9696 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Pursuant to PRA, comments regarding 

the accuracy of the burden estimate, 

ways to minimize the burden, including 

the use of automated collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology, or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, should be sent 

to the above address. In addition, 

comments concerning the information 

collection should also be sent to the 

Desk Office for Agriculture, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, New 

Executive Office Building, 725 17th 

Street, NW., Room 725, Washington, DC 

20503. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia A. Petrella, Marketing 

Specialist, Research and Promotion 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Room 0632, Stop 0244, 

Washington, DC 20250–0244; telephone: 

(301) 334–2891; or facsimile: (301) 334– 

2896; or e-mail: 

Patricia.Petrella@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A 

proposed rule was issued on November 

2, 2010, and published in the Federal 

Register on November 8, 2010, (75 FR 

68512). That rule proposed the 

establishment of an industry-funded 

promotion, research, and information 

program for fresh cut Christmas trees. 

USDA was contacted by a 

congressman and received several 

letters from North Carolina growers 

requesting the comment period be 

reopened and extended to allow 

additional time to submit their 

comments. The growers also expressed 

that the comment period was open 

during their busiest time of the year. 

USDA is reopening the comment 

period an additional 15 days to allow 

interested persons more time to review 

the proposed rule, perform a complete 

analysis, and submit written comments. 

This notice is issued pursuant to the 

Commodity Promotion, Research, and 

Information Act of 1996 (1996 Act) (7 

U.S.C. 7411–7425). 

Dated: February 16, 2011. 

Rayne Pegg, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3934 Filed 2–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 430 and 431 

[Docket No. EE–2008–BT–STD–0012] 

Equipment Price Forecasting in Energy 

Conservation Standards Analysis 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of data availability; 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) seeks information related 

to potential technical improvements its 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking analysis, and requests 

comment on corresponding revisions to 

the analysis for energy conservation 

standards for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers and freezers. 

DATES: Written comments and 

information are requested on or before 

March 24, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EE–2008–BT–STD–0012, by any 

of the following methods: 

• E-mail: to ResRefFreez–2008–STD– 

0012@hq.doe.gov. Include EE–2008– 

BT–STD–0012 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

Equipment Price Forecasting in Energy 

Conservation Standards Analysis, EE– 

2008–BT–STD–0012, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. Phone: 

(202) 586–2945. Please submit one 

signed paper original. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 6th 

Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 

Washington, DC 20024. Phone: (202) 

586–2945. Please submit one signed 

paper original. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this rulemaking. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents, or 

comments received, go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information may 

be sent to Mr. John Cymbalsky, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: 202–586–4617. E-mail: 

Lucas.Adin@ee.doe.gov. 

In the office of the General Counsel, 

contact Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, GC–71,1000 

Independence Ave., SW., Room 6A–179, 

Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: 

202–586–7796; E-mail: 

Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

January 18, 2011, the President issued 

Executive Order (the Order) 13563, 

meant to ensure that regulations seek 

more affordable, less intrusive means to 

achieve policy goals, and that agencies 

give careful consideration to the benefits 

and costs of those regulations. Among 

other things, the Order requires agencies 

propose or adopt a regulation only upon 

a reasoned determination that its 

benefits justify its costs, the regulation 

imposes the least burden on society 

consistent with obtaining the regulatory 

objectives, and that in choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, 

agencies choose those approaches that 

maximize net benefits. 

The Order also contains provisions 

that bear on the analysis of benefits and 

costs. It provides that agencies must 

‘‘use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible.’’ In subsequent guidance on 

February 2, 2011, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

explained that such techniques include 

‘‘identifying changing future compliance 

costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes.’’ 

In light of the Order, DOE has 

examined its processes for establishing 

energy efficiency standards for 

consumer products and commercial 

equipment. In examining its analytical 

approaches for developing these 

regulations, DOE has developed a 

supplemental approach to help quantify 

the impacts flowing from the setting of 

efficiency levels for a given product or 

equipment. This approach is intended 

to improve accuracy in the assessment 

of future compliance costs. As part of 

this notice, DOE is soliciting comment 

on the potential inclusion of this 

approach for its future rulemaking 

activities. Additionally, DOE is seeking 

comment on the merits of adopting this 

approach within the context of its 

ongoing rulemaking to set standards for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 9697 

1See, for example, the review paper: Weiss, M., 

Junginger, H.M., Patel, M.K., Blok, K., (2010a). A 

Review of Experience Curve Analyses for Energy 

Demand Technologies. Technological Forecasting & 

Social Change. 77:411–428, which provides an 

extensive list of studies that have performed 

experience curve analyses. 

freezers (collectively, ‘‘refrigeration 

products’’). 

Price Forecast Methodology 

One of the key estimates that DOE 

currently makes during the analysis of 

energy conservation standards is the 

impact of efficiency regulations on 

equipment price. DOE uses its 

engineering analysis—which determines 

a given appliance’s cost as a function of 

its efficiency (through the development 

of cost-efficiency curves)—as the basis 

for estimating these equipment price 

impacts. The technology costs derived 

in the engineering analyses form the 

basis for product prices used in the 

national impact analysis that estimates 

regulatory impacts for products sold 

over the 30-year analysis period. 

Consequently, the price projections 

affect the economic impacts calculated 

for any potential energy conservation 

standard levels. 

Currently, DOE’s analyses assume that 

the manufacturer costs and retail prices 

of products meeting various efficiency 

levels remain fixed, in real terms, after 

the compliance date and throughout the 

period of the analysis. This assumption 

is conservative. Examination of 

historical price data for certain 

appliances and equipment that have 

been subject to energy conservation 

standards indicates that the assumption 

of constant real prices and costs may, in 

many cases, over-estimate long-term 

appliance and equipment price trends. 

Economic literature and historical data 

suggest that the real costs of covered 

products and equipment may in fact 

trend downward over time according to 

‘‘learning’’ or ‘‘experience’’ curves. A 

draft paper, ‘‘Using the Experience 

Curve Approach for Appliance Price 

Forecasting,’’ posted on the DOE Web 

site along with this notice at http:// 

www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards, provides a 

summary of the data and literature 

currently available to DOE that is 

relevant to price forecasts for selected 

appliances and equipment. 

In light of these data and DOE’s aim 

to improve the accuracy and robustness 

of its analyses, DOE is considering 

assessing future costs by incorporating 

learning over time, consistent with the 

analysis in the currently available 

literature, in its analysis of regulatory 

options in the energy conservation 

standards for refrigeration products, in 

an attempt to create a more accurate and 

robust forecast of the pricing effects that 

accompany amended energy efficiency 

standards for these products. The 

consequences of this approach are 

outlined below. DOE is also considering 

applying this approach generally to its 

energy conservation standards-related 

analyses for appliance and commercial 

equipment. 

DOE seeks comment on the merits of 

this approach, particularly with respect 

to its application to an analysis of 

potential energy efficiency standards for 

refrigeration products and the data 

presented in this notice. 

In addition, DOE requests information 

regarding the potential for improving 

the methodology for projecting the cost 

of efficiency improvements over the 

analysis period in general. DOE 

provides additional background in the 

following paragraphs and seeks input on 

three broad categories: (1) Data sources; 

(2) potential methodologies; and 

(3) procedural issues. 

Background 

Forecast Method. An extensive 

economic literature discusses the 

‘‘learning’’ or ‘‘experience’’ curve 

phenomenon, typically based on 

observations in the manufacturing 

sector.1 In the experience curve method, 

the real cost of production is related to 

the cumulative production or 

‘‘experience’’ with a product. To explain 

the empirical relationship, the theory of 

technology learning is used to 

substantiate a decline in the cost of 

producing a given product as firms 

accumulate experience with the 

technology. A common functional 

relationship used to model the 

evolution of production costs in this 

case is: 

Y = aX¥b, 

where a is an initial price (or cost), b is a 

positive constant known as the learning 

rate parameter, X is cumulative 

production, and Y is the price as a 

function of cumulative production. 

Thus, as experience (production) 

accumulates, the cost of producing the 

next unit decreases. The percentage 

reduction in cost that occurs with each 

doubling of cumulative production is 

known as the learning rate (LR), given 

by: 

LR = 1¥2¥b

DOE’s current price forecast 

methodology is a special case of the 

forecast equations specified above, but 

to date, DOE has assumed that the 

learning rate parameter is 0 in its energy 

conservation standards analysis. This 

notice describes an approach for 

improving this assumption and 

estimating non-zero learning rate 

parameters consistent with historical 

cost data. 

Data. In typical learning curve 

formulations, the learning rate 

parameter is derived using two 

historical data series: Cumulative 

production and price (or cost). On the 

basis of previous rulemakings, DOE is 

aware of several relevant data sets. 

Annual shipments (for calculating 

cumulative production) of several 

appliances can be found in industry 

publications (e.g., Appliance Magazine) 

and industry association (e.g., the AirConditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 

Institute (AHRI), the Association of 

Home Appliance Manufacturers 

(AHAM) Fact Book, etc.) data sets. 

Historical shipment-weighted efficiency 

data could be gathered from these 

sources, as well as from the Energy 

Information Administration (EIA). 

Historical price or cost data for several 

products could be derived from the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) 

Producer Price Index (PPI) and/or 

Consumer Price Index (CPI). 

Table 1 provides these data for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers (including compacts). The 

inflation-adjusted price index is derived 

from CPI data for 1947 to 1997 and PPI 

data from 1998 to 2009. The inflationadjusted price is derived from a current 

price estimate for refrigerator-freezers 

that is then scaled over time by the 

inflation-adjusted price index. DOE 

estimates that cumulative refrigerator, 

refrigerator-freezer, and freezer 

shipments are 22.22 million in 1946 and 

then they increase each year with the 

current year shipments. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

9698 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—HISTORICAL DATA REGARDING REFRIGERATOR, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZER, AND FREEZER PRICES AND

SHIPMENTS

Year Inflation-adjusted price 

index 

Inflation-adjusted price 

(2009$) 

Shipments 

(millions) 

Cumulative Shipments 

(millions) 

1947 ................................................. 3.95 $4,132 4.01 26.23 

1948 ................................................. 4.03 4,218 5.46 31.68 

1949 ................................................. 3.96 4,144 4.94 36.62 

1950 ................................................. 3.83 4,001 7.09 43.71 

1951 ................................................. 3.73 3,906 5.09 48.79 

1952 ................................................. 3.52 3,686 4.60 53.39 

1953 ................................................. 3.37 3,522 4.69 58.08 

1954 ................................................. 3.12 3,258 4.65 62.73 

1955 ................................................. 2.94 3,071 5.27 68.00 

1956 ................................................. 2.50 2,611 4.78 72.78 

1957 ................................................. 2.22 2,326 4.45 77.23 

1958 ................................................. 2.09 2,186 4.23 81.45 

1959 ................................................. 2.07 2,164 4.91 86.36 

1960 ................................................. 1.99 2,081 4.61 90.98 

1961 ................................................. 1.94 2,032 4.63 95.61 

1962 ................................................. 1.88 1,967 4.94 100.56 

1963 ................................................. 1.81 1,890 5.31 105.87 

1964 ................................................. 1.75 1,829 5.75 111.61 

1965 ................................................. 1.67 1,747 6.15 117.76 

1966 ................................................. 1.56 1,633 6.21 123.97 

1967 ................................................. 1.51 1,581 5.96 129.93 

1968 ................................................. 1.47 1,536 6.42 136.35 

1969 ................................................. 1.42 1,482 6.58 142.94 

1970 ................................................. 1.38 1,439 6.59 149.53 

1971 ................................................. 1.35 1,410 7.02 156.54 

1972 ................................................. 1.31 1,366 7.66 164.21 

1973 ................................................. 1.23 1,289 8.14 172.35 

1974 ................................................. 1.17 1,226 7.38 179.73 

1975 ................................................. 1.21 1,262 6.00 185.72 

1976 ................................................. 1.20 1,250 6.27 192.00 

1977 ................................................. 1.16 1,217 7.20 199.19 

1978 ................................................. 1.15 1,200 7.43 206.62 

1979 ................................................. 1.09 1,137 7.31 213.93 

1980 ................................................. 1.02 1,062 6.80 220.73 

1981 ................................................. 0.99 1,031 6.73 227.46 

1982 ................................................. 1.01 1,055 6.29 233.75 

1983 ................................................. 1.01 1,055 7.47 241.22 

1984 ................................................. 0.98 1,028 7.99 249.20 

1985 ................................................. 0.94 984 8.24 257.44 

1986 ................................................. 0.92 957 8.68 266.12 

1987 ................................................. 0.88 923 9.08 275.20 

1988 ................................................. 0.86 895 9.34 284.53 

1989 ................................................. 0.83 872 8.88 293.41 

1990 ................................................. 0.79 823 8.97 302.37 

1991 ................................................. 0.75 782 8.99 311.37 

1992 ................................................. 0.72 758 9.52 320.88 

1993 ................................................. 0.72 753 9.84 330.72 

1994 ................................................. 0.73 766 10.39 341.11 

1995 ................................................. 0.71 747 10.56 351.68 

1996 ................................................. 0.70 736 10.93 362.60 

1997 ................................................. 0.68 712 10.90 373.51 

1998 ................................................. 0.63 659 11.98 385.49 

1999 ................................................. 0.60 630 13.02 398.51 

2000 ................................................. 0.57 596 13.18 411.69 

2001 ................................................. 0.54 561 13.37 425.05 

2002 ................................................. 0.52 539 14.84 439.89 

2003 ................................................. 0.49 514 15.90 455.79 

2004 ................................................. 0.48 499 16.69 472.48 

2005 ................................................. 0.47 494 16.73 489.21 

2006 ................................................. 0.46 482 15.39 504.60 

2007 ................................................. 0.45 475 15.09 519.69 

2008 ................................................. 0.45 475 14.37 534.06 

2009 ................................................. 0.47 496 14.27 548.34 

Application to Standards. Given the 

information currently available to DOE, 

DOE believes (and invites comments on 

the view that) the following 

methodology may provide the most 

accurate method for forecasting the 

incremental cost of efficiency given the 

potential impact of long-term product 

price trends or technological learning: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 9699 

2A good review of the literature related to this 

issue can be found in Gillingham, K., R. Newell, K. 

Palmer. (2009). ‘‘Energy Efficiency Economics and 

Policy,’’ Annual Review of Resource Economics, 1: 

597–619; and Tietenberg, T. (2009). ‘‘Energy 

Efficiency Policy: Pipe Dream or Pipeline to the 

Future?’’ Review of Environmental Economics and 

Policy. Vol. 3, No. 2: 304–320. 

3A draft paper, ‘‘Notes on the Economics of 

Household Energy Consumption and Technology 

Choice,’’ proposes a broad theoretical framework on 

which an empirical model might be based and is 

posted on the DOE Web site along with this notice 

at http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards. 

• When sufficiently long-term data 

are available on the cost trends for 

equipment or technologies for particular 

efficiency design options, an empirical 

experience curve fit to the available data 

may be used to forecast future costs of 

such design option technologies. If a 

statistical evaluation indicates a low 

level of confidence in estimates of the 

design option cost trend, this method 

should not be used to forecast costs. 

• When sufficiently long term data 

are not available for forecasting the cost 

of products or equipment using specific 

efficiency-improving components, the 

experience curve cost trend for the 

product or equipment as a whole should 

be applied to both the product or 

equipment price and the incremental 

product or equipment price. 

• When sufficiently long term data 

are not available for a specific product 

or equipment, it may be appropriate to 

apply the experience curve cost trend 

for a similar product or equipment, or 

a product or equipment grouping that 

includes the product or equipment at 

issue, to both the product or equipment 

price and the incremental product or 

equipment price. Alternatively, DOE 

may use experience curve parameters 

from review studies that may indicate 

that certain parameter ranges apply to 

certain classes or groups of products or 

equipment that include the product or 

equipment under analysis. If data are 

not available for estimating a price 

trend, DOE may use a constant real 

price trend as in past rulemakings. 

In other words, when data are 

available to help guide DOE in 

projecting potential cost reductions over 

time for a particular appliance or 

equipment, DOE plans to use these data 

as part of its analyses. In those instances 

where such data are unavailable, DOE 

will continue to employ the methods it 

currently uses, which is to hold costs at 

a fixed level for purposes of long-term 

impact projections. 

For the energy conservation standards 

analysis for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers and freezers, long-term data are 

available on overall product costs. DOE 

is therefore considering use of the long 

term trend in product price to forecast 

the long term trend in the incremental 

cost of efficiency. DOE posts updated 

national impact analysis spreadsheets 

that incorporate price trend forecasting 

at http://www.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards for 

public review. 

To improve the accuracy and 

reliability of price forecasts, DOE may 

periodically review the performance of 

equipment and incremental efficiency 

cost forecasts and may make further 

methodological improvements that 

improve forecast accuracy and 

reliability. 

In the next section, DOE seeks 

information on all of the issues covered 

in this section, as well as additional 

topics. 

General Discussion of Potential 

Consumer Welfare Impacts 

DOE also notes that the economics 

literature provides a wide-ranging 

discussion of how consumers trade-off 

upfront costs and energy savings in the 

absence of government intervention. 

Much of this literature attempts to 

explain why consumers appear to 

undervalue energy efficiency 

improvements. This undervaluation 

suggests that regulation that promotes 

energy efficiency can produce 

significant net private gains (as well as 

producing social gains by, for example, 

reducing pollution). There is evidence 

that consumers undervalue future 

energy savings as a result of (1) a lack 

of information, (2) a lack of sufficient 

savings to warrant delaying or altering 

purchases (e.g. an inefficient ventilation 

fan in a new building or the delayed 

replacement of a water pump), (3) 

inconsistent (e.g. excessive short-term) 

weighting of future energy cost savings 

relative to available returns on other 

investments, (4) computational or other 

difficulties associated with the 

evaluation of relevant tradeoffs, and (5) 

a divergence in incentives (e.g. renter 

versus owner; builder v. purchaser). In 

the abstract, it may be difficult to say 

how a welfare gain from correcting 

under-investment compares in 

magnitude to the potential welfare 

losses associated with no longer 

purchasing a machine or switching to an 

imperfect substitute, both of which still 

exist in this framework. 

Other literature indicates that with 

less than perfect foresight and 

uncertainty about the future, consumers 

may trade off these types of investments 

at a higher than expected rate between 

current consumption and uncertain 

future energy cost savings. Some studies 

suggest that this seeming 

undervaluation may be explained in 

certain circumstances by differences 

between tested and actual energy 

savings, or by uncertainty and 

irreversibility of energy investments. 

The mix of evidence in the empirical 

literature suggests that if feasible, 

analysis of regulations mandating 

energy efficiency improvements should 

explore the potential for both welfare 

gains and losses and move toward fuller 

economic framework where all relevant 

changes can be quantified.2 While DOE 

is not prepared at present to provide a 

fuller quantifiable framework for this 

discussion, DOE seeks comments on 

how to assess these issues.3

Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

and Information 

Data Sources 

1. DOE seeks data related to observed 

trends in historical costs, retail prices, 

and shipment efficiencies of products 

and equipment covered by the Energy 

Conservation Standards program. 

2. DOE seeks data related to observed 

trends in historical costs, retail prices, 

and shipment efficiencies of products 

and equipment that, while not covered 

by the Energy Conservation Standards 

program, may be of use to DOE with 

respect to its treatment of technology 

learning curves and consumer welfare 

impacts. 

3. DOE seeks data related to historical 

costs and prices of covered products 

and equipment delineated by efficiency 

level. 

4. DOE seeks information on the 

appropriate range of values for learning 

parameters found in the relevant 

literature, either in the aggregate or 

associated with specific appliances, 

equipment, technologies, or production 

processes. 

Potential Methodologies 

1. DOE specifically seeks comment on 

the methodology described in the 

‘‘Background’’ section above. 

2. DOE seeks information on 

alternative methodologies for 

forecasting equipment price trends in its 

analyses. 

3. DOE seeks comment on how 

changes in other product attributes, 

including efficiency, could be 

‘‘normalized’’ or ‘‘corrected’’ based on 

historical data. 

4. DOE seeks comment on methods 

for calculating changes in historical 

costs or prices, including the use of the 

PPI and CPI. 

5. DOE seeks comment on methods of 

deriving historical production volumes. 

6. DOE seeks comment on the details 

of the method, data and references 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

9700 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

described in the draft paper ‘‘Using the 

Experience Curve Approach for 

Appliance Price Forecasting’’ posted on 

the DOE Web site at http:// 

www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards. 

7. DOE seeks comment on data 

sources and analytical methods for 

estimating potential consumer welfare 

impacts from energy conservation 

standards, including information on 

specific consumer subgroups of 

products regulated under the energy 

conservation program. 

Procedural Issues 

1. DOE seeks comment on the details 

of how equipment price forecasts and 

consumer welfare impacts may be 

incorporated into specific downstream 

analyses that rely on the engineering 

analysis outputs and what other 

methodological changes to those 

analyses might be merited. 

2. DOE seeks comment on products or 

equipment, or groups of products or 

equipment, that are likely to have the 

greatest and least improvement in price 

forecast accuracy from the application 

of experience curve methodology. 

3. DOE seeks information on 

alternative methods for modeling 

persistent price trends for regulated 

products or equipment. 

General Analysis Methodology 

1. DOE seeks comments and 

information regarding additional ways 

of improving the accounting of costs 

and benefits in its energy conservation 

standards analysis, including comment 

on benefits and costs that may not have 

been included in energy conservation 

standards analyses to date. 

2. DOE seeks information on how 

standards can affect the dynamics of 

innovation and investment in U.S. 

appliance and equipment industries. 

3. DOE seeks comment on ways in 

which standards-induced innovation 

and investment might impact the 

competitiveness of U.S. products and 

companies in the global marketplace. 

4. DOE seeks comment on the 

additional global benefits that may arise 

from standards that may encourage U.S. 

appliances and equipment to have 

efficiency performance levels exceeding 

the efficiency performance levels of 

appliances and equipment in other 

countries. 

The purpose of this NODA is to solicit 

feedback from industry, manufacturers, 

academia, consumer groups, efficiency 

advocates, government agencies, and 

other stakeholders on issues related 

price forecasts in DOE’s engineering 

analyses for Energy Conservation 

Standards rulemakings. DOE is 

specifically interested in information 

and sources of data related to covered 

products and equipment that could be 

used in formulating a methodology 

regarding long term equipment price 

forecasts, and a methodology regarding 

consumer welfare impacts. Respondents 

are advised that DOE is under no 

obligation to acknowledge receipt of the 

information received or provide 

feedback to respondents with respect to 

any information submitted under this 

NODA. Responses to this NODA do not 

bind DOE to any further actions related 

to this topic. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 15, 

2011. 

Cathy Zoi, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3873 Filed 2–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 901 

[SATS No. AL–076–FOR; Docket ID: OSM– 

2010–0020] 

Alabama Regulatory Program 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment 

period and opportunity for public 

hearing on proposed amendment. 

SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

(OSM), are announcing receipt of a 

proposed amendment to the Alabama 

regulatory program (Alabama program) 

under the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the 

Act). Alabama proposes revisions to its 

Program regarding their license fees, 

annual license updates, and blaster 

certification fees. Alabama intends to 

revise its program to improve 

operational efficiency. The fees will be 

used to recover Alabama’s anticipated 

costs of reviewing, administering, and 

enforcing Alabama’s licensing and 

blaster certification requirements. 

This document gives the times and 

locations that the Alabama program and 

proposed amendment to that program 

are available for your inspection, the 

comment period during which you may 

submit written comments on the 

amendment, and the procedures that we 

will follow for the public hearing, if one 

is requested. 

DATES: We will accept written 

comments on this amendment until 

4 p.m., c.s.t., March 24, 2011. If 

requested, we will hold a public hearing 

on the amendment on March 21, 2011. 

We will accept requests to speak at a 

hearing until 4 p.m., c.s.t. on March 9, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by SATS No. AL–076–FOR by 

any of the following methods: 

• E-mail: swilson@osmre.gov. Include 

‘‘SATS No. AL–076–FOR’’ in the subject 

line of the message. 

• Mail/Hand Delivery: Sherry Wilson, 

Director, Birmingham Field Office, 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement, 135 Gemini Circle, 

Suite 215, Homewood, Alabama 35209. 

• Fax: (205) 290–7280. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this rulemaking. For 

detailed instructions on submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Public Comment Procedures’’ heading 

of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

review copies of the Alabama program, 

this amendment, a listing of any 

scheduled public hearings, and all 

written comments received in response 

to this document, you must go to the 

address listed below during normal 

business hours, Monday through Friday, 

excluding holidays. You may receive 

one free copy of the amendment by 

contacting OSM’s Birmingham Field 

Office or going to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Sherry Wilson, Director, Birmingham 

Field Office, Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, 135 

Gemini Circle, Suite 215, Homewood, 

Alabama 35209, Telephone: (205) 290– 

7282, E-mail: swilson@osmre.gov. 

In addition, you may review a copy of 

the amendment during regular business 

hours at the following location: 

Alabama Surface Mining Commission, 

1811 Second Ave., P.O. Box 2390, 

Jasper, Alabama 35502–2390, 

Telephone: (205) 221–4130. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sherry Wilson, Director, Birmingham 

Field Office. Telephone: (205) 290– 

7282. E-mail: swilson@osmre.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background on the Alabama Program 

II. Description of the Proposed Amendment 

III. Public Comment Procedures 

IV. Procedural Determinations 

I. Background on the Alabama Program 

Section 503(a) of the Act permits a 

State to assume primacy for the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS