Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 51281 

(2) The causes of major systemic 

errors may include, but are not limited 

to: Incorrect computer programming, 

ineffective worker training, problems in 

case conversion, insufficient server 

capacity, improper equipment, and 

ineffective States’ business processes in 

the local offices related to the systems 

change. 

(b) State reporting. (1) When the Food 

and Nutrition Service (FNS) determines 

that major systemic errors may have 

occurred in a State, the State shall 

provide the information that FNS 

identifies as necessary to make its 

determination that a systemic error has, 

or has not, occurred. Based on the data 

FNS gathers from the State, FNS will 

determine whether there has been a 

systemic error that affected a substantial 

number of households. FNS’ data needs 

will be determined by the nature and 

timing of the systemic error, but will 

generally cover at least a 6 month time 

period. FNS will only request the 

information necessary to make its 

determination and calculate the proper 

amount of any potential claim against 

the State. FNS may require States to 

conduct additional reviews of cases 

randomly sampled from the State’s 

caseload to determine the extent of a 

potential systemic error. When sample 

data is used, FNS will base its 

determination on the point estimate of 

the sample data and negotiate with the 

State on the size of the sample. FNS 

may also require a State to provide data 

from its automated eligibility (data 

processing) system. 

(2) Unless otherwise specified by 

FNS, States shall report to FNS within 

3 months of being notified of the data 

requirements. 

(c) FNS determination. (1) FNS shall 

base its determination of whether a 

major systemic error exists on the data 

it requires to be provided by the State 

and any data from Federal review 

sources including the USDA Office of 

Inspector General, the General 

Accounting Office, and FNS reviews. 

FNS may also validate data provided by 

a State. 

(2) FNS will notify a State of its 

determination and, when a major 

systemic error is determined to exist, 

inform the State of the specifics of the 

error(s) and prohibit claims collection 

from the affected cases. FNS will 

establish and inform the State on the 

time period for which overissuances to 

the subject cases are not subject to 

recipient claims collection. 

(3) When FNS determines that a major 

systemic error exists, FNS shall 

determine the amount of the 

overissuance caused by the major 

systemic error. FNS will calculate the 

claim amount based on the best 

information available and may require 

the State to provide information from its 

information management system or 

review a sample of cases. 

(4) Error amounts below $20 in a 

given month shall not be included in 

the determination of a systemic error. 

(5) When a sample is used, the claim 

shall be based on the lower boundary of 

a 95 percent confidence interval. 

Example of calculation based on 

information from a sample: The sample 

estimate of the major systemic error is 

8 percent over a 6 month period, but 

based on a 95 percent confidence 

interval of 2 percentage points, the rate 

used would be 6 percent. Therefore the 

claim would be 6 percent of value of the 

State’s total issuance over the 6 months. 

(6) If any funds resulting from the 

systemic error caused overissuances are 

collected based on the negligence or 

quality control provisions of 7 CFR parts 

276 and 275, the claim calculated under 

paragraph (c)(3) of this section would be 

reduced by the amount collected. 

(d) Action on recipient claims 

collection. (1) When FNS determines 

that a major systemic error has occurred, 

the State will be notified that claims 

resulting from the systemic error 

overissuances shall not be collected. 

FNS will specify the beginning date of 

the major systemic error the time period 

in which the errors occurred. 

(2) States shall have 10 days from the 

date of notification by FNS to stop 

collection of the claims resulting from 

the systemic error. 

(3) Once FNS determines that the 

systemic error has been corrected to the 

extent that it no longer affects a 

substantial number of households, the 

State will be notified of the ending date 

for prohibition on collection of claims 

for overissuances resulting from the 

major systemic error and that claims 

shall again be collected for all 

overissuances. 

(4) If claims are collected from 

households based on overissuances 

caused the major systemic error, the 

State shall return the claim amount 

collected to these households by 

restoring benefits to households EBT 

account. 

(e) Collection of liabilities and 

appeals. FNS shall initiate collection 

action unless an administrative appeal 

relating to the liability is pending. 

Appeals include administrative appeals 

in accordance with the procedures 

specified in § 276.7 and judicial 

appeals. While the amount of a State’s 

liability may be recovered through 

offsets to their letter of credit as 

identified in § 277.16(c) of this chapter, 

FNS shall also have the option of billing 

a State directly or using other claims 

collection mechanisms authorized 

under the Federal Claims Collection 

Act, depending upon the amount of the 

State’s liability. 

PART 276—STATE AGENCY 

LIABILITIES AND FEDERAL 

SANCTIONS 

3. The authority citation for part 276 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2011–2036. 

4. In § 276.7, paragraph (a)(1) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 276.7 Administrative review process. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Whenever FNS asserts a claim 

against a State agency, the State agency 

may appeal the claim by requesting an 

administrative review. FNS claims that 

may be appealed are billings resulting 

from financial losses involved in the 

acceptance, storage, and issuance of 

coupons (§ 276.2), billings based on 

charges of negligence or fraud (§ 276.3), 

billings based on over-issuances for 

systemic errors (§ 276.3) and 

disallowances of Federal funds for State 

agency failures to comply with the Food 

and Nutrition Act, regulations, or the 

FNS-approved State Plan of Operations 

(§ 276.4). 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 8, 2011. 

Audrey Rowe, 

Administrator, Food, Nutrition, and 

Consumer Services. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20786 Filed 8–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–NOA–0028] 

RIN 1904–AC24 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products and Certain 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment: 

Statement of Policy for Adopting FullFuel-Cycle Analyses Into Energy 

Conservation Standards Program 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Statement of Policy. 

SUMMARY: In its effort to adopt several 

National Academy of Sciences (the 

Academy) recommendations, the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) intends to 

modify the methods it uses to estimate 

the likely impacts of energy 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

51282 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

conservation standards for covered 

products on energy use and emissions 

and will work to expand the energy use 

and emissions information made 

available to consumers. Specifically, 

DOE intends to use full-fuel-cycle (FFC) 

measures of energy use and emissions, 

rather than the primary (or site) energy 

measures it currently uses. 

Additionally, DOE intends to work 

collaboratively with the Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) to make readily 

available to consumers information on 

the FFC energy and greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions of specific products to 

enable consumers to make cross-class 

comparisons of product energy use and 

emissions. 

ADDRESSES: The docket is available for 

review at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including the Federal Register notice of 

proposed policy, the public meeting 

attendee list and transcript, all 

comments received, and other 

supporting documents/materials. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the http://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. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/ 

full_fuel_cycle_analyses.html. The 

regulations.gov Web page will contain 

simple instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Anthoney Pavelich, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, Building Technologies, EE– 

21, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1846. E-mail: 

Anthoney.Pavelich@ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Ami Grace-Tardy, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of the General 

Counsel, GC–71, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121. Telephone: (202) 586–5709. Email: Ami.Grace-Tardy@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Summary of the Policy 

II. Background 

III. General Discussion and Discussion of 

Comments 

A. Considering FFC Energy and Emission 

Impacts of Prospective Efficiency 

Standards 

B. Using FFC Energy Efficiency Metrics in 

DOE’s Assessment of Energy 

Conservation Standards Impacts 

C. Estimated Impacts From Expansion of 

Considered GHG Emissions 

D. Methodology for Estimating FFC Energy 

and Emission Impacts 

E. Consumer Information on FFC Impacts 

of Specific Covered Products 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

B. Review Under the Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review 

V. Approval of the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary 

I. Summary of the Policy 

In its August 2010 Notice of Proposed 

Policy (referred to herein as ‘‘Notice’’ or 

‘‘NOPP’’) (75 FR 51423), the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) proposed 

to use full-fuel-cycle (FFC) measures of 

energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) 

and other emissions in the national 

impact analyses and environmental 

assessments included in rulemakings for 

future energy conservation standards 

(referred to herein as ‘‘energy 

conservation standards’’ or ‘‘energy 

efficiency levels’’). DOE stated that 

using the FFC measure in these analyses 

will provide more complete information 

about the total energy use and GHG 

emissions associated with a specific 

energy efficiency level than the primary 

(or site) energy measures currently used 

by DOE. DOE also indicated that 

utilizing the FFC measure for 

environmental assessments and national 

impact analyses would not require 

alteration of the measures used to 

determine the energy efficiency of 

covered products (referred to herein as 

‘‘appliances and equipment’’ or just 

‘‘appliances’’) because the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act (EPCA), as 

amended, requires that such measures 

be based solely on the energy consumed 

at the point of use. (42 U.S.C. 6291(4)– 

(6), 6311(3)–(4), (18)) However, the 

Notice stated that using the FFC 

measure in lieu of primary energy in 

environmental assessments and national 

impact analyses could affect the 

alternative standard levels that DOE 

considers before choosing an energy 

efficiency level in the future. A policy 

change to consider FFC impacts would 

increase the energy and emission 

reductions estimated to result from 

energy efficiency levels. This shift 

would, consequently, increase some of 

the estimated benefits of such standards. 

The NOPP also proposed that DOE 

would significantly improve upon the 

Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) 

existing online databases of appliance 

site energy use and efficiency ratings by 

including FFC energy use and emissions 

data. DOE’s Notice indicated that the 

improved databases could provide tools 

to enable users to easily compare a 

product’s energy use, emissions, and 

costs to similar products, including 

products that are in different classes, 

have different features or use different 

fuels. DOE solicited public comment on 

whether such an online service would 

likely benefit consumers and, if so, the 

most effective way to present this 

information. DOE also solicited 

comments on the merits of providing 

GHG emissions and other productspecific comparative data on Energy 

Guide labels. 

After consideration of the comments 

received on its NOPP, DOE has decided 

to use FFC measures of energy use and 

GHG and other emissions in the 

national impact analyses and 

environmental assessments included in 

future energy conservation standards 

rulemakings. DOE currently uses 

primary (or site) energy consumption for 

national impact analyses and 

environmental assessments using the 

National Energy Modeling System 

(NEMS) developed by DOE’s Energy 

Information Administration (EIA). DOE 

will continue to rely upon NEMS-based 

estimates of primary energy and 

emission impacts, but intends to use 

conversion factors generated by the DOE 

Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) 

Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, 

and Energy Use in Transportation 

(GREET) model to convert these 

estimates into estimates of FFC energy 

and emission impacts. DOE also will, 

subject to the availability of funds, 

support efforts to make readily available 

to consumers and other users of 

regulated products information on the 

FFC energy use and emissions 

associated with specific products, and 

the means to compare this energy use 

and emissions to other comparable 

products, whether or not those other 

products use the same type of energy. 

The following sections more clearly 

state today’s policy as it applies to the 

different issues raised in DOE’s NOPP. 

II. Background 

Section 1802 of the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005 (EPACT 2005) directed DOE to 

commission a study with the National 

Academy of Sciences (the Academy) to 

examine whether the goals of energy 

conservation standards are best served 

by measurement of energy consumed, 

and efficiency improvements at, the 

actual point-of-use or through the use of 

the FFC, beginning at the source of 

energy production (Pub. L. 109–58). The 

FFC measure includes point-of-use 

energy, the energy losses associated 

with generation, transmission, and 

distribution of electricity, and the 

energy consumed in extracting, 

processing, and transporting or 

distributing primary fuels. The study, 

‘‘Review of Site (Point-of-Use) and FullFuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to 

DOE/EERE Building Appliance Energymstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 51283 

1Academy Report at p. 10. 

Efficiency Standards,’’ (Academy report) 

was completed in May 2009 and 

included five recommendations. A copy 

of the study can be downloaded at: 

http://www.nap.edu/ 

catalog.php?record_id=12670. 

The Academy’s primary 

recommendation is that ‘‘DOE consider 

moving over time to use of a FFC 

measure of energy consumption for 

assessment of national and 

environmental impact, especially levels 

of GHG emissions, and to providing 

more comprehensive information to the 

public through labels and other means 

such as an enhanced Web site.’’ 1 The 

Academy further recommended that 

DOE work with the FTC to consider 

options for making product specific 

GHG emissions estimates available to 

consumers. More specifically, the 

Academy recommended that DOE use 

the FFC measure of energy consumption 

for the environmental assessment and 

national impact analyses used in energy 

conservation standards rulemakings. 

DOE’s energy conservation program 

for consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment 

sets energy conservation standards to 

reduce U.S. energy consumption in 

residential and commercial buildings. 

DOE separates covered products into 

classes differentiated by energy source, 

technology, and capacity. EPCA, as 

amended, requires DOE to set energy 

conservation standards for covered 

products based on energy consumption 

at the point-of-use. (42 U.S.C. 6291(4)– 

(6), 6311(3)–(4), (18)) 

The point-of-use method for 

measuring energy consumption 

considers the use of electricity, natural 

gas, propane, and/or fuel oil by an 

appliance at the site where the 

appliance is operated. DOE uses pointof-use measures of energy consumption, 

usually presented in the physical units 

typically used for the relevant fuel (or 

electricity), for setting energy 

conservation standards. Before choosing 

an energy conservation standard, 

however, DOE performs several analyses 

to estimate the likely impacts of 

alternative standard levels. DOE impact 

analyses include a: life-cycle cost 

analysis, manufacturer impact analysis, 

national impact analysis, engineering 

analysis, screening analysis, 

environmental assessment, utility 

impact assessment, and employment 

impact assessment. For many years, 

DOE has used primary energy measures 

of energy consumption and related 

emissions in several of these analyses, 

including the national impact analysis 

and the environmental assessment, to 

estimate the total projected energy 

savings and emission impacts likely to 

result from the imposition of alternative 

standard levels. Primary energy 

includes energy consumed on-site, plus 

energy losses that occur in the 

generation, transmission, and 

distribution of electricity. 

Based on the results of these various 

analyses, DOE then proposes (and, 

ultimately, adopts) the energy 

conservation standard that it determines 

achieves the maximum energy 

efficiency improvement that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified as required by 

EPCA, as amended. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A) Additionally, DOE must 

determine that the establishment of a 

new or amended energy conservation 

standard will result in significant energy 

conservation. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

III. General Discussion and Discussion 

of Comments 

In response to DOE’s Notice, DOE 

received comments from 41 entities. 

Comments were submitted by utilities, 

research facilities, consumer 

representatives, non-profit 

organizations, farmers and others. In the 

following sections, the comments 

received concerning this proposed 

change in policy are summarized and 

addressed, and DOE provides a 

statement of the resulting policy that it 

will apply in the development of future 

energy efficiency rules and related 

activities. 

There were, however, a number of 

comments received in response to the 

Notice that are peripheral to the issues 

addressed in the Notice. For example, 

several comments indicated that the 

Department should not use estimates of 

the social cost of carbon in assessing the 

impacts of prospective energy 

conservation standards and others 

disagreed with the methods now used 

by DOE to estimate such cost. (See e.g., 

NRECA, Public Comment, EERE–2010– 

BT–NOA–0028–0001, p. 3) These issues 

have been addressed in previous 

rulemakings, would not be affected by 

today’s policy change to use FFC 

analyses, and were not the subject of the 

Academy’s report. 

American Public Power Association 

(APPA) commented that DOE should be 

noting the high degree of subjectivity 

involved in the monetary benefit of 

reduced carbon dioxide (CO2) in the 

monetization of societal benefits. 

(APPA, Public Comment, EERE–2010– 

BT–NOA–0028–0033, p. 4) This 

comment on the treatment of the 

monetary benefits of reduced CO2

emissions is outside the scope of the 

Notice and this final Policy Statement. 

However, DOE notes that DOE’s analysis 

does identify such benefits separately in 

its life-cycle cost and net present value 

benefit calculations. 

The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) 

indicated that the method used by DOE 

to derive estimates of primary energy 

inappropriately ‘‘assigns’’ a fossil fuel 

heat rate for electricity generated by 

renewable and nuclear resources. EEI 

indicated that this approach resulted in 

an inflated value for the national energy 

savings associated with the electricity 

demand reductions estimated by 

appliance efficiency standards analyses. 

(EEI, Public Comment, EERE–2010–BT– 

NOA–0028–0007, p. 3) Today’s policy 

would not modify the methods used by 

DOE to calculate primary energy. 

Michigan dairy farmers provided a 

comment concerning the final water 

heater energy conservation standard. 

(Weiss, Public Comment, EERE–2010– 

BT–NOA–0028–0009, p. 1) Comments 

on DOE directives made under previous 

energy conservation standards 

rulemakings are outside the scope of the 

Notice and are not addressed in this 

Statement of Policy. 

A. Considering FFC Energy and 

Emission Impacts of Prospective 

Efficiency Standards 

In its August 2010 Notice, DOE 

proposed to modify the methods it uses 

to estimate the likely impacts of energy 

conservation standards for covered 

products in order to use FFC measures 

of energy and related emissions in 

national impact analyses and 

environmental assessments, rather than 

the primary energy measures that DOE 

currently uses in these analyses. The 

NOPP also provided various tables with 

examples of the preliminary estimates of 

the conversion factors that DOE would 

use to shift its estimates of the primary 

energy savings and emission reductions 

likely to result from various energy 

efficiency levels to their FFC 

equivalents. 

A few of the comments noted that 

existing law requires the development 

of efficiency standards based on the 

energy consumed by an appliance at its 

point-of-use (or site energy). While some 

commenters questioned whether this 

legal constraint was appropriate, no 

comments argued that DOE was not 

obligated by existing law to set its 

energy conservation standards using 

metrics derived from point-of-use (or 

site) energy. In a related comment, the 

American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy (ACEEE) 

recommended that DOE make a 

statement indicating DOE’s intention of 

keeping gas and electric appliances in 

separate product classes for energy 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

51284 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

conservation standards. (ACEEE, Public 

Comment, EERE–2010–BT–NOA–0028– 

0013, p. 1) The Consumer Energy 

Council of America (CECA) 

recommended that energy conservation 

standards continue to be fuel neutral, as 

they indicated was directed by EPCA, as 

amended, and that DOE should not 

identify or establish favored energy 

sources. (CECA, Public Comment, 

EERE–2010–BT–NOA–0028–0012, p. 2) 

In response, DOE is confirming that it 

intends to continue to set energy 

conservation standards for covered 

products based on energy consumption 

at the point-of-use, as required by EPCA, 

as amended. (42 U.S.C. 6291(4)–(6), 

6311(3)(4), (18)) DOE is also confirming 

that it will continue to consider 

comparable products that use different 

fuels in separate classes as required by 

42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1). However, DOE 

does not agree that EPCA, as amended, 

mandates fuel neutral energy 

conservation standards. In evaluating 

and establishing energy conservation 

standards, DOE divides covered 

products into classes based on the type 

of energy used, their size or capacity 

and other features that directly affect the 

product’s energy use or efficiency. 

EPCA, as amended, specifically 

provides that energy conservation 

standards for different product classes 

can have higher or lower levels. (See 42 

U.S.C. 6295(q)) DOE sets the energy 

conservation standard for each product 

class independently based upon the 

maximum energy efficiency 

improvement that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

that results in significant conservation 

of energy for each product class. (See 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)–(B) and (3)(B)) 

A number of comments focused on 

the primary issue raised by the Notice: 

Should DOE consider the FFC energy 

and emission impacts of prospective 

energy conservation standards in 

determining whether a particular 

standard should be selected? An 

appliance efficiency standard is chosen 

based on the results of various 

analyses—some of which EPCA, as 

amended, directs DOE to perform and 

some of which DOE performs under the 

discretionary provisions of EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)) EPCA, as 

amended, does not mandate the use of 

point-of-use measures in these analyses, 

although the ultimate energy 

conservation standard chosen must be 

expressed as a point-of-use measure. (42 

U.S.C. 6291(4)–(6), 6311(3)–(4), (18)) 

Several commenters supported DOE’s 

proposal to begin considering the FFC 

energy and emission impacts of 

prospective energy conservation 

standards. The American Gas 

Association (AGA) indicated their 

support by stating, ‘‘Current efficiency 

standards and appliance labels rely on 

incomplete energy consumption and 

emission measurements.’’ (AGA, Public 

Comment, EERE–2010–BT–NOA–0028– 

0004, p. 1) Also in support, the National 

Propane Gas Association commented 

that the FFC approach will enable ‘‘a 

more comprehensive analysis of total 

energy and environmental impacts of 

energy efficiency standards.’’ (NPGA, 

Public Comment, EERE–2010–BT– 

NOA–0028–0034, p. 2) 

The Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) expressed 

their concern that the use of FFC factors 

would lengthen the rulemaking process 

by sidetracking discussions of important 

aspects of a rulemaking, such as benefits 

to the consumer. (AHRI, Public 

Comment, EERE–2010–BT–NOA–0028– 

0017, p. 3) 

DOE does not believe that the 

incorporation of FFC energy and 

emission impact analyses will 

substantially alter the focus of public 

review and comment on DOE’s energy 

conservation standards rulemakings. 

DOE already conducts and presents the 

results of analyses on a broad range of 

criteria other than the direct impacts of 

appliance efficiency standards on the 

users of the covered product, as 

required by statute. While new impact 

analyses or methods often receive 

considerable attention when they are 

introduced, over time, public comments 

tend to focus on those elements of 

DOE’s analysis that have the greatest 

impact on the identification and 

selection of the minimum standard level 

that is ultimately adopted. DOE does not 

believe that the use of FFC factors in the 

national impacts analysis and 

environmental assessment will 

significantly impact the selection of the 

minimum standard level adopted. 

Other commenters also opposed such 

a change to the use of FFC factors. CECA 

and EEI both stated that considering 

FFC impacts would push the analysis 

used to set energy conservation 

standards beyond what is economically 

feasible and technically justified. EEI 

also questioned whether DOE had a 

sufficiently reliable basis for estimating 

FFC energy and emission impacts. 

(CECA, Public Comment, EERE–2010– 

BT–NOA–0028–0042, p. 7; EEI, Public 

Comment, EERE–2010–BT–NOA–0028– 

0007, p. 2) Specifically, EEI commented 

that ‘‘there is significant disagreement’’ 

as to the appropriate FFC and primary 

energy factors for the same energy 

source among different entities. (EEI, 

Public Comment, EERE–2010–BT– 

NOA–0028–0037, pp. 5–6) 

Under today’s policy, DOE will 

continue to use EIA estimates of 

primary energy and emission impacts as 

the basis for its impact analyses and the 

GREET model will be used simply to 

convert these primary energy values to 

their FFC equivalents. This approach 

avoids making any changes to the 

methods long used by DOE’s EIA (and 

by DOE’s appliance efficiency standards 

program) to convert energy end-use 

values to primary energy values, which 

are the source of many of the 

disagreements referenced by EEI. DOE’s 

ANL has, in the past, compared 

different life-cycle assessment methods 

and found that the results are consistent 

with those generated by GREET when 

the same critical input parameters are 

used. This analysis will be cited in 

future standards rulemakings, as 

appropriate. 

The statute specifically directs DOE to 

set appliance efficiency standards at 

levels that achieve the maximum energy 

savings that is technologically feasible 

and economically justified; DOE must 

also determine that the establishment of 

the chosen standard will result in 

significant energy conservation. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)–(3)) DOE does not 

believe that the consideration of the FFC 

energy and emission impacts in the 

national impacts analysis and 

environmental assessment of a standard 

under consideration is in conflict with 

this statutory directive. In practice, the 

consideration of FFC energy and 

emission impacts is likely to have 

comparatively small effects on DOE’s 

analysis of the economic justification of 

specific alternative appliance efficiency 

standards. As indicated by the 

illustrative tables included in the NOPP 

that provided preliminary estimates of 

FFC conversion factors, the estimated 

energy savings likely to result from 

efficiency levels under consideration 

using the FFC method could increase by 

approximately seven to fifteen percent 

for gas or oil-fired appliances and two 

to fifteen percent for electric appliances, 

relative to the estimates of primary 

energy savings used currently. These 

relative increases were based on the 

ratio of FFC energy use and primary 

energy use, which were estimated by the 

GREET model. This increase in energy 

savings would not affect the estimated 

value or cost of the resulting energy 

savings, nor the estimated net present 

value of consumer life-cycle costs 

savings, since all energy costs savings 

are based on DOE estimates of the 

energy costs (derived from retail energy 

prices) paid directly by energy users. As 

a result of a change to consider FFC 

impacts, there also would be a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 51285 

comparable increase in the CO2

emission reductions and in the 

estimated monetary value of such 

emission reductions. DOE believes that 

these adjustments in the estimated 

energy savings and in the value of the 

benefits associated with reduced CO2

emissions would enhance, rather than 

distort, DOE’s analyses by more fully 

representing the total energy and 

emissions associated with the delivery 

of energy to consumers. 

While estimates of the additional 

energy use and emissions resulting from 

the FFC methodology will add some 

new uncertainties to DOE’s impact 

analyses, these new uncertainties are 

small relative to the total additional 

energy and emission impacts being 

estimated and are comparable to the 

uncertainties associated with previous 

DOE analyses. Since FFC-based 

estimates will more fully reflect the total 

energy and emission reductions 

associated with the imposition of energy 

conservation standards and are not 

significantly less reliable than current 

methods, DOE has concluded that such 

estimates should be used in future 

impact analyses. 

Policy Statement: In the national 

impacts analyses and environmental 

assessments of future energy 

conservation standards rulemakings, 

DOE intends to include impact 

estimates based on FFC energy and 

emissions, rather than the previous 

practice of estimating such impacts 

based on the likely effects on primary 

energy and emissions. 

B. Using FFC Energy Efficiency Metrics 

in DOE’s Assessment of Energy 

Conservation Standards Impacts 

In the NOPP, DOE proposed to use 

FFC measures of energy use and related 

emissions in the national impact 

analyses and environmental 

assessments included in future energy 

conservation standards rulemakings, but 

did not propose to create or use 

extended site or FFC measures of energy 

efficiency in its rules or regulatory 

impact analyses. 

For rulemakings for covered products 

for which there is a choice of fuel, AGA 

noted the Academy’s third 

recommendation that ‘‘efficiency ratings 

should be calculated using the extended 

site (source) measure of energy 

consumption until the Department can 

consider and complete a transition to 

the use of a full fuel-cycle measure of 

consumption.’’ AGA recommended that 

DOE make ‘‘side-by-side comparisons of 

the calculated energy savings from 

proposed efficiency standard for each 

appliance’’ as part of its analysis of the 

likely impacts of prospective standards. 

While recognizing that DOE does not 

have the statutory authority to use FFC 

energy efficiency metrics as the basis for 

DOE conservation standards, AGA 

recommended that DOE create and use 

such metrics as part of its analysis of the 

likely impacts of prospective energy 

conservation standards. (AGA, Public 

Comment, EERE–2010–BT–NOA–0028– 

0035, pp. 4–5) 

DOE has the statutory authority to 

create and consider extended site or 

FFC energy efficiency metrics as part of 

its analysis of the likely impacts of 

prospective energy conservation 

standards. (See 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) Extended site or 

FFC energy efficiency metrics would 

provide DOE with a rough indication of 

the likely energy impacts of a shift in 

the market of products using different 

fuels (i.e., fuel switching) that might 

result from the imposition of alternative 

energy conservation standards under 

consideration. If DOE’s analysis 

indicated that a particular standard 

level under consideration would likely 

lead to a shift in consumer purchases 

from products with higher FFC 

efficiency to products with lower FFC 

efficiency, then DOE decision-makers 

would be alerted that such a shift would 

likely undercut the energy savings (and 

emission reductions) resulting from that 

standard level. 

For this reason, DOE carefully 

considered whether it should establish 

a policy to calculate and use in future 

rulemakings such extended-site or FFC 

efficiency metrics for appliances for 

which there is a fuel choice. DOE 

concluded, however, that the use of 

extended site or FFC energy efficiency 

metrics would only provide a rough 

indicator of the impacts of possible fuel 

switching on total energy savings and 

emissions and, therefore, would not 

enhance current DOE estimates of the 

direct impacts of alternative standard 

levels on fuel choice, energy savings, 

emissions and other factors. On the 

other hand, such FFC energy efficiency 

metrics may prove to be a useful 

mechanism for conveying complex 

information to consumers. The issue of 

consumer information is discussed 

further in Section E of this notice. 

Policy Statement: After careful 

consideration, DOE has concluded that 

calculating and comparing efficiency 

ratings on an FFC basis is not likely to 

significantly enhance the considerable 

information already available on the 

likely impacts of prospective energy 

conservation standards on total energy 

use, emissions and other factors. 

Consequently, DOE does not intend to 

create or use such metrics in the 

development of future appliance 

efficiency standards. While DOE already 

accounts for the potential impacts of 

fuel switching in its energy conservation 

standards analyses (where appropriate), 

it will make the methodologies and 

results of fuel switching more explicit in 

all rulemakings in which fuel switching 

might occur. 

C. Estimated Impacts From Expansion 

of Considered GHG Emissions 

As part of its rulemaking analyses, 

DOE currently estimates the impacts of 

alternative standard levels on emissions 

of Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Sulfur Dioxide 

(SO2), Nitrogen Oxide (NOX) and 

Mercury. Of these, CO2 is the only GHG 

addressed in DOE’s rulemaking 

analyses. In the NOPP, DOE proposed to 

add estimates of the impact of 

alternative energy conservation 

standards on the emissions of two other 

types of GHGs, methane (CH4) and 

nitrous oxide (N2O), as part of the 

environmental assessments included in 

future rulemakings. These estimates 

would be provided both as physical 

units of the emissions of these gases and 

as CO2 equivalents of these emissions 

based on their climate forcing effects 

(using generally accepted conversion 

factors). Although not directly 

addressed in the Academy’s report, such 

emissions have a direct association with 

the production and use of energy and 

adding reduction estimates of these 

gases will allow DOE to provide a more 

comprehensive assessment of the 

impact of standards on GHG emissions. 

These two gases are included in 

national GHG emissions inventories 

worldwide and, according to the EPA, 

they are among the principle GHGs that 

enter the atmosphere due to energy 

production. Addition of reduction 

estimates of these gases to the 

environmental assessments of future 

energy efficiency rulemakings could 

increase the estimated impacts of 

alternative standard levels on CO2- 

equivalent GHG emissions by 

approximately five to seventeen percent, 

as indicated by the preliminary 

estimates provided in the NOPP. 

Southern Company agreed in their 

comments that it is reasonable to use 

estimates of the CO2-equivalent 

emissions of these two gases in 

environmental assessments, stating that 

the addition would provide ‘‘useful, 

more complete information on the 

environmental impacts of appliance 

use.’’ They also noted ‘‘that most 

leakage of methane from natural gas 

comes from distribution systems, and 

electric generation generally receives 

direct service from natural gas 

transmission systems without using gas 

distribution systems. Therefore the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

51286 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

methane-related global warming impact 

for electric generation should be much 

less than the adjustment for methane 

leakage for direct consumer use of 

natural gas, which does use natural gas 

distribution systems.’’ (Southern, Public 

Comment, EERE–2010–BT–NOA–0028– 

0027, p. 4) 

DOE notes that, for electricity 

generation from natural gas, the GREET 

model includes methane leakage 

associated with gas transmission 

systems, but not leakage associated with 

gas distribution from city gate to 

households. Also, methane leakage in 

gas production is accounted for in the 

natural gas fuel cycle in GREET. 

NEEA questioned whether the flaring 

of natural gas and other gases during oil 

production, and methane from coal 

mining, is included in the FFC 

emissions analysis. (NEEA, Public 

Comment, EERE–2010–BT–NOA–0028– 

0021, p. 3) The emissions from both 

flaring and venting of gas in oil 

production are accounted for in GREET 

simulations. Methane released into the 

atmosphere during the production of oil 

or gas, or during coal mining, is also 

considered as an emission. 

DOE did not receive any comments 

opposing the addition of these gases. 

Policy Statement: DOE intends to add 

estimates of the impacts of alternative 

energy conservation standards on 

emissions of CH4 and N2O, two 

significant GHGs, to future 

environmental assessments. These 

impact estimates will be provided in the 

physical units of these gases, as well as 

their CO2-equivalent values. These 

values, however, will not be used to 

develop estimates of the monetary value 

of reductions in CO2 emissions until 

such time as the methodology used to 

calculate the social cost of carbon is 

explicitly modified to cover such gases. 

D. Methodology for Estimating FFC 

Energy and Emission Impacts 

DOE proposed to use the GREET 

model in energy conservation standards 

rulemakings to convert primary energy 

and emission impacts, including CH4

and N2O, to FFC energy and emission 

impacts. The GREET model was 

originally developed in 1995 and is 

routinely updated with support from 

several DOE programs. It includes more 

than 100 fuel production pathways, 

including those addressed by the FFC 

methodology to be used for product 

standards rulemakings. The model and 

its technical documentation are 

available at the GREET Web site 

(http://greet.es.anl.gov/). At present, 

there are more than 15,000 registered 

GREET users worldwide. 

In the NOPP, for each alternative 

energy conservation standard under 

consideration, DOE proposed to first 

estimate the primary energy and related 

emission impacts by using the same 

methodologies and NEMS projections 

that DOE’s conservation standards 

program has traditionally used. Second, 

for each alternative energy conservation 

standard under consideration, DOE 

proposed to use the energy conversion 

factors that are generated using the 

GREET model to convert primary energy 

use and emission impacts to FFC energy 

use and emission impacts. 

EEI asked which version of the 

GREET model was used to derive the 

preliminary conversion values shown in 

Tables 1 and 2 of the Notice. (EEI, 

Public Comment, EERE–2010–BT– 

NOA–0028–0037, p. 5) The most recent 

version of the GREET model available at 

the time, version 1.8d, was used to 

calculate the values in Tables 1 and 2. 

There will be a new version of GREET 

released in 2011. The latest version of 

GREET will be used when the FFC is 

calculated in future energy conservation 

standards rulemakings. 

Southern Company commented that 

DOE’s proposal to use existing 

methodologies and NEMS, together with 

conversion factors generated by the 

GREET model, was a reasonable 

approach. (Southern, Public Comment, 

EERE–2010–BT–NOA–0028–0027, p. 3) 

Both AGA and the Natural Gas Supply 

Association (NGSA) commented in 

support of the GREET model, stating 

that GREET provides ‘‘an adequate 

modeling platform for the calculation of 

energy consumption and greenhouse gas 

emissions data as part of the 

Department’s energy conservation 

standards program.’’ (AGA, Public 

Comment, EERE–2010–BT–NOA–0028– 

0035, p. 3; NGSA, Public Comment, 

EERE–2010–BT–NOA–0028–0019, p. 2) 

The American Public Gas Association 

(APGA) commented that it is important 

that DOE use a transparent process to 

ensure that stakeholders understand 

how the GREET model would be used 

to calculate FFC energy and GHG 

emissions impacts as part of energy 

conservation standards rulemakings. 

The National Association of Home 

Builders expressed concern about the 

level of technical documentation and 

verifiable data provided in the Notice. 

(APGA, Public Comment, EERE–2010– 

BT–NOA–0028–0024, p. 5) 

The methods, data and assumptions 

used in the GREET model were subject 

to public review and comment under 

separate Federal and State rulemakings. 

When the current GREET model, or a 

new version of the model, is used in 

future DOE rulemakings, the methods, 

data and assumptions will again be fully 

documented and subject to public 

review and comment. 

The Northwest Energy Efficiency 

Alliance (NEEA) commented that the 

conversion factors and other GREET 

model estimates presented in the Notice 

appeared frozen in time, yielding 

minimal changes for most fuels 

analyzed from 2010 to 2030. (NEEA, 

Public Comment, EERE–2010–BT– 

NOA–0028–0021, p. 1) The NEMS and 

GREET models both forecast or simulate 

changes in energy use and emissions 

over time. The small changes in the 

conversion factors in Tables 1 and 2 of 

the Notice reflect the fact that large, 

long-lived capital stocks dominate the 

energy production and transport sector, 

and change slowly over time. New 

facilities or processes replace existing 

facilities and processes only gradually 

over many decades. Retrofitting of 

existing facilities to alter the fuels used 

or substantially reduce emissions can 

result in more rapid changes, and there 

are efforts to continually improve the 

ability of the GREET model to capture 

these types of changes. 

Additionally, NEEA asked how to 

interpret the analyses as they apply to 

nuclear-fueled electricity, noting that 

the energy returned on energy invested 

(EROEI) for nuclear electricity is likely 

different than the two EROEI values 

reflected in the current DOE ANL 

estimates of the FFC factors for this 

source of energy. (NEEA, Public 

Comment, EERE–2010–BT–NOA–0028– 

0021, p. 2) GREET simulations for 

energy input versus output are based on 

fossil energy input only. This may be 

the reason why the imputed EROEI from 

the GREET model appears higher than 

some other estimates. The FFC factors 

are not the same as the EROEI values, 

since EROEI cannot separate use of 

different types of energy sources, which 

is necessary for FFC and GHG emission 

estimation. Details of the nuclear 

electricity pathway used in GREET are 

documented in a paper published in 

2007 and posted at the GREET Web site. 

EEI commented that the values in 

Tables 1 and 2 of the Notice are 

stochastic and do not include all aspects 

of energy production (such as energy 

used for oil drilling or to produce 

chemicals used in the natural gas 

hydraulic fracturing process). In 

addition, the tables do not show the 

range of values in the GREET model for 

different energy production methods. 

(EEI, Public Comment, EERE–2010–BT– 

NOA–0028–0037, p. 5) 

DOE agrees that the values generated 

by the GREET model reflect industry 

averages that are the product of widely 

variable processes and practices. DOE 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 51287 

2Academy report at p. 12. 

also agrees that the values do not 

represent all emissions associated, 

either directly or indirectly, with the 

production and delivery of energy to 

end-users, although DOE believes that 

the values generated by the GREET 

model will enable DOE to use estimates 

of energy and emission impacts that are 

a close approximation of the definition 

of FFC analysis recommended by the 

Academy. More specifically, while the 

current GREET model does not include 

energy use and emissions of oil 

exploration, it does include the impacts 

of upstream oil operations (including 

recovery and drilling). In addition, the 

energy and emission impacts of shale 

gas production will be added to the 

2011 update of the GREET model. 

Details of the estimates used for 

specific technology pathways (such as 

residual oil production, natural gas 

production, electricity generation) are 

provided in the GREET model and the 

methods, data and assumptions 

underlying these estimates are provided 

in the GREET documentation, both of 

which are available at http:// 

greet.es.anl.gov/. 

APPA commented that the GREET 

model is susceptible to multiple forms 

of error because of its large set of base 

assumptions. APPA also stated that the 

model is subject to manipulation. 

(APPA, Public Comment, EERE–2010– 

BT–NOA–0028–0033, p. 3) APPA is 

correct that the GREET model, like any 

life-cycle assessment (LCA) model, is 

based on a multitude of assumptions. 

The data supporting these assumptions 

come from Federal and State databases, 

as well as data provided by industry. 

The public can view the model, its 

assumptions, and the data. This 

transparency helps produce reliable 

estimates of FFC impacts. 

CECA commented that: ‘‘A simple 

conversion factor from site energy to full 

fuel cycle is not adequate. There are 

myriad criteria for determining full-fuelcycle analysis and reaching agreement 

on a satisfactory procedure would likely 

be beyond DOE/EERE’s time and 

resources.’’ CECA also cited 

environmental externalities such as 

those in the European Commission’s 

ExternE model. The ExternE model 

includes not just energy costs but 

societal concerns such as environmental 

impacts, global warming, accidents, 

energy security, employment impacts, 

and depletion of non-renewable 

resources. (CECA, Public Comment, 

EERE–2010–BT–NOA–0028–0012, p. 3) 

The State of California developed a 

model for transportation fuels which 

defines a ‘‘Full Fuel Cycle Assessment’’ 

as evaluating and comparing the full 

environmental and health impacts of 

each step in the life-cycle of a fuel, 

which include, but are not limited to, 

feedstock extraction, transport, storage, 

fuel production, distribution, vehicle 

operation, refueling, combustion, or 

conversion and evaporation. (California 

Energy Commission, Development of 

the State Plan for Alternative 

Transportation Fuels, AB 1007, 3/2/ 

2007) These and other models, in 

addition to GREET, are cited in the 

Academy’s report. Other entities had 

similar concerns regarding other 

available models. (AHRI, Public 

Comment, EERE–2010–BT–NOA–0028– 

0017, p. 3) AHRI also noted that the 

GREET model was not ‘‘specifically 

designed for use in DOE efficiency 

standard rulemakings.’’ 

Today’s Policy Statement addresses 

the energy use and associated emissions 

directly used in, or emitted from, the 

point of primary fuel production to the 

point of end-use, as specified in the 

recommendations of the Academy’s 

report. Consequently, the scope of FFC, 

as this term is used in this Policy 

Statement, is limited. Other social and 

environmental impacts, such as the 

indirect energy and emission impacts 

associated with the manufacture of 

covered appliances and equipment, or 

the manufacture of the equipment used 

in fuel production and refining, as well 

as other impacts on health or the 

environment, are not within the scope 

of the FFC estimates referenced in this 

Policy Statement. 

In its evaluation of alternative 

transportation fuels under AB 1007, the 

California Energy Commission uses 

GREET and a fuel-cycle definition that 

is very similar to the FFC approach 

proposed for use in the development of 

DOE energy conservation standards. 

DOE acknowledges that the GREET 

model was not specifically designed to 

generate the factors necessary to convert 

the primary energy and emission values 

now used in DOE’s energy conservation 

standards impact analyses into FFC 

values. DOE is not aware of any model 

that was specifically designed for this 

purpose. Nevertheless, DOE has 

concluded that the GREET model can be 

appropriately used for this purpose and 

that the resulting values will be 

sufficiently reliable to significantly 

improve the usefulness of the resulting 

energy and emission impact estimates. 

The GREET model has been previously 

used to support certain Federal and 

State regulatory actions on GHG 

emissions (such as the EPA’s Renewable 

Fuel Standard development and 

California’s low-carbon fuel standard 

development) and Federal vehicle fuel 

efficiency labeling by EPA and DOE. It 

has already been subject to considerable 

public review and comment. For these 

reasons, DOE concludes that GREET is 

the best model to use for the purposes 

of today’s Policy Statement. 

Policy Statement: In future energy 

conservation standards rulemakings, 

DOE intends to calculate FFC energy 

and emission impacts by applying 

conversion factors generated by the 

GREET model to the NEMS projections 

currently used by DOE. When DOE uses 

the GREET factors in a rulemaking, the 

factors will be subject to public review 

and comment. These factors will be 

used to convert the primary energy and 

emission values generated by 

methodologies that have been 

traditionally used by DOE in its 

appliance efficiency standards 

rulemakings to their FFC equivalents. 

The GREET model will also be used to 

generate estimates of the FFC emissions 

of methane and nitrous oxides. 

From time to time, DOE will review 

alternative approaches to estimating 

these factors and may decide to use a 

model other than GREET to estimate the 

FFC energy and emission impacts in any 

particular future appliance efficiency 

standards rulemaking. For example, 

DOE is aware that a future version of the 

NEMS model may provide the detail 

necessary to estimate FFC energy and 

emission impacts. Whether DOE uses 

the GREET model or another model 

identified in the future, the model and 

FFC energy and emission impacts will 

be subject to public review and 

comments within an energy 

conservation standards rulemaking. 

E. Consumer Information on FFC 

Impacts of Specific Covered Products 

The Academy recommended that DOE 

work with the FTC to initiate a project 

to consider the merits of providing 

consumers with information about FFC 

energy use and GHG emissions of 

individual appliances so that the public 

can make more informed purchasing 

decisions. In particular, the Academy 

recommended that DOE and FTC should 

initiate a project to consider the merits 

of adding to the Energy Guide label an 

indicator of how an appliance’s total 

energy consumption might affect levels 

of GHG emissions.2 The FTC has 

statutory authority over Energy Guide 

labels. 

DOE indicated in its NOPP that the 

FTC maintains online databases of the 

site energy use and efficiency ratings of 

appliances currently on the market. 

These databases do not, however, 

include FFC energy use or any energy 

cost or emissions-related data. While it 

is possible to compare the site energy 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

51288 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

use and efficiency ratings of different 

products using these databases, such 

comparisons are often difficult, 

especially if they involve products that 

have different features. Furthermore, 

comparing products that use different 

fuels is often not feasible because of 

differences in the measures of energy 

use or efficiency of products that use 

different fuels. 

In response to the Academy’s 

recommendations, DOE proposed to 

significantly improve upon the FTC’s 

existing on-line databases by making 

FFC energy use and emissions data (and 

possibly annual energy cost data) 

available to the public. The improved 

databases could enable users to easily 

compare a product’s energy use, 

associated emissions, and costs to 

similar products, including products 

that are in different classes because they 

have different features or use different 

fuels. Additional energy, emissions, and 

cost data could be included by updating 

FTC’s online database with the 

emissions factors developed with the 

GREET model and estimated annual 

energy use and/or energy cost data 

reported by manufacturers on appliance 

Energy Guide labels. This proposed 

action was also supported by comments 

from the Natural Resources Defense 

Council. (NRDC, Public Comment, 

EERE–2010–BT–NOA–0028–0030, p. 2) 

Regarding the Energy Guide label, 

DOE stated in the NOPP that it is not 

clear to DOE that including additional 

label disclosures, such as the GHG 

emissions indicator mentioned by the 

Academy, would be valuable to 

customers unless they could easily 

compare the GHG emissions associated 

with one product to other comparable 

products or other common energy uses. 

DOE indicated in its proposal that 

because the GHG emissions associated 

with a particular class of products using 

the same fuel would be directly 

proportional to that class of products’ 

estimated annual energy costs, simply 

comparing an individual product to 

products of the same class using the 

same fuel would add little useful 

information to the label. DOE also stated 

that providing comparisons to the 

energy use, costs or emissions 

associated with other comparable 

products with different features or that 

use different fuels on the Energy Guide 

label may increase the complexity of the 

label, making the label more difficult to 

understand and decreasing the utility of 

the basic annual operating cost 

information already on the label. 

AGA supported the inclusion of 

emissions information on Energy Guide 

labels to allow customers to better 

understand the emissions implications 

of their appliance choices. AGA 

commented that ‘‘any concerns 

regarding the complexity and utility of 

any particular Energy Guide label can 

and should be addressed in a 

rulemaking proceeding by the FTC to 

revise the labels. The potential that 

some labels may be perceived by some 

users as less than clear should not be a 

basis for denying consumers the 

emissions information they need to 

make environmentally sound appliance 

choices.’’ (AGA, Public Comment, 

EERE–2010–BT–NOA–0028–0004, 

pp. 3–4) 

DOE will make available to the FTC 

the FFC energy and emission factors 

that it generates for use in rulemakings. 

DOE still has some concerns that using 

these factors to provide FFC information 

to consumers via the Energy Guide 

Label is likely to increase the 

complexity of the label and, therefore, 

may decrease its effectiveness. However, 

DOE believes that other means of 

providing this information to consumers 

could be as or more effective. 

The Institute for Policy Integrity 

disagreed with DOE’s concerns about 

adding GHG emissions to the Energy 

Guide labels. The Institute pointed out 

that other labels are far more complex, 

which indicates that consumers are 

accustomed to relatively complex labels, 

and encouraged DOE to work with the 

FTC on label modifications. (Institute, 

Public Comment, EERE–2010–BT– 

NOA–0028–0032, pp. 5–6) 

In contrast, EEI commented that 

providing consumers with accurate 

product-specific GHG emissions data 

associated with electricity use would 

likely be extremely complex because 

each utility has its own distinct GHG 

emission mix. As a result, national or 

even regional average data can be very 

misleading. If product-specific GHG 

emissions data was made available, EEI, 

along with others, indicated that it 

supported the use of a website 

providing such information as opposed 

to including the information on Energy 

Guide labels. (EEI, Public Comment, 

EERE–2010–BT–NOA–0028–0007, p. 3) 

EEI and CECA Solutions commented 

that DOE’s proposal to provide 

customers with energy use and 

emissions data back to the point of 

extraction of fossil fuels would lead 

consumers to incorrectly believe that 

they will save more energy than is the 

case and could harm the ability of 

consumers to make smart purchasing 

decisions. (EEI, Public Comment, EERE– 

2010–BT–NOA–0028–0007, p. 2; CECA, 

Public Comment, EERE–2010–BT– 

NOA–0028–0012, p. 2) 

Similarly, NRECA stated that 

consumers will not accurately 

understand the amount of energy being 

utilized by their appliances and 

providing this information would 

burden manufacturers, possibly 

resulting in higher costs for the 

consumer. (NRECA, Public Comment, 

EERE–2010–BT–NOA–0028–0002, p. 3) 

In response, DOE emphasizes that it is 

not proposing to provide consumers 

with information that might lead them 

to conclude that the benefits associated 

with the reduction of FFC energy or 

emissions would be reflected in 

additional consumer cost savings. DOE 

does not believe that providing 

consumers with information about the 

FFC impacts of appliances on GHG 

emissions would mislead consumers 

about the actual energy use of their 

appliances, nor that providing such 

information would place a significant 

new cost on manufacturers that would 

increase product costs. However, DOE 

agrees that providing this type of 

information in a meaningful way, given 

the large regional variations in the 

electric sector, may well be difficult. 

NRECA went on to comment that ‘‘the 

analysis and cost effectiveness of the 

efficiency standard must be based upon 

costs and savings that the customers 

experience.’’ They indicated that they 

believe that ‘‘placing source energy 

consumption on a label for the customer 

is misleading at best, and very 

confusing. Customers could choose the 

‘‘highest’’ efficiency unit on the label 

but find their utility bills increasing 

because the appliance would not be 

operating on the most efficient energy 

source at the site.’’ (NRECA, Public 

Comment, EERE–2010–BT–NOA–0028– 

0002, p. 3) 

DOE agrees that energy conservation 

standards should continue to be based, 

in large part, on the costs and savings 

that user’s experience. However, EPCA, 

as amended, and other laws direct DOE 

to consider a range of other factors as 

well, including the energy resource and 

environmental impacts of alternative 

standard levels. While ongoing changes 

in the electric sector sometimes may 

make this type of analysis complex and 

less certain, DOE believes that such 

analyses are nevertheless possible and, 

ultimately, useful to government 

decision-makers and many consumers. 

Regarding the information made 

available to consumers, DOE agrees that 

information on energy costs and lifecycle costs should continue to be 

emphasized. However, DOE also 

believes that consumers should be given 

ready access to better information on the 

energy resource and environmental 

impacts of their appliance choices. DOE 

believes that this objective can be 

achieved, at least in part, through webmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 51289 

based information tools, although DOE 

will also work collaboratively with the 

FTC to determine if changes to Energy 

Guide labeling requirements would be 

beneficial to consumers. 

DOE agrees with NEEA’s comment 

that the difference between primary 

energy use estimates and FFC energy 

use estimates is relatively small. (NEEA, 

Public Comment, EERE–2010–BT– 

NOA–0028–0021, p. 2) However, to 

date, consumers have not had ready 

access to information on either the 

primary or FFC energy and emission 

impacts of products. Making such 

information available in a manner that 

would enable consumers to make crossfuel and cross-class comparisons of 

comparable products could provide 

consumers with significant new 

information. 

The Consumer’s Union commented 

that the Energy Guide labels must 

increase consumer awareness of GHG 

emissions to effectively educate 

consumers and engage them in energy 

and climate change policy. Such labels 

should ‘‘address regional variation of 

electricity fuel mixes and provide 

consumers guidance on how to interpret 

the data given their region or particular 

utility.’’ (Consumers, Public Comment, 

EERE–2010–BT–NOA–0028–0028, p. 5) 

DOE agrees that consumers should be 

given ready access to better information 

on the energy resource and 

environmental impacts of their 

appliance choices and how to provide 

this information in a meaningful way 

will be a significant issue for DOE and 

the FTC to consider. 

Policy Statement: Subject to the 

availability of funds, DOE will work 

with other Federal agencies to make 

readily available to consumers 

improved information on the energy 

use, life-cycle cost and associated 

emissions of comparable products, even 

if those products use different forms of 

energy. Consumers should be able to 

easily identify the likely energy use, 

life-cycle costs and associated emissions 

of individual products (based on their 

local energy costs and utility system 

characteristics), but should also be able 

to compare those attributes to a range of 

other products providing similar utility. 

In developing betters ways of conveying 

such information to consumers, DOE 

will explore the possible role of 

common efficiency metrics for products 

using different fuels or energy, and will, 

as appropriate, solicit further public 

review and comment on the 

mechanisms developed to make 

available this information to consumers. 

Any updates to Energy Guide labels 

will be promulgated by the FTC, which 

has statutory authority over Energy 

Guide labels. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

DOE has determined that this Policy 

Statement falls into a class of actions 

that are categorically excluded from 

review under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE’s 

implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 

1021. Specifically, this Policy Statement 

describes methods for data analysis and 

how DOE plans to incorporate such data 

analysis into future energy conservation 

standards. For this reason, and because 

the Policy Statement does not establish 

an energy conservation standard or take 

any action that might have an impact on 

the environment, it is covered by the 

Categorical Exclusion A9 under 10 CFR 

part 1021, subpart D. Accordingly, 

neither an environmental assessment 

nor an environmental impact statement 

is required. 

B. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

In consultation with the Office of 

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), 

OMB issued on December 16, 2004, 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 

Academy recommendations and GREET 

model are ‘‘influential scientific 

information,’’ which the Bulletin 

defines as ‘‘scientific information that 

the agency reasonably can determine 

will have or does have a clear and 

substantial impact on important public 

policies or private sector decisions.’’ 70 

FR 2664, 2667 (Jan. 14, 2005). The 

Academy recommendations have been 

peer reviewed pursuant to section II.2 of 

the Bulletin. The GREET model, which 

is in the public domain, has been 

reviewed through its development and 

applications over the past 16 years. 

V. Approval of the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary 

The Assistant Secretary of DOE’s 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy has approved 

publication of this final policy. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 10, 

2011. 

Roland J. Risser, 

Program Manager, Building Technologies 

Program, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21078 Filed 8–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION 

12 CFR Part 615 

RIN 3052–AC50 

Funding and Fiscal Affairs, Loan 

Policies and Operations, and Funding 

Operations; Investment Management 

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Farm Credit 

Administration (FCA, Agency, us, our, 

or we) proposes to amend our 

regulations governing investments held 

by institutions of the Farm Credit 

System (FCS or System). We propose to 

strengthen our regulations governing 

investment management, interest rate 

risk management, and association 

investments; revise the list of eligible 

investments to ensure it is limited only 

to high-quality, liquid investments; 

reduce regulatory burden for 

investments that fail to meet eligibility 

criteria after purchase or are unsuitable; 

and make other changes that will 

enhance the safety and soundness of 

System institutions. In this proposal, we 

also seek comments on compliance with 

section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Wall 

Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act (Dodd-Frank Act or DFA), which 

requires us to remove all references to 

and requirements relating to credit 

ratings and to substitute other 

appropriate standards of 

creditworthiness. We also seek 

comment on other issues. 

DATES: You may send us comments by 

November 16, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: We offer a variety of 

methods for you to submit comments on 

this proposed rule. For accuracy and 

efficiency reasons, commenters are 

encouraged to submit comments by email or through the Agency’s Web site. 

As facsimiles (fax) are difficult for us to 

process and achieve compliance with 

section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, we 

are no longer accepting comments 

submitted by fax. Regardless of the 

method you use, please do not submit 

your comment multiple times via 

different methods. You may submit 

comments by any of the following 

methods: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS