```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 190 (Wednesday, October 1, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59090-59091]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23416]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
Air-Conditioning, 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 walk-in 
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.

[[Page 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
```