S.c. 

553[b)(B) and 553Id)(3). Seeking public 

comment and delaying the effect oi 

today's action are impracticable. 

unnecessary. anri contra.ry to the pubilc 

interest for several reasons. 

Postponement of the imminent effective 

date of April 22. 2001. aVOIds ct;nn:sion 

among manuiactu~ers as to wnether to 

begin l..;'e process oi :::omm~ inte 

compiiance. It avoJcis expenditures bv 

manufacturers in reliance on a ruie ~Jth 

respect to which there is a sllmificant 

likelihood of modlficalion. It-also 

facilitates reconsideration of a final ruie 

that. if allo ..... ed to tsie effect. mignt weil 

result in a coun oroer remanriing the 

r.Jie unrier instruc:.:ons for furthe; 

action thereoy procucing delay in 

realiZing the antlci~ated energy anc cost 

savings. 

Issued J.!) Wasbing:c:l. DC on !"pnl : 8 

2001. 

Eric I. fygi. 

.1cting General Cour.s~: 

in Doc. 01-9975 Fiieo ~18-oi. ~::3 ?r:1j 

BIWNG COO! _, .... 
EE-RM/STD-98-440-#°?o

EE-RM-STD-98-440 COMMENT 209

; '. EE.RM/STD-98-440 -::It c1 0 t 

B 
EE-RM-STD-98-440 COMMENT 209 Federal Register / Vo1.66. No. 25/ Friday, February 2, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 8745 

Appendix J [Amended1 ,_ I., ~ 

i. Appendix I to subpart B of part 430 

is amended in the first sentence of the 

introductory paragraph by removing the 

date "Februarv 12. 2001" and adding in 

its place "April 13. 2001". 

Issued in Washington. D.C. on january 29. 

2001. 

Spencer Abraham. 

Secretary of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 01-2884 filed 2-1-01: e:45 ami 

IILIJNQ COOl: _ 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EE-RM-97-900J 

RIN 1904-AA76 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Water 

Heaters 

'\GENCY: Depanment of Energy [DOE]. 

AcnON: Final rule: notice oi review. 

SUMMARY: The effective date of the final 

rule titled "Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Water 

Heaters" (55 FR 44i4. Janua!'\' li. 2001) 

is Januarv 20. 2004. Conslsterll with the 

memorandum of Januarv 20. 2001. from 

the ASSIstant to the President and Chiei 

of Staff. entitled "Resrulator-' Review 

Plan" (55 FR ii02. Jinuarv '24.2001). 

DOE todav announces thai 

contemoo'raneous with the reVlew oi 

other re'cently published fwal 

regulaoons 11 will be re\'1ewmg thIS 

final rule to determme whether funber 

actions are warranted. 

OATES: The effecti\'e date oi the ruJe 

amending J 0 crn pan 43G puollshed m 

the FederaJ Register at 55 FR 44i4 on 

January 1 -;. 2001 remams ia:lUary 20. 

2004. 

FOR FURTHE.f1INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael D. Whatley. (202) 58&-3 .. 10. 

michael. whatJe,V@hq.doe.gov; Terry 

Logee, (202) 586-9127. 

terry.logee-see.doe.gov: Fl'Ulcine Pinto. 

(202) 58&-i432. 

jroncine.pJnto@hq.doe.gov: or. Eugene 

Man!olis. (202) 585-9525. 

eug;ne.ma.--golis@hq.doe.gov. 

Issued LD Wasbiogton. D.C. ;;n january 29. 

2001. 

Spencer Abraham. 

Secretan' of E.,ergy. 

!FR Doc. 01-2885 fiied 2-1-{;1 8:45 am] 

BlUING eCCE 5-4»-0'~ 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office ot Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

'0 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EE-RM-97-440J 

RIN 1 904-AA 77 

Energy Conservation Program tor 

Consumer Products; Central Air 

Conditioners and Heat Pumps Energy 

Conservation Standards 

AGENCY: Depanmenl of Energy (DOD. 

AC'Jl()N: Fina! ::-tIfe: cieiav of effecu .... e date. . 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

memorandum of Januarv 20. 2001. from 

the ASSIstant to the PreSident and Chief 

of Staff. entitled "Reirulatorv Review 

Plan.' published m the federaJ Register 

on Januarv 24. 2001 (55 FR i702). this 

action temporarily cielavs for 50 days 

the effecu":e ciate 'oi ilie 'rule entitleD 

"Ener2\' Conser-'allon Program for 

Consu-mer Products: Central :\ir 

CondlllOners and Heat Pumps Energy 

Conser-'ation Standards" published m 

the FederaJ Register on Januar.' 22. 

2001 (65 FR 7170). . 

OATES: The effective date of the rule 

amenciing 10 CFR pan 430 published In 

the federaJ Register at 55 FR i170 on 

Janua!'\' 22. 2001. is cielaved 50 days. 

from February 21. 2001. imui :\prlj 23. 

2001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONiACT: 

Michael D. Whatley. (202) 58&-3410. 

michaei.whatleV@hc.doe.£!o\~ Dr. 

Michael E. ~cCabe.·'202)'58&-D854. 

michaei.e .mccabe-@ee. doe .£!o\~ or. 

Eugene ;"'largoils. (202) 585--9525. 

eugene.margoiJs@hq.doe.go\'. 

SUPPLBIENTARY INFORMATION: To the 

exten, ~at 5 USc. sectlon 553 applies 

10 this action. j, is exempt ir::::; notice 

and comment because it conSlllutes a 

::-tIle of orocedure unaer 5 C.s.c. section 

553(b)L~) . .'1.lternauvelv. DOE's 

i!nolementaoon of this" action without 

JppOrnlIl,lty for public comment. 

effective Immediately upon publication 

today in the FederaJ itegister. is based 

on the good cause excepnons In 5 tJ.S.c. 

section 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3). Seeking 

public comment is impracticable. 

unnecessary and contr3."'}' to the public 

interest. The temporary 50-day delay in 

effective date is necessarv to give DOE 

officials the opponunity 'for further 

review and consideration of new 

resrulations. consistent with th .. 

A;sistant to the PreSIdent's 

memorandum oi January 20. 2001. 

Given the imminence of the eifectlve 

date. seeking pnor public comment on 

this temporary delay would have oeen 

impractical. as well as contrary to the 

public interest in the orderly 

promulgation and implementation of 

regulations. The imminence of the 

effective date is also good cause for 

making this action effective 

immediately upon publication. 

Issued LD Washington. D.C. on January 29. 

2001. 

Spencer Abraham. 

S~lOry of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 01-2886 Filed 2-1-{)1: 8:45 ami 

IIIU..1NG CODE _,..,. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket No. EE-RMlSTD-OO-100J 

RIN 1904-AB06 

Energy Efficiency Program for 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment: 

Efficiency Standards for Commercial 

Heating, Air Conditioning and Water 

Heating Equipment 

AGENCY: Depanment of Energ:: (DOE]. 

ACTION: Final ruJe: delay of effective 

date. ' 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

memorandum of Januar.' 20. 2001. from 

the :\ssistant to the President and Chief 

of Staff. entitled "Regulatory Review 

Plan." published in the federaJ Register 

on Janua.-v 24. 2001 (56 FR n02). thIS 

action temporarilv delays ior 60 days 

the effecti\:e date 'of the'rule entltJeci 

"Energy Efficiency Program for 

CommerclaJ and Industrial Eouicment: 

CommercIal Heating. Air Conditiomng 

and Water Heatmg Equipment" 

published in the federaJ Register on 

January 12. 2001 (56 FR 3336). 

OATES: The effective date of the rule 

amending 10 eFR part 431 published in 

the FederaJ Reeister at 55 FR 3335 on 

/anuar." 12. 2001. is de laved for 50 days. 

from February 12. 2001. until Apni 13. 

2001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael D. Whatley. (202) 585-3 .. 10. 

michaeJ.whatley@hq.doe.gov: Cyrus H. 

Nasseri. (202) 58&-9138. 

cyrus.nasseri@ee.doe.gov; or~_Eugene 

Margolis. (202) 58&-9526. 

eugene.morgoliS@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To the 

extent that 5 e.s.c. secuen 553 acplies 

to this actlon. it is exempt from n"oilce 

and comment because it conslltutes c; 

EE-RM/STD-98-440 ~#c1 II r 
EE-RM/STD-98-440 .- W :" 6

C

EE-RM-STD-98-440 COMMENT 209

'":.. " ' .. , ; 

EE-RM/STD-98-440 .-# .. ~ CJ 1 

c 
Respondent To Be Served

EE-RM/STD-98-440 

- Honorable Spencer Abraham

Secretary of Energy

Forrestal Building

1000 Independence Avenue S.W.

Washington. D.C. 20585-1000

EE-RM-STD-98-440 COMMENT 209

, " .. Respondent To Be Served 

Honorable Spencer Abraham 

. Secretary of Energy 

Forrestal Building 

1000 Independence Avenue S.W. 

Washington. D.C. 20585-1000 

EE-RM/STD-98-440 -1tc4 {J f