Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 67989 

1All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy Act 

of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which 

reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 

Parts A and A–1 of EPCA. 

2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[EERE–2022–BT–STD–0023] 

RIN 1904–AF44 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Metal 

Halide Lamp Fixtures 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notification of proposed 

determination and request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’), prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various 

consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including metal halide lamp fixtures 

(‘‘MHLFs’’). EPCA also requires the U.S. 

Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) to 

periodically determine whether morestringent, amended standards would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would result 

in significant energy savings. In this 

notification of proposed determination 

(‘‘NOPD’’), DOE has initially determined 

that amended energy conservation 

standards for MHLFs would not be cost 

effective. DOE requests comment on this 

proposed determination and the 

associated analyses and results. 

DATES: 

Meeting: DOE will hold a public 

webinar upon request. Please request a 

public webinar no later than October 17, 

2023. See section VI, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for webinar registration 

information, participant instructions, 

and information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. 

Comments: Written comments and 

information are requested and will be 

accepted on or before December 4, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov under docket 

number EERE–2022–BT–STD–0023. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2022–BT–STD–0023, by 

any of the following methods: 

(1) Email: MHLF2022STD0023@

ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 

EERE–2022–BT–STD–0023 in the 

subject line of the message. 

(2) Postal Mail: Appliance and 

Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible, 

please submit all items on a compact 

disc (‘‘CD’’), in which case it is not 

necessary to include printed copies. 

(3) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance 

and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza 

SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible, 

please submit all items on a CD, in 

which case it is not necessary to include 

printed copies. 

No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

VI of this document. 

Docket: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts (if one is 

held), comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

However, not all documents listed in 

the index may be publicly available, 

such as information that is exempt from 

public disclosure. 

The docket web page can be found at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2022-BT-STD-0023. The docket web 

page contains instructions on how to 

access all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. See section VI, 

‘‘Public Participation,’’ for further 

information on how to submit 

comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Kathryn McIntosh, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, GC–33, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586– 

2002. Email: Kathryn.McIntosh@

hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment or review other 

public comments and the docket contact 

the Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program staff at (202) 287– 

1445 or by email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. History of Standards Rulemakings for 

Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures 

C. Deviation from Appendix A 

III. Rationale of Analysis and Discussion of 

Related Comments 

A. Scope of Coverage 

B. Technology Options and Screening 

Analysis 

C. Efficiency Levels 

D. Scaling Equipment Classes 

E. Shipments 

F. Manufacturer Impacts 

IV. Proposed Determination 

A. Technological Feasibility 

B. Cost Effectiveness 

C. Significant Conservation of Energy 

D. Summary 

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 

13563, and 14094 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under the Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review 

VI. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

C. Conduct of the Webinar 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed 

Determination 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, Pub. L. 94–163, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes DOE to regulate 

the energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6317) Title III, Part B of EPCA 2

established the Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products Other 

Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6309) These products include metal 

halide lamp fixtures (‘‘MHLFs’’), the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
67990 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

3 DOE notes that because of the codification of the 

MHLF provisions in 42 U.S.C. 6295, MHLF energy 

conservation standards and the associated test 

procedures are subject to the requirements of the 

consumer products provisions of Part B of Title III 

of EPCA. However, because MHLFs are generally 

considered to be commercial equipment, DOE 

established the requirements for MHLFs in 10 Code 

of Federal Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) part 431 (‘‘Energy 

Efficiency Program for Certain Commercial and 

Industrial Equipment’’) for ease of reference. DOE 

notes that the location of the provisions within the 

CFR does not affect either the substance or 

applicable procedure for MHLFs. Based upon their 

placement into 10 CFR part 431, MHLFs are 

referred to as ‘‘equipment’’ throughout this 

document, although covered by the consumer 

product provisions of EPCA. 

subject of this NOPD. (42 U.S.C. 

6292(a)(19)) 3

DOE is issuing this NOPD pursuant to 

the EPCA requirement that not later 

than 3 years after issuance of a 

determination that standards do not 

need to be amended, DOE must publish 

either a notification of determination 

that standards for the product do not 

need to be amended, or a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) 

including new proposed energy 

conservation standards (proceeding to a 

final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)) 

For this proposed determination, DOE 

analyzed MHLFs that meet the 

definition of an MHLF in 10 CFR 

431.322. DOE first analyzed the 

technological feasibility of more energy 

efficient MHLFs. For those MHLFs for 

which DOE determined higher 

standards to be technologically feasible, 

DOE evaluated whether higher 

standards would be cost effective. DOE 

has tentatively determined that the 

market and technology characteristics of 

MHLFs are largely similar to those 

analyzed in the previous rulemaking, 

which concluded with the publication 

of a final rule determining not to amend 

standards. 86 FR 58763 (October 25, 

2021) (‘‘October 2021 Final 

Determination’’). Therefore, DOE has 

tentatively determined that the 

conclusions reached in the October 

2021 Final Determination regarding the 

benefits and burdens of more stringent 

standards for MHLFs are still relevant to 

the MHLF market today. Hence, DOE 

has tentatively determined that the 

amended standards for MHLFs would 

not be cost effective. 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying this proposed determination, 

as well as some of the historical 

background relevant to the 

establishment of standards for MHLFs. 

A. Authority 

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the 

energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of 

EPCA established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products Other Than Automobiles. 

These products include MHLFs, the 

subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 

6292(a)(19)) EPCA prescribed initial 

energy conservation standards for these 

products (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)) and 

directed DOE to conduct two cycles of 

rulemakings to determine whether to 

amend these standards (42 U.S.C. 

6295(hh)(2)(A) and (3)(A)). 

The energy conservation program 

under EPCA consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the 

establishment of Federal energy 

conservation standards, and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. Relevant provisions of 

EPCA specifically include definitions 

(42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 

U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 

U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation 

standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the 

authority to require information and 

reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 

6296). 

Subject to certain criteria and 

conditions, DOE is required to develop 

test procedures to measure the energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of each covered 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 

U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of 

covered products must use the 

prescribed DOE test procedure as the 

basis for certifying to DOE that their 

products comply with the applicable 

energy conservation standards adopted 

under EPCA and when making 

representations to the public regarding 

the energy use or efficiency of those 

products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 42 

U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use 

these test procedures to determine 

whether the products comply with 

standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test 

procedures for MHLFs appear at title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(‘‘CFR’’) part 431, subpart S at § 431.324. 

Federal energy conservation 

requirements generally supersede State 

laws or regulations concerning energy 

conservation testing, labeling, and 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)–(c)) DOE 

may, however, grant waivers of Federal 

preemption for particular State laws or 

regulations, in accordance with the 

procedures and other provisions set 

forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 

6297(d)) 

Pursuant to the amendments 

contained in the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 (‘‘EISA 2007’’), 

Public Law 110–140, any final rule for 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards promulgated after July 1, 

2010, is required to address standby 

mode and off mode energy use. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when 

DOE adopts a standard for a covered 

product after that date, it must, if 

justified by the criteria for adoption of 

standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and 

off mode energy use into a single 

standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt 

a separate standard for such energy use 

for that product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(3)(A)–(B)) In this analysis DOE 

considers only active mode energy 

consumption as standby and off mode 

energy use are not applicable to MHLFs 

at this time. 

DOE must periodically review its 

already established energy conservation 

standards for a covered product no later 

than 6 years from the issuance of a final 

rule establishing or amending a 

standard for a covered product. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(m)) This 6-year look-back 

provision requires that DOE publish 

either a determination that standards do 

not need to be amended or a NOPR, 

including new proposed standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) 

EPCA further provides that, not later 

than 3 years after the issuance of a final 

determination not to amend standards, 

DOE must publish either a notification 

of determination that standards for the 

product do not need to be amended, or 

a NOPR including new proposed energy 

conservation standards (proceeding to a 

final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(3)(B)) DOE must make the 

analysis on which a determination is 

based publicly available and provide an 

opportunity for written comment. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(m)(2)) 

A determination that amended 

standards are not needed must be based 

on consideration of whether amended 

standards will result in significant 

conservation of energy, are 

technologically feasible, and are cost 

effective. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 

42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) Additionally, any 

new or amended energy conservation 

standard prescribed by the Secretary for 

any type (or class) of covered product 

shall be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency which the Secretary 

determines is technologically feasible 

and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) Among the factors DOE 

considers in evaluating whether a 

proposed standard level is economically 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 67991 

justified includes whether the proposed 

standard at that level is cost-effective, as 

defined under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). Under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), an evaluation of 

cost-effectiveness requires DOE to 

consider savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the covered products in the type (or 

class) compared to any increase in the 

price, initial charges, or maintenance 

expenses for the covered products that 

are likely to result from the standard. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE is publishing 

this NOPD in satisfaction of the 3-year 

review requirement in EPCA following 

a determination that standards need not 

be amended. 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

Current standards for MHLFs 

manufactured on or after February 10, 

2017, are set forth in DOE’s regulations 

at 10 CFR 431.326 and are specified in 

Table II.1. 10 CFR 431.326(c). 

Additionally, it is specified at 10 CFR 

431.326 that MHLFs manufactured on or 

after February 10, 2017, that operate 

lamps with rated wattage >500 watts 

(‘‘W’’) to ≤1000W must not contain a 

probe-start metal halide ballast. 10 CFR 

431.326(d). The following MHLFs are 

not subject to these regulations: (1) 

MHLFs with regulated-lag ballasts; (2) 

MHLFs that use electronic ballasts that 

operate at 480 volts; and (3) MHLFs that 

use high-frequency electronic ballasts. 

10 CFR 431.326(e). 

TABLE II.1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR MHLFS

Designed to be operated with lamps of 

the following rated lamp wattage Tested input voltage * Minimum standard equation * (%) 

≥50W and ≤100W ................................ 480 V .............................. (1/(1 + 1.24 × P ∧ (¥ 0.351)))¥0.020 **. 

≥50W and ≤100W ................................ All others ........................ 1/( 1 + 1.24 × P ∧ (¥ 0.351)). 

>100W and <150W † ........................... 480 V .............................. (1/(1 + 1.24 × P ∧ (¥ 0.351)))¥0.020. 

>100W and <150W † ........................... All others ........................ 1/(1 + 1.24 × P ∧ (¥ 0.351)). 

≥150W ‡ and ≤250W ............................ 480 V .............................. 0.880. 

≥150W ‡ and ≤250W ............................ All others ........................ For ≥150W and ≤200W: 0.880. 

For >200W and ≤250W: 1/(1 + 0.876 × P∧(¥ 0.351)). 

>250W and ≤500W .............................. 480 V .............................. For >250W and <265W: 0.880. 

For ≥265W and ≤500W: (1/(1 + 0.876 × P ∧ (¥ 0.351)))¥0.010. 

>250W and ≤500W .............................. All others ........................ 1/(1 + 0.876 × P ∧ (¥ 0.351)). 

>500W and ≤1,000W ........................... 480 V .............................. >500W and ≤750W: 0.900. 

>750W and ≤1,000W: 0.000104 × P + 0.822 

For >500W and ≤1,000W: may not utilize a probe-start ballast. 

>500W and ≤1,000W ........................... All others ........................ For >500W and ≤750W: 0.910. 

For >750W and ≤1,000W: 0.000104 × P + 0.832. 

For >500W and ≤1,000W: may not utilize a probe-start ballast. 

* Tested input voltage is specified in 10 CFR 431.324. 

** P is defined as the rated wattage of the lamp the fixture is designed to operate. 

† Includes 150W fixtures specified in paragraph (b)(3) of 10 CFR 431.326, that are fixtures rated only for 150W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the National Fire Protection Association (‘‘NFPA’’) 70, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate 

at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C, as specified by Underwriters Laboratory (‘‘UL’’) 1029. 

‡Excludes 150W fixtures specified in paragraph (b)(3) of 10 CFR 431.326, that are fixtures rated only for 150W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the NFPA 70, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 

°C, as specified by UL 1029. 

2. History of Standards Rulemakings for 

Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures 

As noted in section II.A of this 

document, EPCA directed DOE to 

conduct two rulemaking cycles to 

determine whether to amend standards 

for MHLFs established by EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(hh)(2)(A) and (3)(A)) DOE 

published a final rule amending the 

standards on February 10, 2014 

(‘‘February 2014 Final Rule’’). 79 FR 

7746. These current standards are set 

forth in DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR 

431.326 and are specified in section 

II.B.1 and Table II.1 of this document. 

DOE completed the second rulemaking 

by publishing a final rule on October 25, 

2021, that determined not to amend 

current standards for MHLFs. 86 FR 

58763. 

In support of the present review of the 

MHLF energy conservation standards, 

on October 6, 2022, DOE published a 

request for information (‘‘RFI’’), which 

identified various issues on which DOE 

sought comment to inform its 

determination of whether the standards 

need to be amended. 87 FR 60555 

(‘‘October 2022 RFI’’). 

DOE received two comments in 

response to the October 2022 RFI from 

the interested parties listed in Table II.2. 

TABLE II.2—OCTOBER 2022 RFI WRITTEN COMMENTS

Commenter(s) Reference in 

this NOPD 

Comment No. 

in the docket Commenter type 

National Electrical Manufacturers Association (‘‘NEMA’’) ........................................... NEMA ..................... 2 Trade Association. 

Signify ......................................................................................................................... Signify .................... 3 Manufacturer. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
67992 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

4The parenthetical reference provides a reference 

for information located in the docket. (Docket No. 

EERE–2022–BT–STD–0023, which is maintained at 

www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged 

as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID 

number, page of that document). 

5The five screening criteria are: (1) Technological 

feasibility. Technologies that are not incorporated 

in commercial products or in working prototypes 

will not be considered further; (2) Practicability to 

manufacture, install, and service. If it is determined 

that mass production and reliable installation and 

servicing of a technology in commercial products 

could not be achieved on the scale necessary to 

serve the relevant market at the time of the 

projected compliance date of the standard, then that 

technology will not be considered further; (3) 

Impacts on product utility or product availability. 

If it is determined that a technology would have 

significant adverse impact on the utility of the 

product to significant subgroups of consumers or 

would result in the unavailability of any covered 

product type with performance characteristics 

(including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, 

and volumes that are substantially the same as 

products generally available in the United States at 

the time, it will not be considered further; (4) 

Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is 

determined that a technology would have 

significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it 

will not be considered further; (5) Unique-Pathway 

Proprietary Technologies. If a design option utilizes 

proprietary technology that represents a unique 

pathway to achieving a given efficiency level, that 

technology will not be considered further due to the 

potential for monopolistic concerns. (See 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) 

and 7(b)) 

A parenthetical reference at the end of 

a comment quotation or paraphrase 

provides the location of the item in the 

public record.4

C. Deviation From Appendix A 

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 

CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A 

(‘‘appendix A’’), DOE notes that it is 

deviating from the provision in the 

appendix A regarding the NOPR stage 

for an energy conservation standards 

rulemaking. 

Section 6(f)(2) of the appendix A 

specifies that the length of the public 

comment period for a NOPR will be not 

less than 75 calendar days. For this 

NOPD, DOE has opted instead to 

provide a 60-day comment period, as 

required by EPCA. 42 U.S.C. 6295(p). 

DOE is opting to deviate from the 75- 

day comment period because 

stakeholders have already been afforded 

an opportunity to provide comments on 

this rulemaking. As noted previously, 

DOE requested comment on various 

issues pertaining to this standards 

rulemaking in the October 2022 RFI and 

provided stakeholders with a 60-day 

comment period. 87 FR 60555. Further 

stakeholders had been made familiar 

with the methodologies and information 

presented in the October 2022 RFI as 

they were based on the analysis 

conducted for the October 2021 Final 

Determination. 87 FR 60555, 60558. 

Therefore, DOE believes a 60-day 

comment period is appropriate and will 

provide interested parties with a 

meaningful opportunity to comment on 

the proposed determination. 

III. Rationale of Analysis and 

Discussion of Related Comments 

In response to the October 2022 RFI, 

NEMA stated that the October 2021 

Final Determination is a recent analysis 

that correctly determined energy 

conservation standards for MHLFs do 

not need to be amended because they 

are not economically justified. NEMA 

further stated that declining market 

volume and the mature nature of the 

technology do not warrant or support 

additional rulemakings for MHLFs. 

(NEMA, No. 2 at p. 1) 

For this review of MHLF standards, 

DOE has tentatively determined that, 

since the October 2021 Final 

Determination analysis, there has been 

no substantial change in (1) product 

offerings of MHLFs to warrant a change 

in scope of analysis or equipment 

classes, (2) technologies or design 

options that could improve the energy 

efficiency of MHLFs, (3) manufacturers 

and industry structure, (4) shipments, 

(5) operating hours, and (6) market and 

industry trends. Further DOE did not 

receive any comments in response to the 

October 2022 RFI indicating 

technological or market changes for 

MHLFs. As such, DOE has tentatively 

determined that the analysis conducted 

for the October 2021 Final 

Determination and its conclusion that 

amended energy conservation standards 

for MHLFs would not be cost effective 

remains valid. DOE requests comments 

on its tentative conclusion that because 

no substantive changes have occurred in 

the market and technology of MHLFs, 

the conclusion of the October 2021 

Final Determination that amending 

MHLF standards is not cost effective 

remains valid. 

The following sections discuss the 

status of the current MHLF market as 

well as issues raised in comments 

received in response to the October 

2022 RFI. 

A. Scope of Coverage 

In this analysis, MHLF is defined as 

a light fixture for general lighting 

application designed to be operated 

with a metal halide lamp and a ballast 

for a metal halide lamp. 42 U.S.C. 

6291(64); 10 CFR 431.322. Any 

equipment meeting the definition of 

MHLF is included in DOE’s scope of 

coverage, though all products within the 

scope of coverage may not be subject to 

standards. 

B. Technology Options and Screening 

Analysis 

In the October 2022 RFI DOE 

presented technology options for 

MHLFs considered in the October 2021 

Final Determination. 87 FR 60555, 

60560. NEMA commented that 

technology options identified by DOE in 

the October 2022 RFI have already been 

designed to achieve maximum 

efficiencies based on existing standards 

and no new resources will be invested 

in these technologies due to continual 

decrease in product demand. (NEMA, 

No. 2 at pp. 1–2) NEMA also stated that 

more efficient products would require a 

different form factor. Additionally, 

NEMA stated that end-users are not 

asking for additional features or design 

options for MHLFs and current demand 

is in the form of repair, replacement, 

and maintenance. (NEMA, No. 2 at p. 4) 

In the October 2021 Final 

Determination, DOE identified 

technology options that improve the 

efficiency of MHLFs. DOE then 

identified design options by screening 

out technology options that do not meet 

five screening criteria outlined in 

Sections 6(c)(3) and 7(b) of appendix 

A.5 86 FR 58763, 58770–58771. DOE has 

not found any new information or data 

that indicates that those technology 

options and resulting design options are 

no longer valid means for manufacturers 

to improve the efficiency of MHLFs nor 

has DOE identified any new 

technologies not included in the 

previous rulemaking that may improve 

the efficiency of MHLFs. Therefore, in 

this NOPD, DOE continues to consider 

only the design options identified in the 

October 2021 Final Determination. 

C. Efficiency Levels 

In a rulemaking analysis DOE 

conducts an engineering analysis to 

establish the relationship between the 

efficiency and cost of a MHLF. There are 

two elements to consider in the 

engineering analysis; the selection of 

efficiency levels (‘‘ELs’’) to analyze (i.e., 

the ‘‘efficiency analysis’’) and the 

determination of product cost at each 

efficiency level (i.e., the ‘‘cost 

analysis’’). In determining the 

performance of higher-efficiency 

MHLFs, DOE considers technologies 

and design option combinations not 

eliminated by the screening analysis. 

For each equipment class, DOE 

estimates the baseline cost, as well as 

the incremental cost for the equipment 

at efficiency levels above the baseline. 

The output of the engineering analysis 

is a set of cost-efficiency ‘‘curves’’ that 

are used in downstream analyses (i.e., 

the life cycle cost (‘‘LCC’’) and payback 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 67993 

period (‘‘PBP’’) analyses and the 

national impact analysis (‘‘NIA’’)). 

In the October 2022 RFI, DOE 

presented the maximum technologically 

feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) efficiency levels 

identified in the October 2021 Final 

Determination. 87 FR 60555, 60562. 

NEMA commented that the max-tech 

efficiency levels presented in the 

October 2022 RFI are not technically 

feasible without extended research. 

Further, NEMA stated that the max-tech 

efficiency levels presented in the 

October 2022 RFI for metal halide 

(‘‘MH’’) ballasts between 100 and 150W 

would be cost prohibitive relative to low 

customer demand. (NEMA, No. 2 at pp. 

2–3) 

In the October 2021 Final 

Determination, DOE used the ballast 

efficiency values from DOE’s 

compliance certification database 

(‘‘CCD’’) to identify more efficient 

ballasts for all equipment classes except 

for the >1,000W and ≤2,000W 

equipment class, which does not have 

certification data available. For this 

equipment class, DOE determined 

ballast efficiency values by first 

gathering and analyzing catalog data. 

DOE then tested the ballasts to verify 

the ballast efficiency reported by the 

manufacturer. For instances where the 

catalog data did not align with the 

tested data, DOE selected more-efficient 

ballasts based on the tested ballast 

efficiency. 86 FR 58763, 58733. Because 

the max-tech efficiency levels identified 

in the October 2021 Final Determination 

were based on commercially available 

products, DOE found them to be 

technically feasible in the October 2021 

Final Determination and continues to do 

so in this analysis. 86 FR 58763, 58791. 

As noted, in the October 2021 Final 

Determination, DOE identified ELs for 

each representative equipment class 

(i.e., equipment classes directly 

analyzed) based on MHLFs certified in 

the CCD at the time of the analysis. For 

this analysis, DOE assessed the MHLFs 

currently in the CCD and reviewed 

current catalog data for those MH 

ballasts not in the CCD (i.e., MH ballasts 

designed to operate lamps with rated 

wattages >1000W and ≤2000W) and 

reviewed efficiencies of MHLFs 

representative of the ELs identified in 

the October 2021 Final Determination. 

For the ≥50W and ≤100W equipment 

class, DOE found that the ballast 

efficiency of the MHLF representative of 

the max-tech level, EL 3 had been 

recorded incorrectly in the October 2021 

Final Determination and should have 

been 0.907 rather than 0.901. 86 FR 

58763, 58774. However, a slight change 

(less than 1 percent) to the ballast 

efficiency would not have a substantial 

impact to the cost efficiency of this EL, 

which resulted in negative LCC savings 

of more than $60 in the October 2021 

Final Determination with more than 70 

percent of consumers experiencing a net 

cost. Further, on average, compared to a 

purchase at the baseline, the increased 

purchase price at this EL was never 

recovered by a reduction in operating 

costs. DOE has tentatively concluded 

that this change is not substantive 

enough to result in any significant 

impact to the cost effectiveness for this 

equipment class. 

Signify commented that, in the 

previous analysis, DOE cited ballast 

catalogs, suggesting that MH ballasts 

operating in the 2000W range are less 

efficient than ballasts operating in the 

1000W range, but research journals and 

engineering manuals report the opposite 

trend, that energy efficiency with a 

magnetic transformer or magnetic 

ballast increases along with the 

transformer power rate (Vecchio et al., 

2017). Signify stated that it would 

expect MH ballasts to follow this trend. 

Signify commented that MH ballasts 

that operate lamps in the wattage range 

of >1000W and ≤2000W are not 

currently subject to DOE’s MHLF 

standards, and, as a result, 

manufacturers have had no incentive to 

use a high-efficiency ballast in this 

range, which may explain why DOE has 

seen commercially available products 

not follow the expected trend. Signify 

proposed that DOE set an energy 

efficiency standard for MHLFs that 

includes MH ballasts that operate lamps 

with wattages in the range of >1000W 

and ≤2000W and provided the following 

corresponding efficiency level equation 

reflecting a trend of increasing 

efficiency with lamp power: 

0.00001*rated wattage of lamp + 0.928. 

(Signify, No. 3 at pp. 1–4) 

In the October 2021 Final 

Determination DOE determined the 

appropriate equation for the >1000W 

and ≤2000W equipment class to be 

¥0.000008*rated wattage of lamp + 

0.946 which resulted in an efficiency of 

93.7 percent for the 1500W 

representative lamp wattage analyzed. 

86 FR 58763, 58774, 58776. Signify’s 

proposed equation would result in an 

efficiency of 94.3 percent for the 1500W 

representative lamp wattage. For this 

analysis, DOE reviewed catalog data for 

MHLFs in the >1000W and ≤2000W 

equipment class and identified a MH 

ballast with a catalog ballast efficiency 

of 96.8 percent, which is higher than the 

93.7 percent efficiency representative of 

the max-tech level, EL 1 (for the 1500W 

representative lamp wattage) identified 

in the October 2021 Final 

Determination. However, DOE chose not 

to test this product to confirm the 

catalog ballast efficiency, as its analysis 

would not change the conclusions 

reached in the October 2021 Final 

Determination. Even if the increase in 

ballast efficiency could result in 

positive life cycle cost savings for this 

equipment class, the energy savings for 

the nation, which were estimated as less 

than 0.000001 quads for this equipment 

class in the October 2021 Final 

Determination, would be close to zero 

due to the low market share for this 

equipment class and declining 

shipments for MHLFs (see section III.E 

of this document). 

Hence, DOE’s review of the CCD and 

catalog data found no changes in 

product offerings or efficiencies for 

MHLFs that would affect the 

conclusions from the October 2021 

Final Determination. Therefore, DOE 

has tentatively determined that the 

conclusions in the October 2021 Final 

Determination remain valid. 

D. Scaling Equipment Classes 

EPCA requires DOE to specify a 

different standard level for a type or 

class of product that has the same 

function or intended use, if DOE 

determines that products within such 

group: (1) consume a different kind of 

energy; or (2) have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have and such feature justifies a 

higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)) DOE selects certain 

equipment classes as ‘‘representative’’ to 

focus its analysis. DOE chooses 

equipment classes as representative 

primarily because of their high market 

volumes and/or unique characteristics. 

The current energy conservation 

standards for MHLF are based on 24 

equipment classes determined 

according to performance-related 

features that provide utility to the 

consumer, in terms of input voltage, 

rated lamp wattage, and designation for 

indoor versus outdoor applications (see 

10 CFR 431.326). Specifically, in terms 

of input voltage, DOE separates 

equipment classes based on MHLFs 

with ballasts tested at input voltage of 

480 volts (‘‘V’’) and those tested at all 

other input voltages per the DOE test 

procedure at 10 CFR 431.324. In the 

analysis for the October 2021 Final 

Determination, DOE did not directly 

analyze the equipment classes 

containing only fixtures with ballasts 

tested at 480V due to low shipment 

volumes. DOE did directly analyze 

equipment classes containing only 

fixtures with ballasts tested at all input 

voltages other than 480V. DOE scaled 

the resulting efficiency levels to develop 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
67994 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

6Chapter 9 of the October 2021 Final 

Determination technical support document is 

available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE– 

2017–BT–STD–0016–0017. 

efficiency levels for equipment classes 

containing only fixtures with ballasts 

tested at input voltage of 480V. 86 FR 

58763, 58771, 58776. In the October 

2022 RFI, DOE requested comment on 

whether it is necessary to individually 

analyze all 24 equipment classes 

identified in the October 2021 Final 

Determination and also on how the 

performance of ballasts that are tested at 

480V compares to ballasts of the same 

wattage and indoor/outdoor 

classification that are in other 

equipment classes. 87 FR 60560, 60562. 

NEMA stated that it is not necessary 

to individually analyze all 24 

equipment classes as the market is 

changing to more efficient technologies 

at a rapid pace. NEMA also responded 

that market requirements do not support 

extending the rule to equipment classes 

not directly analyzed in the October 

2021 Final Determination (i.e., MH 

ballasts tested at 480V). (NEMA, No. 2 

at pp. 2–3) Further, NEMA commented 

that comparing the performance of MH 

ballasts tested at 480V ballasts to their 

counterparts with the same wattage and 

indoor/outdoor classification in other 

equipment classes (i.e., tested at all 

other voltages) is not economically 

feasible because of limited demand for 

MHLFs. NEMA added that efficiency 

levels are consistent among most multivoltage high intensity discharge (‘‘HID’’) 

electronic (277–480V) ballasts. (NEMA, 

No. 2 at p. 4) 

DOE notes that equipment classes that 

were not directly analyzed in the 

October 2021 Final Determination (i.e., 

MH ballasts tested at 480V) are already 

subject to standards (see 10 CFR 

431.326). Regarding comparing 

performance of MH ballasts tested at 

input voltage of 480V to those tested at 

other input voltages, in the analysis for 

the October 2021 Final Determination, 

DOE was able to identify MH ballasts in 

DOE’s CCD that are tested at 480V and 

those at other input voltages, with the 

main difference between the ballasts 

being the tested input voltage. DOE used 

these efficiency comparisons to develop 

scaling factors and applied them to the 

representative equipment class 

efficiency level equations to develop 

corresponding efficiency level equations 

for ballasts tested at an input voltage of 

480V. 86 FR 58763, 58776. DOE 

continues to find the scaling factors 

from the October 2021 Final 

Determination appropriate for this 

analysis. 

E. Shipments 

In the October 2021 Final 

Determination, DOE projected a steady 

decline in the shipments of MHLFs, 

consistent with market transition away 

from MHLFs. 86 FR 58763, 58782– 

58783. The shipments model was 

initialized using a time series of 

historical shipments data compiled from 

the 2014 MHLF final rule and data from 

NEMA. The historical shipments for 

2008 from the 2014 MHLF final rule 

were projected to 2020 using NEMA 

sales indices. Consistent with the 2014 

MHLF final rule, DOE assumed an 

increasing fraction of the MHLF market 

would move to out-of-scope LED 

alternatives. DOE modeled the incursion 

of LED equipment into the MHLF 

market in the form of a Bass diffusion 

curve. 86 FR 58763, 58782–58783. 

DOE’s projection resulted in fewer than 

1500 shipments of MHLFs by 2030, a 

decline of more than 99 percent relative 

to MHLF shipments in 2020; see chapter 

9 of the October 2021 Final 

Determination technical support 

document.6

In response to the October 2022 RFI, 

NEMA provided a graphical 

representation of its HID Lamp Sales 

Index indicating a continued decline for 

HID lamps, including metal halides, 

consistent with DOE’s projections. 

(NEMA, No. 2 at p. 5) 

F. Manufacturer Impacts 

NEMA commented that because of the 

reduction in volume of product sales, 

the internal annual reporting cost 

burden for manufacturers has increased 

relative to product sales for the industry 

as a whole. (NEMA, No. 2 at p. 6) 

Because DOE is proposing not to amend 

standards for MHLFs (see section IV for 

further details), if finalized, the 

determination would have no impact on 

manufacturers. 

IV. Proposed Determination 

As required by EPCA, this NOPD 

analyzes whether amended standards 

for MHLFs would result in significant 

conservation of energy, be 

technologically feasible, and be cost 

effective. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 

42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) The criteria 

considered under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(1)(A) and the additional 

analysis are discussed below. Because 

an analysis of potential cost 

effectiveness and energy savings first 

requires an evaluation of the relevant 

technology, DOE first discusses the 

technological feasibility of amended 

standards. DOE then addresses the cost 

effectiveness and energy savings 

associated with potential amended 

standards. 

A. Technological Feasibility 

EPCA mandates that DOE consider 

whether amended energy conservation 

standards for MHLFs would be 

technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 

6295(n)(2)(B)) In the October 2021 Final 

Determination, DOE concluded that 

there are technology options that would 

improve the efficiency of MHLFs. 

Further, DOE concluded that these 

technology options are being used in 

commercially available MHLFs and 

therefore are technologically feasible. 86 

FR 58763, 58791. Because there have 

been no substantive changes in the 

MHLF market since the October 2021 

Final Determination analysis, DOE has 

tentatively determined that its 

conclusions regarding technological 

feasibility from that analysis remain 

valid. Hence, DOE has tentatively 

determined that amended energy 

conservation standards for MHLFs are 

technologically feasible. 

B. Cost Effectiveness 

EPCA requires DOE to consider 

whether energy conservation standards 

for MHLFs would be cost effective 

through an evaluation of the savings in 

operating costs throughout the 

estimated average life of the covered 

product compared to any increase in the 

price of, or in the initial charges for, or 

maintenance expenses of, the covered 

product which is likely to result from 

the imposition of an amended standard. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. 

6295(n)(2)(C), and 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) 

In the October 2021 Final 

Determination, DOE determined that the 

average customer purchasing a 

representative MHLF would experience 

an increase in LCC at each evaluated 

standards case as compared to the nonew-standards case. The simple PBP for 

the average MHLF customer at most ELs 

was projected to be generally longer 

than the mean lifetime of the 

equipment, which further indicates that 

the increase in installed cost for more 

efficient MHLFs is not recouped by their 

associated operating cost savings. The 

analysis determined that the net present 

value (‘‘NPV’’) benefits at the trial 

standard levels (‘‘TSLs’’) were also 

negative for all equipment classes at 3- 

percent and 7-percent discount rates. 86 

FR 58763, 58785–58791. Hence, in the 

October 2021 Final Determination, DOE 

determined that more stringent 

amended energy conservation standards 

for MHLFs cannot satisfy the relevant 

statutory requirements because such 

standards would not be cost effective as 

required under EPCA. 86 FR 58763, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 67995 

58791 (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2); 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(II);) 86 FR 58763, 

58791.) 

Because there have been no 

substantive changes in the MHLF 

market that would affect the 

conclusions of the October 2021 Final 

Determination analysis, DOE has 

tentatively determined that its 

conclusions regarding the cost 

effectiveness of more stringent amended 

energy conservation standards for 

MHLFs remain valid. 

C. Significant Conservation of Energy 

EPCA also mandates that DOE 

consider whether amended energy 

conservation standards for MHLF would 

result in significant conservation of 

energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 

U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(A)) 

In the October 2021 Final 

Determination, having determined that 

amended energy conservation standards 

for MHLFs would not be cost-effective, 

DOE did not further evaluate the 

significance of the amount of energy 

conservation under the considered 

amended standards because it had 

determined that the potential standards 

would not be cost-effective as required 

under EPCA. 86 FR 58763, 58791. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(n)(2); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)). 86 

FR 58763, 58791. 

As DOE has tentatively determined 

that amended standards would still not 

be cost effective, DOE has not evaluated 

the significance of the projected energy 

savings from an amended standard. 

D. Summary 

In this proposed determination, based 

on the initial determination that 

amended standards would not be cost 

effective, DOE has tentatively 

determined that energy conservation 

standards for MHLFs do not need to be 

amended. DOE will consider all 

comments received on this proposed 

determination in issuing any final 

determination. 

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866, 13563, and 14094 

Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ as 

supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 

13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review,’’ 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 

21, 2011) and amended by E.O. 14094, 

‘‘Modernizing Regulatory Review,’’ 88 

FR 21879 (April 11, 2023), requires 

agencies, to the extent permitted by law, 

to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only 

upon a reasoned determination that its 

benefits justify its costs (recognizing 

that some benefits and costs are difficult 

to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to 

impose the least burden on society, 

consistent with obtaining regulatory 

objectives, taking into account, among 

other things, and to the extent 

practicable, the costs of cumulative 

regulations; (3) select, in choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. DOE emphasizes as 

well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to 

use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible. In its guidance, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(‘‘OIRA’’) in the Office of Management 

and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) has emphasized 

that such techniques may include 

identifying changing future compliance 

costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes. For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, this proposed 

regulatory action is consistent with 

these principles. 

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also 

requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant 

regulatory actions’’ to OIRA for review. 

OIRA has determined that this proposed 

regulatory action does not constitute a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ within 

the scope of section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 

12866. Accordingly, this action was not 

submitted to OIRA for review under 

E.O. 12866. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) for any rule that by 

law must be proposed for public 

comment, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule, if promulgated, will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

As required by E.O. 13272, ‘‘Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s website (www.energy.gov/gc/ 

office-general-counsel). 

DOE reviewed this proposed 

determination under the provisions of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

policies and procedures published on 

February 19, 2003. Because DOE is 

proposing not to amend standards for 

MHLFs, if adopted, the determination 

would not amend any energy 

conservation standards. On the basis of 

the foregoing, DOE certifies that the 

proposed determination, if adopted, 

would have no significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared an IRFA for this proposed 

determination. DOE will transmit this 

certification and supporting statement 

of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration for review under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

This proposed determination, which 

proposes to determine that amended 

energy conservation standards for 

MHLFs are unneeded under the 

applicable statutory criteria, would 

impose no new informational or 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Accordingly, OMB clearance is not 

required under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

DOE is analyzing this proposed action 

in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(‘‘NEPA’’) and DOE’s NEPA 

implementing regulations (10 CFR part 

1021). DOE’s regulations include a 

categorical exclusion for actions which 

are interpretations or rulings with 

respect to existing regulations. 10 CFR 

part 1021, subpart D, appendix A4. DOE 

anticipates that this action qualifies for 

categorical exclusion A4 because it is an 

interpretation or ruling in regards to an 

existing regulation and otherwise meets 

the requirements for application of a 

categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 

1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA 

review before issuing the final action. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

E.O. 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR 

43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain 

requirements on Federal agencies 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
67996 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have federalism implications. The 

Executive order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive order also requires agencies to 

have an accountable process to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 

published a statement of policy 

describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations. 65 FR 

13735. DOE has examined this proposed 

determination and has tentatively 

determined that it would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the equipment that are the subject of 

this proposed rule. States can petition 

DOE for exemption from such 

preemption to the extent, and based on 

criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6297) Therefore, no further action is 

required by E.O. 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 

12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ imposes 

on Federal agencies the general duty to 

adhere to the following requirements: 

(1) eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguity, (2) write regulations to 

minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

rather than a general standard, and (4) 

promote simplification and burden 

reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). 

Regarding the review required by 

section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 

specifically requires that Executive 

agencies make every reasonable effort to 

ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly 

specifies the preemptive effect, if any, 

(2) clearly specifies any effect on 

existing Federal law or regulation, (3) 

provides a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct while promoting 

simplification and burden reduction, (4) 

specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) 

adequately defines key terms, and (6) 

addresses other important issues 

affecting clarity and general 

draftsmanship under any guidelines 

issued by the Attorney General. Section 

3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires 

Executive agencies to review regulations 

in light of applicable standards in 

section 3(a) and section 3(b) to 

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, this proposed 

determination meets the relevant 

standards of E.O. 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

proposed regulatory action likely to 

result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE 

published a statement of policy on its 

process for intergovernmental 

consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 

12820. DOE’s policy statement is also 

available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/ 

files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf. 

DOE examined this proposed 

determination according to UMRA and 

its statement of policy and determined 

that the proposed determination does 

not contain a Federal intergovernmental 

mandate, nor is it expected to require 

expenditures of $100 million or more in 

any one year by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector. As a result, the analytical 

requirements of UMRA do not apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

proposed determination would not have 

any impact on the autonomy or integrity 

of the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, 

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15, 1988), 

DOE has determined that this proposed 

determination would not result in any 

takings that might require compensation 

under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides 

for Federal agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under information quality 

guidelines established by each agency 

pursuant to general guidelines issued by 

OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published 

at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 

DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 

FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to 

OMB Memorandum M–19–15, 

Improving Implementation of the 

Information Quality Act (April 24, 

2019), DOE published updated 

guidelines which are available at 

www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/ 

12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%

20IQA%20Guidelines%

20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has reviewed 

this NOPD under the OMB and DOE 

guidelines and has concluded that it is 

consistent with applicable policies in 

those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 

FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires 

Federal agencies to prepare and submit 

to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (‘‘OIRA’’) at OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

proposed significant energy action. A 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) 

is a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866, or any successor 

Executive Order; and (2) is likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 67997 

7 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking 

Peer Review Report.’’ 2007. Available at 

www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energyconservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-reviewreport-0 (last accessed June 26, 2023). 

8The report is available at 

www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-ofmethods-for-setting-building-and-equipmentperformance-standards. 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

This proposed determination, which 

does not propose to amend energy 

conservation standards for MHLFs, is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it 

would not have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, nor has it been designated as 

such by the Administrator at OIRA. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (‘‘OSTP’’), 

issued its Final Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review (‘‘the 

Bulletin’’). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). 

The Bulletin establishes that certain 

scientific information shall be peer 

reviewed by qualified specialists before 

it is disseminated by the Federal 

Government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information,’’ 

which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific 

information the agency reasonably can 

determine will have, or does have, a 

clear and substantial impact on 

important public policies or private 

sector decisions.’’ Id. at 70 FR 2667. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal peer reviews of the 

energy conservation standards 

development process and the analyses 

that are typically used and has prepared 

a Peer Review report pertaining to the 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking analyses.7 Generation of this 

report involved a rigorous, formal, and 

documented evaluation using objective 

criteria and qualified and independent 

reviewers to make a judgment as to the 

technical/scientific/business merit, the 

actual or anticipated results, and the 

productivity and management 

effectiveness of programs and/or 

projects. Because available data, models, 

and technological understanding have 

changed since 2007, DOE has engaged 

with the National Academy of Sciences 

to review DOE’s analytical 

methodologies to ascertain whether 

modifications are needed to improve the 

Department’s analyses. DOE is in the 

process of evaluating the resulting 

report.8

VI. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

DOE will hold a public webinar upon 

receiving a request by the deadline 

identified in the DATES section at the 

beginning of this proposed 

determination. Interested persons may 

submit their request for the public 

webinar to the Appliance and 

Equipment Standards Program at 

MHLF2022STD0023@ee.doe.gov. If a 

public webinar is requested, DOE will 

release webinar registration information, 

participant instructions, and 

information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants on 

DOE’s website: www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/ 

standards.aspx?productid=14. 

Participants are responsible for ensuring 

their systems are compatible with the 

webinar software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

Any person who has an interest in the 

topics addressed in this NOPD, or who 

is representative of a group or class of 

persons that has an interest in these 

issues, may request an opportunity to 

make an oral presentation at the 

webinar. Such persons may submit 

requests to speak to 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. Persons who wish to speak 

should include with their request a 

computer file in WordPerfect, Microsoft 

Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format 

that briefly describes the nature of their 

interest in this proposed determination 

and the topics they wish to discuss. 

Such persons should also provide a 

daytime telephone number where they 

can be reached. 

DOE requests persons selected to 

make an oral presentation to submit an 

advance copy of their statements at least 

2 weeks before the webinar. At its 

discretion, DOE may permit persons 

who cannot supply an advance copy of 

their statement to participate, if those 

persons have made advance alternative 

arrangements with the Building 

Technologies Office. As necessary, 

requests to give an oral presentation 

should ask for such alternative 

arrangements. 

C. Conduct of the Webinar 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the webinar/public meeting 

and may also use a professional 

facilitator to aid discussion. The 

meeting will not be a judicial or 

evidentiary-type public hearing, but 

DOE will conduct it in accordance with 

section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A 

court reporter will be present to record 

the proceedings and prepare a 

transcript. DOE reserves the right to 

schedule the order of presentations and 

to establish the procedures governing 

the conduct of the webinar/public 

meeting. There shall not be discussion 

of proprietary information, costs or 

prices, market share, or other 

commercial matters regulated by U.S. 

anti-trust laws. After the webinar/public 

meeting and until the end of the 

comment period, interested parties may 

submit further comments on the 

proceedings and any aspect of the 

proposed determination. 

The webinar/public meeting will be 

conducted in an informal, conference 

style. DOE will present summaries of 

comments received before the webinar/ 

public meeting, allow time for prepared 

general statements by participants, and 

encourage all interested parties to share 

their views on issues affecting this 

proposed determination. Each 

participant will be allowed to make a 

general statement (within time limits 

determined by DOE), before the 

discussion of specific topics. DOE will 

permit, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this proposed 

determination. The official conducting 

the webinar/public meeting will accept 

additional comments or questions from 

those attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

webinar/public meeting. 

A transcript of the webinar/public 

meeting will be included in the docket, 

which can be viewed as described in the 

Docket section at the beginning of this 

NOPD. In addition, any person may buy 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
67998 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

a copy of the transcript from the 

transcribing reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

determination no later than the date 

provided in the DATES section at the 

beginning of this proposed rule. 

Interested parties may submit 

comments, data, and other information 

using any of the methods described in 

the ADDRESSES section at the beginning 

of this document. 

Submitting comments via 

www.regulations.gov. The 

www.regulations.gov web page will 

require you to provide your name and 

contact information. Your contact 

information will be viewable to DOE 

Building Technologies staff only. Your 

contact information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment itself or in any 

documents attached to your comment. 

Any information that you do not want 

to be publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Otherwise, persons viewing comments 

will see only first and last names, 

organization names, correspondence 

containing comments, and any 

documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(‘‘CBI’’)). Comments submitted through 

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

website will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through www.regulations.gov before 

posting. Normally, comments will be 

posted within a few days of being 

submitted. However, if large volumes of 

comments are being processed 

simultaneously, your comment may not 

be viewable for up to several weeks. 

Please keep the comment tracking 

number that www.regulations.gov 

provides after you have successfully 

uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email. 

Comments and documents submitted 

via email also will be posted to 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. With this 

instruction followed, the cover letter 

will not be publicly viewable as long as 

it does not include any comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. If you 

submit via postal mail or hand delivery/ 

courier, please provide all items on a 

CD, if feasible, in which case it is not 

necessary to submit printed copies. No 

faxes will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, that are written in English, and 

that are free of any defects or viruses. 

Documents should not contain special 

characters or any form of encryption 

and, if possible, they should carry the 

electronic signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via email to 

MHLF2022STD0023@ee.doe.gov two 

well-marked copies: one copy of the 

document marked ‘‘confidential’’ 

including all the information believed to 

be confidential, and one copy of the 

document marked ‘‘non-confidential’’ 

with the information believed to be 

confidential deleted. DOE will make its 

own determination about the 

confidential status of the information 

and treat it according to its 

determination. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning its tentative 

conclusion that because no substantive 

changes have occurred in the market 

and technology of MHLFs, the 

conclusion of the October 2021 Final 

Determination that amending MHLF 

standards is not cost effective remains 

valid. 

VII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this notification of 

proposed determination and request for 

comment. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on September 28, 

2023, by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

pursuant to delegated authority from the 

Secretary of Energy. That document 

with the original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on September 

28, 2023. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2023–21834 Filed 10–2–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1