[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 3, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67989-67998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21834]
[[Page 67989]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2022-BT-STD-0023]
RIN 1904-AF44
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notification of proposed determination and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including metal halide
lamp fixtures (``MHLFs''). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of
Energy (``DOE'') to periodically determine whether more-stringent,
amended standards would be technologically feasible and economically
justified, and would result in significant energy savings. In this
notification of proposed determination (``NOPD''), DOE has initially
determined that amended energy conservation standards for MHLFs would
not be cost effective. DOE requests comment on this proposed
determination and the associated analyses and results.
DATES:
Meeting: DOE will hold a public webinar upon request. Please
request a public webinar no later than October 17, 2023. See section
VI, ``Public Participation,'' for webinar registration information,
participant instructions, and information about the capabilities
available to webinar participants.
Comments: Written comments and information are requested and will
be accepted on or before December 4, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket
number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0023. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified
by docket number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0023, by any of the following
methods:
(1) Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number
EERE-2022-BT-STD-0023 in the subject line of the message.
(2) Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
(3) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202)
287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section VI of this document.
Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts (if one is held), comments, and
other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at
www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the
index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt
from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0023. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See
section VI, ``Public Participation,'' for further information on how to
submit comments through www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Email:
[email protected].
Ms. Kathryn McIntosh, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2002. Email:
[email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemakings for Metal Halide Lamp
Fixtures
C. Deviation from Appendix A
III. Rationale of Analysis and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Scope of Coverage
B. Technology Options and Screening Analysis
C. Efficiency Levels
D. Scaling Equipment Classes
E. Shipments
F. Manufacturer Impacts
IV. Proposed Determination
A. Technological Feasibility
B. Cost Effectiveness
C. Significant Conservation of Energy
D. Summary
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
VI. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
C. Conduct of the Webinar
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Pub. L. 94-163, as amended
(``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a
number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B of EPCA \2\ established the Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include metal halide lamp fixtures
(``MHLFs''), the
[[Page 67990]]
subject of this NOPD. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(19)) \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
\3\ DOE notes that because of the codification of the MHLF
provisions in 42 U.S.C. 6295, MHLF energy conservation standards and
the associated test procedures are subject to the requirements of
the consumer products provisions of Part B of Title III of EPCA.
However, because MHLFs are generally considered to be commercial
equipment, DOE established the requirements for MHLFs in 10 Code of
Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 431 (``Energy Efficiency Program
for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment'') for ease of
reference. DOE notes that the location of the provisions within the
CFR does not affect either the substance or applicable procedure for
MHLFs. Based upon their placement into 10 CFR part 431, MHLFs are
referred to as ``equipment'' throughout this document, although
covered by the consumer product provisions of EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is issuing this NOPD pursuant to the EPCA requirement that not
later than 3 years after issuance of a determination that standards do
not need to be amended, DOE must publish either a notification of
determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended,
or a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') including new proposed
energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m))
For this proposed determination, DOE analyzed MHLFs that meet the
definition of an MHLF in 10 CFR 431.322. DOE first analyzed the
technological feasibility of more energy efficient MHLFs. For those
MHLFs for which DOE determined higher standards to be technologically
feasible, DOE evaluated whether higher standards would be cost
effective. DOE has tentatively determined that the market and
technology characteristics of MHLFs are largely similar to those
analyzed in the previous rulemaking, which concluded with the
publication of a final rule determining not to amend standards. 86 FR
58763 (October 25, 2021) (``October 2021 Final Determination'').
Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined that the conclusions reached
in the October 2021 Final Determination regarding the benefits and
burdens of more stringent standards for MHLFs are still relevant to the
MHLF market today. Hence, DOE has tentatively determined that the
amended standards for MHLFs would not be cost effective.
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this proposed determination, as well as some of the
historical background relevant to the establishment of standards for
MHLFs.
A. Authority
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include MHLFs, the
subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(19)) EPCA prescribed
initial energy conservation standards for these products (42 U.S.C.
6295(hh)(1)) and directed DOE to conduct two cycles of rulemakings to
determine whether to amend these standards (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(2)(A)
and (3)(A)).
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use,
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered products
must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying
to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making
representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of
those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly,
DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products
comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The
DOE test procedures for MHLFs appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (``CFR'') part 431, subpart S at Sec. 431.324.
Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State
laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling,
and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers
of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in
accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under
EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
Pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007''), Public Law 110-140, any final
rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after
July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and off mode energy
use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard
for a covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the
criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)),
incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single
standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for
such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) In
this analysis DOE considers only active mode energy consumption as
standby and off mode energy use are not applicable to MHLFs at this
time.
DOE must periodically review its already established energy
conservation standards for a covered product no later than 6 years from
the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a standard for a
covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) This 6-year look-back provision
requires that DOE publish either a determination that standards do not
need to be amended or a NOPR, including new proposed standards
(proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
EPCA further provides that, not later than 3 years after the issuance
of a final determination not to amend standards, DOE must publish
either a notification of determination that standards for the product
do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy
conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate).
(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B)) DOE must make the analysis on which a
determination is based publicly available and provide an opportunity
for written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(2))
A determination that amended standards are not needed must be based
on consideration of whether amended standards will result in
significant conservation of energy, are technologically feasible, and
are cost effective. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2))
Additionally, any new or amended energy conservation standard
prescribed by the Secretary for any type (or class) of covered product
shall 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)) Among the factors
DOE considers in evaluating whether a proposed standard level is
economically
[[Page 67991]]
justified includes whether the proposed standard at that level is cost-
effective, as defined under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). Under 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), an evaluation of cost-effectiveness
requires DOE to consider savings in operating costs throughout the
estimated average life of the covered products in the type (or class)
compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance
expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE is
publishing this NOPD in satisfaction of the 3-year review requirement
in EPCA following a determination that standards need not be amended.
B. Background
1. Current Standards
Current standards for MHLFs manufactured on or after February 10,
2017, are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 431.326 and are
specified in Table II.1. 10 CFR 431.326(c). Additionally, it is
specified at 10 CFR 431.326 that MHLFs manufactured on or after
February 10, 2017, that operate lamps with rated wattage >500 watts
(``W'') to <=1000W must not contain a probe-start metal halide ballast.
10 CFR 431.326(d). The following MHLFs are not subject to these
regulations: (1) MHLFs with regulated-lag ballasts; (2) MHLFs that use
electronic ballasts that operate at 480 volts; and (3) MHLFs that use
high-frequency electronic ballasts. 10 CFR 431.326(e).
Table II.1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for MHLFs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designed to be operated with lamps of
the following rated lamp wattage Tested input voltage * Minimum standard equation * (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50W and <=100W........................ 480 V...................... (1/(1 + 1.24 x P [supcaret] (- 0.351)))-
0.020 **.
>=50W and <=100W........................ All others................. 1/( 1 + 1.24 x P [supcaret] (- 0.351)).
>100W and <150W [dagger]................ 480 V...................... (1/(1 + 1.24 x P [supcaret] (- 0.351)))-
0.020.
>100W and <150W [dagger]................ All others................. 1/(1 + 1.24 x P [supcaret] (- 0.351)).
>=150W [Dagger] and <=250W.............. 480 V...................... 0.880.
>=150W [Dagger] and <=250W.............. All others................. For >=150W and <=200W: 0.880.
For >200W and <=250W: 1/(1 + 0.876 x
P[supcaret](- 0.351)).
>250W and <=500W........................ 480 V...................... For >250W and <265W: 0.880.
For >=265W and <=500W: (1/(1 + 0.876 x P
[supcaret] (- 0.351)))-0.010.
>250W and <=500W........................ All others................. 1/(1 + 0.876 x P [supcaret] (- 0.351)).
>500W and <=1,000W...................... 480 V...................... >500W and <=750W: 0.900.
>750W and <=1,000W: 0.000104 x P + 0.822
For >500W and <=1,000W: may not utilize a
probe-start ballast.
>500W and <=1,000W...................... All others................. For >500W and <=750W: 0.910.
For >750W and <=1,000W: 0.000104 x P +
0.832.
For >500W and <=1,000W: may not utilize a
probe-start ballast.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Tested input voltage is specified in 10 CFR 431.324.
** P is defined as the rated wattage of the lamp the fixture is designed to operate.
[dagger] Includes 150W fixtures specified in paragraph (b)(3) of 10 CFR 431.326, that are fixtures rated only
for 150W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the National Fire Protection Association
(``NFPA'') 70, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures
above 50 [deg]C, as specified by Underwriters Laboratory (``UL'') 1029.
[Dagger] Excludes 150W fixtures specified in paragraph (b)(3) of 10 CFR 431.326, that are fixtures rated only
for 150W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the NFPA 70, section 410.4(A); and containing
a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 [deg]C, as specified by UL 1029.
2. History of Standards Rulemakings for Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures
As noted in section II.A of this document, EPCA directed DOE to
conduct two rulemaking cycles to determine whether to amend standards
for MHLFs established by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(2)(A) and (3)(A))
DOE published a final rule amending the standards on February 10, 2014
(``February 2014 Final Rule''). 79 FR 7746. These current standards are
set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 431.326 and are specified in
section II.B.1 and Table II.1 of this document. DOE completed the
second rulemaking by publishing a final rule on October 25, 2021, that
determined not to amend current standards for MHLFs. 86 FR 58763.
In support of the present review of the MHLF energy conservation
standards, on October 6, 2022, DOE published a request for information
(``RFI''), which identified various issues on which DOE sought comment
to inform its determination of whether the standards need to be
amended. 87 FR 60555 (``October 2022 RFI'').
DOE received two comments in response to the October 2022 RFI from
the interested parties listed in Table II.2.
Table II.2--October 2022 RFI Written Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment No. in
Commenter(s) Reference in this NOPD the docket Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Electrical Manufacturers NEMA......................... 2 Trade Association.
Association (``NEMA'').
Signify........................... Signify...................... 3 Manufacturer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 67992]]
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket. (Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-
0023, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The references
are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number,
page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Deviation From Appendix A
In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C,
appendix A (``appendix A''), DOE notes that it is deviating from the
provision in the appendix A regarding the NOPR stage for an energy
conservation standards rulemaking.
Section 6(f)(2) of the appendix A specifies that the length of the
public comment period for a NOPR will be not less than 75 calendar
days. For this NOPD, DOE has opted instead to provide a 60-day comment
period, as required by EPCA. 42 U.S.C. 6295(p). DOE is opting to
deviate from the 75-day comment period because stakeholders have
already been afforded an opportunity to provide comments on this
rulemaking. As noted previously, DOE requested comment on various
issues pertaining to this standards rulemaking in the October 2022 RFI
and provided stakeholders with a 60-day comment period. 87 FR 60555.
Further stakeholders had been made familiar with the methodologies and
information presented in the October 2022 RFI as they were based on the
analysis conducted for the October 2021 Final Determination. 87 FR
60555, 60558. Therefore, DOE believes a 60-day comment period is
appropriate and will provide interested parties with a meaningful
opportunity to comment on the proposed determination.
III. Rationale of Analysis and Discussion of Related Comments
In response to the October 2022 RFI, NEMA stated that the October
2021 Final Determination is a recent analysis that correctly determined
energy conservation standards for MHLFs do not need to be amended
because they are not economically justified. NEMA further stated that
declining market volume and the mature nature of the technology do not
warrant or support additional rulemakings for MHLFs. (NEMA, No. 2 at p.
1)
For this review of MHLF standards, DOE has tentatively determined
that, since the October 2021 Final Determination analysis, there has
been no substantial change in (1) product offerings of MHLFs to warrant
a change in scope of analysis or equipment classes, (2) technologies or
design options that could improve the energy efficiency of MHLFs, (3)
manufacturers and industry structure, (4) shipments, (5) operating
hours, and (6) market and industry trends. Further DOE did not receive
any comments in response to the October 2022 RFI indicating
technological or market changes for MHLFs. As such, DOE has tentatively
determined that the analysis conducted for the October 2021 Final
Determination and its conclusion that amended energy conservation
standards for MHLFs would not be cost effective remains valid. DOE
requests comments on its tentative conclusion that because no
substantive changes have occurred in the market and technology of
MHLFs, the conclusion of the October 2021 Final Determination that
amending MHLF standards is not cost effective remains valid.
The following sections discuss the status of the current MHLF
market as well as issues raised in comments received in response to the
October 2022 RFI.
A. Scope of Coverage
In this analysis, MHLF is defined as a light fixture for general
lighting application designed to be operated with a metal halide lamp
and a ballast for a metal halide lamp. 42 U.S.C. 6291(64); 10 CFR
431.322. Any equipment meeting the definition of MHLF is included in
DOE's scope of coverage, though all products within the scope of
coverage may not be subject to standards.
B. Technology Options and Screening Analysis
In the October 2022 RFI DOE presented technology options for MHLFs
considered in the October 2021 Final Determination. 87 FR 60555, 60560.
NEMA commented that technology options identified by DOE in the October
2022 RFI have already been designed to achieve maximum efficiencies
based on existing standards and no new resources will be invested in
these technologies due to continual decrease in product demand. (NEMA,
No. 2 at pp. 1-2) NEMA also stated that more efficient products would
require a different form factor. Additionally, NEMA stated that end-
users are not asking for additional features or design options for
MHLFs and current demand is in the form of repair, replacement, and
maintenance. (NEMA, No. 2 at p. 4)
In the October 2021 Final Determination, DOE identified technology
options that improve the efficiency of MHLFs. DOE then identified
design options by screening out technology options that do not meet
five screening criteria outlined in Sections 6(c)(3) and 7(b) of
appendix A.\5\ 86 FR 58763, 58770-58771. DOE has not found any new
information or data that indicates that those technology options and
resulting design options are no longer valid means for manufacturers to
improve the efficiency of MHLFs nor has DOE identified any new
technologies not included in the previous rulemaking that may improve
the efficiency of MHLFs. Therefore, in this NOPD, DOE continues to
consider only the design options identified in the October 2021 Final
Determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The five screening criteria are: (1) Technological
feasibility. Technologies that are not incorporated in commercial
products or in working prototypes will not be considered further;
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production and reliable installation and
servicing of a technology in commercial products could not be
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the
time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that
technology will not be considered further; (3) Impacts on product
utility or product availability. If it is determined that a
technology would have significant adverse impact on the utility of
the product to significant subgroups of consumers or would result in
the unavailability of any covered product type with performance
characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products
generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be
considered further; (4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it
is determined that a technology would have significant adverse
impacts on health or safety, it will not be considered further; (5)
Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies. If a design option utilizes
proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to achieving
a given efficiency level, that technology will not be considered
further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns. (See 10 CFR
part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Efficiency Levels
In a rulemaking analysis DOE conducts an engineering analysis to
establish the relationship between the efficiency and cost of a MHLF.
There are two elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the
selection of efficiency levels (``ELs'') to analyze (i.e., the
``efficiency analysis'') and the determination of product cost at each
efficiency level (i.e., the ``cost analysis''). In determining the
performance of higher-efficiency MHLFs, DOE considers technologies and
design option combinations not eliminated by the screening analysis.
For each equipment class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as well as
the incremental cost for the equipment at efficiency levels above the
baseline. The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-
efficiency ``curves'' that are used in downstream analyses (i.e., the
life cycle cost (``LCC'') and payback
[[Page 67993]]
period (``PBP'') analyses and the national impact analysis (``NIA'')).
In the October 2022 RFI, DOE presented the maximum technologically
feasible (``max-tech'') efficiency levels identified in the October
2021 Final Determination. 87 FR 60555, 60562. NEMA commented that the
max-tech efficiency levels presented in the October 2022 RFI are not
technically feasible without extended research. Further, NEMA stated
that the max-tech efficiency levels presented in the October 2022 RFI
for metal halide (``MH'') ballasts between 100 and 150W would be cost
prohibitive relative to low customer demand. (NEMA, No. 2 at pp. 2-3)
In the October 2021 Final Determination, DOE used the ballast
efficiency values from DOE's compliance certification database
(``CCD'') to identify more efficient ballasts for all equipment classes
except for the >1,000W and <=2,000W equipment class, which does not
have certification data available. For this equipment class, DOE
determined ballast efficiency values by first gathering and analyzing
catalog data. DOE then tested the ballasts to verify the ballast
efficiency reported by the manufacturer. For instances where the
catalog data did not align with the tested data, DOE selected more-
efficient ballasts based on the tested ballast efficiency. 86 FR 58763,
58733. Because the max-tech efficiency levels identified in the October
2021 Final Determination were based on commercially available products,
DOE found them to be technically feasible in the October 2021 Final
Determination and continues to do so in this analysis. 86 FR 58763,
58791.
As noted, in the October 2021 Final Determination, DOE identified
ELs for each representative equipment class (i.e., equipment classes
directly analyzed) based on MHLFs certified in the CCD at the time of
the analysis. For this analysis, DOE assessed the MHLFs currently in
the CCD and reviewed current catalog data for those MH ballasts not in
the CCD (i.e., MH ballasts designed to operate lamps with rated
wattages >1000W and <=2000W) and reviewed efficiencies of MHLFs
representative of the ELs identified in the October 2021 Final
Determination. For the >=50W and <=100W equipment class, DOE found that
the ballast efficiency of the MHLF representative of the max-tech
level, EL 3 had been recorded incorrectly in the October 2021 Final
Determination and should have been 0.907 rather than 0.901. 86 FR
58763, 58774. However, a slight change (less than 1 percent) to the
ballast efficiency would not have a substantial impact to the cost
efficiency of this EL, which resulted in negative LCC savings of more
than $60 in the October 2021 Final Determination with more than 70
percent of consumers experiencing a net cost. Further, on average,
compared to a purchase at the baseline, the increased purchase price at
this EL was never recovered by a reduction in operating costs. DOE has
tentatively concluded that this change is not substantive enough to
result in any significant impact to the cost effectiveness for this
equipment class.
Signify commented that, in the previous analysis, DOE cited ballast
catalogs, suggesting that MH ballasts operating in the 2000W range are
less efficient than ballasts operating in the 1000W range, but research
journals and engineering manuals report the opposite trend, that energy
efficiency with a magnetic transformer or magnetic ballast increases
along with the transformer power rate (Vecchio et al., 2017). Signify
stated that it would expect MH ballasts to follow this trend. Signify
commented that MH ballasts that operate lamps in the wattage range of
>1000W and <=2000W are not currently subject to DOE's MHLF standards,
and, as a result, manufacturers have had no incentive to use a high-
efficiency ballast in this range, which may explain why DOE has seen
commercially available products not follow the expected trend. Signify
proposed that DOE set an energy efficiency standard for MHLFs that
includes MH ballasts that operate lamps with wattages in the range of
>1000W and <=2000W and provided the following corresponding efficiency
level equation reflecting a trend of increasing efficiency with lamp
power: 0.00001*rated wattage of lamp + 0.928. (Signify, No. 3 at pp. 1-
4)
In the October 2021 Final Determination DOE determined the
appropriate equation for the >1000W and <=2000W equipment class to be -
0.000008*rated wattage of lamp + 0.946 which resulted in an efficiency
of 93.7 percent for the 1500W representative lamp wattage analyzed. 86
FR 58763, 58774, 58776. Signify's proposed equation would result in an
efficiency of 94.3 percent for the 1500W representative lamp wattage.
For this analysis, DOE reviewed catalog data for MHLFs in the >1000W
and <=2000W equipment class and identified a MH ballast with a catalog
ballast efficiency of 96.8 percent, which is higher than the 93.7
percent efficiency representative of the max-tech level, EL 1 (for the
1500W representative lamp wattage) identified in the October 2021 Final
Determination. However, DOE chose not to test this product to confirm
the catalog ballast efficiency, as its analysis would not change the
conclusions reached in the October 2021 Final Determination. Even if
the increase in ballast efficiency could result in positive life cycle
cost savings for this equipment class, the energy savings for the
nation, which were estimated as less than 0.000001 quads for this
equipment class in the October 2021 Final Determination, would be close
to zero due to the low market share for this equipment class and
declining shipments for MHLFs (see section III.E of this document).
Hence, DOE's review of the CCD and catalog data found no changes in
product offerings or efficiencies for MHLFs that would affect the
conclusions from the October 2021 Final Determination. Therefore, DOE
has tentatively determined that the conclusions in the October 2021
Final Determination remain valid.
D. Scaling Equipment Classes
EPCA requires DOE to specify a different standard level for a type
or class of product that has the same function or intended use, if DOE
determines that products within such group: (1) consume a different
kind of energy; or (2) have a capacity or other performance-related
feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have
and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(1)) DOE selects certain equipment classes as ``representative''
to focus its analysis. DOE chooses equipment classes as representative
primarily because of their high market volumes and/or unique
characteristics.
The current energy conservation standards for MHLF are based on 24
equipment classes determined according to performance-related features
that provide utility to the consumer, in terms of input voltage, rated
lamp wattage, and designation for indoor versus outdoor applications
(see 10 CFR 431.326). Specifically, in terms of input voltage, DOE
separates equipment classes based on MHLFs with ballasts tested at
input voltage of 480 volts (``V'') and those tested at all other input
voltages per the DOE test procedure at 10 CFR 431.324. In the analysis
for the October 2021 Final Determination, DOE did not directly analyze
the equipment classes containing only fixtures with ballasts tested at
480V due to low shipment volumes. DOE did directly analyze equipment
classes containing only fixtures with ballasts tested at all input
voltages other than 480V. DOE scaled the resulting efficiency levels to
develop
[[Page 67994]]
efficiency levels for equipment classes containing only fixtures with
ballasts tested at input voltage of 480V. 86 FR 58763, 58771, 58776. In
the October 2022 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether it is necessary
to individually analyze all 24 equipment classes identified in the
October 2021 Final Determination and also on how the performance of
ballasts that are tested at 480V compares to ballasts of the same
wattage and indoor/outdoor classification that are in other equipment
classes. 87 FR 60560, 60562.
NEMA stated that it is not necessary to individually analyze all 24
equipment classes as the market is changing to more efficient
technologies at a rapid pace. NEMA also responded that market
requirements do not support extending the rule to equipment classes not
directly analyzed in the October 2021 Final Determination (i.e., MH
ballasts tested at 480V). (NEMA, No. 2 at pp. 2-3) Further, NEMA
commented that comparing the performance of MH ballasts tested at 480V
ballasts to their counterparts with the same wattage and indoor/outdoor
classification in other equipment classes (i.e., tested at all other
voltages) is not economically feasible because of limited demand for
MHLFs. NEMA added that efficiency levels are consistent among most
multi-voltage high intensity discharge (``HID'') electronic (277-480V)
ballasts. (NEMA, No. 2 at p. 4)
DOE notes that equipment classes that were not directly analyzed in
the October 2021 Final Determination (i.e., MH ballasts tested at 480V)
are already subject to standards (see 10 CFR 431.326). Regarding
comparing performance of MH ballasts tested at input voltage of 480V to
those tested at other input voltages, in the analysis for the October
2021 Final Determination, DOE was able to identify MH ballasts in DOE's
CCD that are tested at 480V and those at other input voltages, with the
main difference between the ballasts being the tested input voltage.
DOE used these efficiency comparisons to develop scaling factors and
applied them to the representative equipment class efficiency level
equations to develop corresponding efficiency level equations for
ballasts tested at an input voltage of 480V. 86 FR 58763, 58776. DOE
continues to find the scaling factors from the October 2021 Final
Determination appropriate for this analysis.
E. Shipments
In the October 2021 Final Determination, DOE projected a steady
decline in the shipments of MHLFs, consistent with market transition
away from MHLFs. 86 FR 58763, 58782-58783. The shipments model was
initialized using a time series of historical shipments data compiled
from the 2014 MHLF final rule and data from NEMA. The historical
shipments for 2008 from the 2014 MHLF final rule were projected to 2020
using NEMA sales indices. Consistent with the 2014 MHLF final rule, DOE
assumed an increasing fraction of the MHLF market would move to out-of-
scope LED alternatives. DOE modeled the incursion of LED equipment into
the MHLF market in the form of a Bass diffusion curve. 86 FR 58763,
58782-58783. DOE's projection resulted in fewer than 1500 shipments of
MHLFs by 2030, a decline of more than 99 percent relative to MHLF
shipments in 2020; see chapter 9 of the October 2021 Final
Determination technical support document.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Chapter 9 of the October 2021 Final Determination technical
support document is available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0016-0017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the October 2022 RFI, NEMA provided a graphical
representation of its HID Lamp Sales Index indicating a continued
decline for HID lamps, including metal halides, consistent with DOE's
projections. (NEMA, No. 2 at p. 5)
F. Manufacturer Impacts
NEMA commented that because of the reduction in volume of product
sales, the internal annual reporting cost burden for manufacturers has
increased relative to product sales for the industry as a whole. (NEMA,
No. 2 at p. 6) Because DOE is proposing not to amend standards for
MHLFs (see section IV for further details), if finalized, the
determination would have no impact on manufacturers.
IV. Proposed Determination
As required by EPCA, this NOPD analyzes whether amended standards
for MHLFs would result in significant conservation of energy, be
technologically feasible, and be cost effective. (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) The criteria considered under
42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and the additional analysis are discussed
below. Because an analysis of potential cost effectiveness and energy
savings first requires an evaluation of the relevant technology, DOE
first discusses the technological feasibility of amended standards. DOE
then addresses the cost effectiveness and energy savings associated
with potential amended standards.
A. Technological Feasibility
EPCA mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy conservation
standards for MHLFs would be technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(B)) In the October 2021 Final
Determination, DOE concluded that there are technology options that
would improve the efficiency of MHLFs. Further, DOE concluded that
these technology options are being used in commercially available MHLFs
and therefore are technologically feasible. 86 FR 58763, 58791. Because
there have been no substantive changes in the MHLF market since the
October 2021 Final Determination analysis, DOE has tentatively
determined that its conclusions regarding technological feasibility
from that analysis remain valid. Hence, DOE has tentatively determined
that amended energy conservation standards for MHLFs are
technologically feasible.
B. Cost Effectiveness
EPCA requires DOE to consider whether energy conservation standards
for MHLFs would be cost effective through an evaluation of the savings
in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered
product compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial
charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product which is
likely to result from the imposition of an amended standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(C), and 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II))
In the October 2021 Final Determination, DOE determined that the
average customer purchasing a representative MHLF would experience an
increase in LCC at each evaluated standards case as compared to the no-
new-standards case. The simple PBP for the average MHLF customer at
most ELs was projected to be generally longer than the mean lifetime of
the equipment, which further indicates that the increase in installed
cost for more efficient MHLFs is not recouped by their associated
operating cost savings. The analysis determined that the net present
value (``NPV'') benefits at the trial standard levels (``TSLs'') were
also negative for all equipment classes at 3-percent and 7-percent
discount rates. 86 FR 58763, 58785-58791. Hence, in the October 2021
Final Determination, DOE determined that more stringent amended energy
conservation standards for MHLFs cannot satisfy the relevant statutory
requirements because such standards would not be cost effective as
required under EPCA. 86 FR 58763,
[[Page 67995]]
58791 (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(II);) 86 FR
58763, 58791.)
Because there have been no substantive changes in the MHLF market
that would affect the conclusions of the October 2021 Final
Determination analysis, DOE has tentatively determined that its
conclusions regarding the cost effectiveness of more stringent amended
energy conservation standards for MHLFs remain valid.
C. Significant Conservation of Energy
EPCA also mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy
conservation standards for MHLF would result in significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C.
6295(n)(2)(A))
In the October 2021 Final Determination, having determined that
amended energy conservation standards for MHLFs would not be cost-
effective, DOE did not further evaluate the significance of the amount
of energy conservation under the considered amended standards because
it had determined that the potential standards would not be cost-
effective as required under EPCA. 86 FR 58763, 58791. (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)). 86 FR
58763, 58791.
As DOE has tentatively determined that amended standards would
still not be cost effective, DOE has not evaluated the significance of
the projected energy savings from an amended standard.
D. Summary
In this proposed determination, based on the initial determination
that amended standards would not be cost effective, DOE has tentatively
determined that energy conservation standards for MHLFs do not need to
be amended. DOE will consider all comments received on this proposed
determination in issuing any final determination.
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011) and
amended by E.O. 14094, ``Modernizing Regulatory Review,'' 88 FR 21879
(April 11, 2023), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to
(1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory
objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent
practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts;
and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance
objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance
that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user
fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices
can be made by the public. DOE emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563
requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify
anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as
possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has
emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future
compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or
anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble,
this proposed regulatory action is consistent with these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has
determined that this proposed regulatory action does not constitute a
``significant regulatory action'' within the scope of section 3(f)(1)
of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for
review under E.O. 12866.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'')
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's website (www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
DOE reviewed this proposed determination under the provisions of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures
published on February 19, 2003. Because DOE is proposing not to amend
standards for MHLFs, if adopted, the determination would not amend any
energy conservation standards. On the basis of the foregoing, DOE
certifies that the proposed determination, if adopted, would have no
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared an IRFA for this proposed
determination. DOE will transmit this certification and supporting
statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed determination, which proposes to determine that
amended energy conservation standards for MHLFs are unneeded under the
applicable statutory criteria, would impose no new informational or
recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not required
under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
DOE is analyzing this proposed action in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (``NEPA'') and DOE's NEPA
implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include
a categorical exclusion for actions which are interpretations or
rulings with respect to existing regulations. 10 CFR part 1021, subpart
D, appendix A4. DOE anticipates that this action qualifies for
categorical exclusion A4 because it is an interpretation or ruling in
regards to an existing regulation and otherwise meets the requirements
for application of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE
will complete its NEPA review before issuing the final action.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on Federal agencies
[[Page 67996]]
formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State
law or that have federalism implications. The Executive order requires
agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority
supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of
the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The
Executive order also requires agencies to have an accountable process
to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have federalism
implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy
describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in
the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this
proposed determination and has tentatively determined that it would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as
to energy conservation for the equipment that are the subject of this
proposed rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such
preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no further action is required by E.O. 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to
adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a
clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general
standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a),
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation:
(1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3)
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive
effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of
Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations
in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to
determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or
more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined
that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed determination meets
the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published
a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation
under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at
www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
DOE examined this proposed determination according to UMRA and its
statement of policy and determined that the proposed determination does
not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to
require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by State,
local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector. As a result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This proposed determination would not have any impact on the autonomy
or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15,
1988), DOE has determined that this proposed determination would not
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review
most disseminations of information to the public under information
quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452
(Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446
(Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving
Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE
published updated guidelines which are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this NOPD under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded
that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') at OMB, a Statement of
Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency
that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final
rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866, or any successor Executive Order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of
[[Page 67997]]
OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant
energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse
effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be
implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their
expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
This proposed determination, which does not propose to amend energy
conservation standards for MHLFs, is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at
OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (``OSTP''), issued its Final Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (``the Bulletin''). 70 FR 2664 (Jan.
14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The
purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as ``scientific information
the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear
and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector
decisions.'' Id. at 70 FR 2667.
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses
that are typically used and has prepared a Peer Review report
pertaining to the energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses.\7\
Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented
evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and independent
reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/scientific/business
merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the productivity and
management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. Because available
data, models, and technological understanding have changed since 2007,
DOE has engaged with the National Academy of Sciences to review DOE's
analytical methodologies to ascertain whether modifications are needed
to improve the Department's analyses. DOE is in the process of
evaluating the resulting report.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review
Report.'' 2007. Available at www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (last accessed June 26, 2023).
\8\ The report is available at www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-of-methods-for-setting-building-and-equipment-performance-standards.
_____________________________________-
VI. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
DOE will hold a public webinar upon receiving a request by the
deadline identified in the DATES section at the beginning of this
proposed determination. Interested persons may submit their request for
the public webinar to the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program at
[email protected]. If a public webinar is requested, DOE will
release webinar registration information, participant instructions, and
information about the capabilities available to webinar participants on
DOE's website: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=14. Participants are responsible for ensuring
their systems are compatible with the webinar software.
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this
NOPD, or who is representative of a group or class of persons that has
an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to make an oral
presentation at the webinar. Such persons may submit requests to speak
to [email protected]. Persons who wish to speak
should include with their request a computer file in WordPerfect,
Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that briefly describes
the nature of their interest in this proposed determination and the
topics they wish to discuss. Such persons should also provide a daytime
telephone number where they can be reached.
DOE requests persons selected to make an oral presentation to
submit an advance copy of their statements at least 2 weeks before the
webinar. At its discretion, DOE may permit persons who cannot supply an
advance copy of their statement to participate, if those persons have
made advance alternative arrangements with the Building Technologies
Office. As necessary, requests to give an oral presentation should ask
for such alternative arrangements.
C. Conduct of the Webinar
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar/public
meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion.
The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing,
but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the
proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to
schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures
governing the conduct of the webinar/public meeting. There shall not be
discussion of proprietary information, costs or prices, market share,
or other commercial matters regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After
the webinar/public meeting and until the end of the comment period,
interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings and
any aspect of the proposed determination.
The webinar/public meeting will be conducted in an informal,
conference style. DOE will present summaries of comments received
before the webinar/public meeting, allow time for prepared general
statements by participants, and encourage all interested parties to
share their views on issues affecting this proposed determination. Each
participant will be allowed to make a general statement (within time
limits determined by DOE), before the discussion of specific topics.
DOE will permit, as time permits, other participants to comment briefly
on any general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit
participants to clarify their statements briefly. Participants should
be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants
concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of
participants concerning other matters relevant to this proposed
determination. The official conducting the webinar/public meeting will
accept additional comments or questions from those attending, as time
permits. The presiding official will announce any further procedural
rules or modification of the above procedures that may be needed for
the proper conduct of the webinar/public meeting.
A transcript of the webinar/public meeting will be included in the
docket, which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the
beginning of this NOPD. In addition, any person may buy
[[Page 67998]]
a copy of the transcript from the transcribing reporter.
D. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed determination no later than the date provided in the DATES
section at the beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may
submit comments, data, and other information using any of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential
Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via
email also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not
include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead,
provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first
and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing
address. With this instruction followed, the cover letter will not be
publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies.
No faxes will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email to [email protected] 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. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential
status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
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).
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning its tentative conclusion that because no
substantive changes have occurred in the market and technology of
MHLFs, the conclusion of the October 2021 Final Determination that
amending MHLF standards is not cost effective remains valid.
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this
notification of proposed determination and request for comment.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on September
28, 2023, by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated
authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original
signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes
only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on September 28, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2023-21834 Filed 10-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P