[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 3, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67989-67998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21834]



[[Page 67989]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[EERE-2022-BT-STD-0023]
RIN 1904-AF44


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Notification of proposed determination and request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''), 
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products 
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including metal halide 
lamp fixtures (``MHLFs''). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of 
Energy (``DOE'') to periodically determine whether more-stringent, 
amended standards would be technologically feasible and economically 
justified, and would result in significant energy savings. In this 
notification of proposed determination (``NOPD''), DOE has initially 
determined that amended energy conservation standards for MHLFs would 
not be cost effective. DOE requests comment on this proposed 
determination and the associated analyses and results.

DATES: 
    Meeting: DOE will hold a public webinar upon request. Please 
request a public webinar no later than October 17, 2023. See section 
VI, ``Public Participation,'' for webinar registration information, 
participant instructions, and information about the capabilities 
available to webinar participants.
    Comments: Written comments and information are requested and will 
be accepted on or before December 4, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket 
number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0023. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments.
    Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified 
by docket number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0023, by any of the following 
methods:
    (1) Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#105d585c5622202222434454202022235075753e747f753e777f66"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9fd2d7d3d9adafadadcccbdbafafadacdffafab1fbf0fab1f8f0e9">[email protected]</span></a>. Include the docket number 
EERE-2022-BT-STD-0023 in the subject line of the message.
    (2) Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc 
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    (3) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards 
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 
L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 
287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case 
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this 
process, see section VI of this document.
    Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public 
meeting attendee lists and transcripts (if one is held), comments, and 
other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at 
www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the 
index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt 
from public disclosure.
    The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0023. The docket web page contains instructions on how 
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See 
section VI, ``Public Participation,'' for further information on how to 
submit comments through www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#24655454484d454a47417750454a404556405775514157504d4b4a576441410a404b410a434b52"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5e1f2e2e32373f303d3b0d2a3f303a3f2c3a2d0f2b3b2d2a3731302d1e3b3b703a313b70393128">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a8e3c9dcc0dad1c686e5cbe1c6dcc7dbc0e8c0d986ccc7cd86cfc7de"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="89c2e8fde1fbf0e7a7c4eac0e7fde6fae1c9e1f8a7ede6eca7eee6ff">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9adbeaeaf6f3fbf4f9ffc9eefbf4fefbe8fee9cbefffe9eef3f5f4e9daffffb4fef5ffb4fdf5ec"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b8f9c8c8d4d1d9d6dbddebccd9d6dcd9cadccbe9cdddcbccd1d7d6cbf8dddd96dcd7dd96dfd7ce">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination
II. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. Current Standards
    2. History of Standards Rulemakings for Metal Halide Lamp 
Fixtures
    C. Deviation from Appendix A
III. Rationale of Analysis and Discussion of Related Comments
    A. Scope of Coverage
    B. Technology Options and Screening Analysis
    C. Efficiency Levels
    D. Scaling Equipment Classes
    E. Shipments
    F. Manufacturer Impacts
IV. Proposed Determination
    A. Technological Feasibility
    B. Cost Effectiveness
    C. Significant Conservation of Energy
    D. Summary
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
VI. Public Participation
    A. Participation in the Webinar
    B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for 
Distribution
    C. Conduct of the Webinar
    D. Submission of Comments
    E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Pub. L. 94-163, as amended 
(``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a 
number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B of EPCA \2\ established the Energy 
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 
U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include metal halide lamp fixtures 
(``MHLFs''), the

[[Page 67990]]

subject of this NOPD. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(19)) \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
    \2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
    \3\ DOE notes that because of the codification of the MHLF 
provisions in 42 U.S.C. 6295, MHLF energy conservation standards and 
the associated test procedures are subject to the requirements of 
the consumer products provisions of Part B of Title III of EPCA. 
However, because MHLFs are generally considered to be commercial 
equipment, DOE established the requirements for MHLFs in 10 Code of 
Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 431 (``Energy Efficiency Program 
for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment'') for ease of 
reference. DOE notes that the location of the provisions within the 
CFR does not affect either the substance or applicable procedure for 
MHLFs. Based upon their placement into 10 CFR part 431, MHLFs are 
referred to as ``equipment'' throughout this document, although 
covered by the consumer product provisions of EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is issuing this NOPD pursuant to the EPCA requirement that not 
later than 3 years after issuance of a determination that standards do 
not need to be amended, DOE must publish either a notification of 
determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, 
or a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') including new proposed 
energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as 
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m))
    For this proposed determination, DOE analyzed MHLFs that meet the 
definition of an MHLF in 10 CFR 431.322. DOE first analyzed the 
technological feasibility of more energy efficient MHLFs. For those 
MHLFs for which DOE determined higher standards to be technologically 
feasible, DOE evaluated whether higher standards would be cost 
effective. DOE has tentatively determined that the market and 
technology characteristics of MHLFs are largely similar to those 
analyzed in the previous rulemaking, which concluded with the 
publication of a final rule determining not to amend standards. 86 FR 
58763 (October 25, 2021) (``October 2021 Final Determination''). 
Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined that the conclusions reached 
in the October 2021 Final Determination regarding the benefits and 
burdens of more stringent standards for MHLFs are still relevant to the 
MHLF market today. Hence, DOE has tentatively determined that the 
amended standards for MHLFs would not be cost effective.

II. Introduction

    The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority 
underlying this proposed determination, as well as some of the 
historical background relevant to the establishment of standards for 
MHLFs.

A. Authority

    EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number 
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part 
B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 
Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include MHLFs, the 
subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(19)) EPCA prescribed 
initial energy conservation standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 
6295(hh)(1)) and directed DOE to conduct two cycles of rulemakings to 
determine whether to amend these standards (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(2)(A) 
and (3)(A)).
    The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal 
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement 
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include 
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), 
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 
U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from 
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
    Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to 
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, 
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered products 
must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying 
to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy 
conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making 
representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of 
those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly, 
DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products 
comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The 
DOE test procedures for MHLFs appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (``CFR'') part 431, subpart S at Sec.  431.324.
    Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State 
laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, 
and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers 
of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in 
accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under 
EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
    Pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007''), Public Law 110-140, any final 
rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after 
July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and off mode energy 
use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard 
for a covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the 
criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), 
incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single 
standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for 
such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) In 
this analysis DOE considers only active mode energy consumption as 
standby and off mode energy use are not applicable to MHLFs at this 
time.
    DOE must periodically review its already established energy 
conservation standards for a covered product no later than 6 years from 
the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a standard for a 
covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) This 6-year look-back provision 
requires that DOE publish either a determination that standards do not 
need to be amended or a NOPR, including new proposed standards 
(proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) 
EPCA further provides that, not later than 3 years after the issuance 
of a final determination not to amend standards, DOE must publish 
either a notification of determination that standards for the product 
do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy 
conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B)) DOE must make the analysis on which a 
determination is based publicly available and provide an opportunity 
for written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(2))
    A determination that amended standards are not needed must be based 
on consideration of whether amended standards will result in 
significant conservation of energy, are technologically feasible, and 
are cost effective. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) 
Additionally, any new or amended energy conservation standard 
prescribed by the Secretary for any type (or class) of covered product 
shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency which the Secretary determines is technologically feasible 
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Among the factors 
DOE considers in evaluating whether a proposed standard level is 
economically

[[Page 67991]]

justified includes whether the proposed standard at that level is cost-
effective, as defined under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). Under 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), an evaluation of cost-effectiveness 
requires DOE to consider savings in operating costs throughout the 
estimated average life of the covered products in the type (or class) 
compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance 
expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the 
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE is 
publishing this NOPD in satisfaction of the 3-year review requirement 
in EPCA following a determination that standards need not be amended.

B. Background

1. Current Standards
    Current standards for MHLFs manufactured on or after February 10, 
2017, are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 431.326 and are 
specified in Table II.1. 10 CFR 431.326(c). Additionally, it is 
specified at 10 CFR 431.326 that MHLFs manufactured on or after 
February 10, 2017, that operate lamps with rated wattage >500 watts 
(``W'') to <=1000W must not contain a probe-start metal halide ballast. 
10 CFR 431.326(d). The following MHLFs are not subject to these 
regulations: (1) MHLFs with regulated-lag ballasts; (2) MHLFs that use 
electronic ballasts that operate at 480 volts; and (3) MHLFs that use 
high-frequency electronic ballasts. 10 CFR 431.326(e).

                           Table II.1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for MHLFs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Designed to be operated with lamps of
    the following rated lamp wattage         Tested input voltage *         Minimum standard equation * (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50W and <=100W........................  480 V......................  (1/(1 + 1.24 x P [supcaret] (- 0.351)))-
                                                                        0.020 **.
>=50W and <=100W........................  All others.................  1/( 1 + 1.24 x P [supcaret] (- 0.351)).
>100W and <150W [dagger]................  480 V......................  (1/(1 + 1.24 x P [supcaret] (- 0.351)))-
                                                                        0.020.
>100W and <150W [dagger]................  All others.................  1/(1 + 1.24 x P [supcaret] (- 0.351)).
>=150W [Dagger] and <=250W..............  480 V......................  0.880.
>=150W [Dagger] and <=250W..............  All others.................  For >=150W and <=200W: 0.880.
                                                                       For >200W and <=250W: 1/(1 + 0.876 x
                                                                        P[supcaret](- 0.351)).
>250W and <=500W........................  480 V......................  For >250W and <265W: 0.880.
                                                                       For >=265W and <=500W: (1/(1 + 0.876 x P
                                                                        [supcaret] (- 0.351)))-0.010.
>250W and <=500W........................  All others.................  1/(1 + 0.876 x P [supcaret] (- 0.351)).
>500W and <=1,000W......................  480 V......................  >500W and <=750W: 0.900.
                                                                       >750W and <=1,000W: 0.000104 x P + 0.822
                                                                       For >500W and <=1,000W: may not utilize a
                                                                        probe-start ballast.
>500W and <=1,000W......................  All others.................  For >500W and <=750W: 0.910.
                                                                       For >750W and <=1,000W: 0.000104 x P +
                                                                        0.832.
                                                                       For >500W and <=1,000W: may not utilize a
                                                                        probe-start ballast.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Tested input voltage is specified in 10 CFR 431.324.
** P is defined as the rated wattage of the lamp the fixture is designed to operate.
[dagger] Includes 150W fixtures specified in paragraph (b)(3) of 10 CFR 431.326, that are fixtures rated only
  for 150W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the National Fire Protection Association
  (``NFPA'') 70, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures
  above 50 [deg]C, as specified by Underwriters Laboratory (``UL'') 1029.
[Dagger] Excludes 150W fixtures specified in paragraph (b)(3) of 10 CFR 431.326, that are fixtures rated only
  for 150W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the NFPA 70, section 410.4(A); and containing
  a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 [deg]C, as specified by UL 1029.

2. History of Standards Rulemakings for Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures
    As noted in section II.A of this document, EPCA directed DOE to 
conduct two rulemaking cycles to determine whether to amend standards 
for MHLFs established by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(2)(A) and (3)(A)) 
DOE published a final rule amending the standards on February 10, 2014 
(``February 2014 Final Rule''). 79 FR 7746. These current standards are 
set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 431.326 and are specified in 
section II.B.1 and Table II.1 of this document. DOE completed the 
second rulemaking by publishing a final rule on October 25, 2021, that 
determined not to amend current standards for MHLFs. 86 FR 58763.
    In support of the present review of the MHLF energy conservation 
standards, on October 6, 2022, DOE published a request for information 
(``RFI''), which identified various issues on which DOE sought comment 
to inform its determination of whether the standards need to be 
amended. 87 FR 60555 (``October 2022 RFI'').
    DOE received two comments in response to the October 2022 RFI from 
the interested parties listed in Table II.2.

                                  Table II.2--October 2022 RFI Written Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Comment No. in
           Commenter(s)                Reference in  this NOPD       the docket            Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Electrical Manufacturers   NEMA.........................               2  Trade Association.
 Association (``NEMA'').
Signify...........................  Signify......................               3  Manufacturer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 67992]]

    A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or 
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for 
information located in the docket. (Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-
0023, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The references 
are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, 
page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Deviation From Appendix A

    In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, 
appendix A (``appendix A''), DOE notes that it is deviating from the 
provision in the appendix A regarding the NOPR stage for an energy 
conservation standards rulemaking.
    Section 6(f)(2) of the appendix A specifies that the length of the 
public comment period for a NOPR will be not less than 75 calendar 
days. For this NOPD, DOE has opted instead to provide a 60-day comment 
period, as required by EPCA. 42 U.S.C. 6295(p). DOE is opting to 
deviate from the 75-day comment period because stakeholders have 
already been afforded an opportunity to provide comments on this 
rulemaking. As noted previously, DOE requested comment on various 
issues pertaining to this standards rulemaking in the October 2022 RFI 
and provided stakeholders with a 60-day comment period. 87 FR 60555. 
Further stakeholders had been made familiar with the methodologies and 
information presented in the October 2022 RFI as they were based on the 
analysis conducted for the October 2021 Final Determination. 87 FR 
60555, 60558. Therefore, DOE believes a 60-day comment period is 
appropriate and will provide interested parties with a meaningful 
opportunity to comment on the proposed determination.

III. Rationale of Analysis and Discussion of Related Comments

    In response to the October 2022 RFI, NEMA stated that the October 
2021 Final Determination is a recent analysis that correctly determined 
energy conservation standards for MHLFs do not need to be amended 
because they are not economically justified. NEMA further stated that 
declining market volume and the mature nature of the technology do not 
warrant or support additional rulemakings for MHLFs. (NEMA, No. 2 at p. 
1)
    For this review of MHLF standards, DOE has tentatively determined 
that, since the October 2021 Final Determination analysis, there has 
been no substantial change in (1) product offerings of MHLFs to warrant 
a change in scope of analysis or equipment classes, (2) technologies or 
design options that could improve the energy efficiency of MHLFs, (3) 
manufacturers and industry structure, (4) shipments, (5) operating 
hours, and (6) market and industry trends. Further DOE did not receive 
any comments in response to the October 2022 RFI indicating 
technological or market changes for MHLFs. As such, DOE has tentatively 
determined that the analysis conducted for the October 2021 Final 
Determination and its conclusion that amended energy conservation 
standards for MHLFs would not be cost effective remains valid. DOE 
requests comments on its tentative conclusion that because no 
substantive changes have occurred in the market and technology of 
MHLFs, the conclusion of the October 2021 Final Determination that 
amending MHLF standards is not cost effective remains valid.
    The following sections discuss the status of the current MHLF 
market as well as issues raised in comments received in response to the 
October 2022 RFI.

A. Scope of Coverage

    In this analysis, MHLF is defined as a light fixture for general 
lighting application designed to be operated with a metal halide lamp 
and a ballast for a metal halide lamp. 42 U.S.C. 6291(64); 10 CFR 
431.322. Any equipment meeting the definition of MHLF is included in 
DOE's scope of coverage, though all products within the scope of 
coverage may not be subject to standards.

B. Technology Options and Screening Analysis

    In the October 2022 RFI DOE presented technology options for MHLFs 
considered in the October 2021 Final Determination. 87 FR 60555, 60560. 
NEMA commented that technology options identified by DOE in the October 
2022 RFI have already been designed to achieve maximum efficiencies 
based on existing standards and no new resources will be invested in 
these technologies due to continual decrease in product demand. (NEMA, 
No. 2 at pp. 1-2) NEMA also stated that more efficient products would 
require a different form factor. Additionally, NEMA stated that end-
users are not asking for additional features or design options for 
MHLFs and current demand is in the form of repair, replacement, and 
maintenance. (NEMA, No. 2 at p. 4)
    In the October 2021 Final Determination, DOE identified technology 
options that improve the efficiency of MHLFs. DOE then identified 
design options by screening out technology options that do not meet 
five screening criteria outlined in Sections 6(c)(3) and 7(b) of 
appendix A.\5\ 86 FR 58763, 58770-58771. DOE has not found any new 
information or data that indicates that those technology options and 
resulting design options are no longer valid means for manufacturers to 
improve the efficiency of MHLFs nor has DOE identified any new 
technologies not included in the previous rulemaking that may improve 
the efficiency of MHLFs. Therefore, in this NOPD, DOE continues to 
consider only the design options identified in the October 2021 Final 
Determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The five screening criteria are: (1) Technological 
feasibility. Technologies that are not incorporated in commercial 
products or in working prototypes will not be considered further; 
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is 
determined that mass production and reliable installation and 
servicing of a technology in commercial products could not be 
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the 
time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that 
technology will not be considered further; (3) Impacts on product 
utility or product availability. If it is determined that a 
technology would have significant adverse impact on the utility of 
the product to significant subgroups of consumers or would result in 
the unavailability of any covered product type with performance 
characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, 
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products 
generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be 
considered further; (4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it 
is determined that a technology would have significant adverse 
impacts on health or safety, it will not be considered further; (5) 
Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies. If a design option utilizes 
proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to achieving 
a given efficiency level, that technology will not be considered 
further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns. (See 10 CFR 
part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Efficiency Levels

    In a rulemaking analysis DOE conducts an engineering analysis to 
establish the relationship between the efficiency and cost of a MHLF. 
There are two elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the 
selection of efficiency levels (``ELs'') to analyze (i.e., the 
``efficiency analysis'') and the determination of product cost at each 
efficiency level (i.e., the ``cost analysis''). In determining the 
performance of higher-efficiency MHLFs, DOE considers technologies and 
design option combinations not eliminated by the screening analysis. 
For each equipment class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as well as 
the incremental cost for the equipment at efficiency levels above the 
baseline. The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-
efficiency ``curves'' that are used in downstream analyses (i.e., the 
life cycle cost (``LCC'') and payback

[[Page 67993]]

period (``PBP'') analyses and the national impact analysis (``NIA'')).
    In the October 2022 RFI, DOE presented the maximum technologically 
feasible (``max-tech'') efficiency levels identified in the October 
2021 Final Determination. 87 FR 60555, 60562. NEMA commented that the 
max-tech efficiency levels presented in the October 2022 RFI are not 
technically feasible without extended research. Further, NEMA stated 
that the max-tech efficiency levels presented in the October 2022 RFI 
for metal halide (``MH'') ballasts between 100 and 150W would be cost 
prohibitive relative to low customer demand. (NEMA, No. 2 at pp. 2-3)
    In the October 2021 Final Determination, DOE used the ballast 
efficiency values from DOE's compliance certification database 
(``CCD'') to identify more efficient ballasts for all equipment classes 
except for the >1,000W and <=2,000W equipment class, which does not 
have certification data available. For this equipment class, DOE 
determined ballast efficiency values by first gathering and analyzing 
catalog data. DOE then tested the ballasts to verify the ballast 
efficiency reported by the manufacturer. For instances where the 
catalog data did not align with the tested data, DOE selected more-
efficient ballasts based on the tested ballast efficiency. 86 FR 58763, 
58733. Because the max-tech efficiency levels identified in the October 
2021 Final Determination were based on commercially available products, 
DOE found them to be technically feasible in the October 2021 Final 
Determination and continues to do so in this analysis. 86 FR 58763, 
58791.
    As noted, in the October 2021 Final Determination, DOE identified 
ELs for each representative equipment class (i.e., equipment classes 
directly analyzed) based on MHLFs certified in the CCD at the time of 
the analysis. For this analysis, DOE assessed the MHLFs currently in 
the CCD and reviewed current catalog data for those MH ballasts not in 
the CCD (i.e., MH ballasts designed to operate lamps with rated 
wattages >1000W and <=2000W) and reviewed efficiencies of MHLFs 
representative of the ELs identified in the October 2021 Final 
Determination. For the >=50W and <=100W equipment class, DOE found that 
the ballast efficiency of the MHLF representative of the max-tech 
level, EL 3 had been recorded incorrectly in the October 2021 Final 
Determination and should have been 0.907 rather than 0.901. 86 FR 
58763, 58774. However, a slight change (less than 1 percent) to the 
ballast efficiency would not have a substantial impact to the cost 
efficiency of this EL, which resulted in negative LCC savings of more 
than $60 in the October 2021 Final Determination with more than 70 
percent of consumers experiencing a net cost. Further, on average, 
compared to a purchase at the baseline, the increased purchase price at 
this EL was never recovered by a reduction in operating costs. DOE has 
tentatively concluded that this change is not substantive enough to 
result in any significant impact to the cost effectiveness for this 
equipment class.
    Signify commented that, in the previous analysis, DOE cited ballast 
catalogs, suggesting that MH ballasts operating in the 2000W range are 
less efficient than ballasts operating in the 1000W range, but research 
journals and engineering manuals report the opposite trend, that energy 
efficiency with a magnetic transformer or magnetic ballast increases 
along with the transformer power rate (Vecchio et al., 2017). Signify 
stated that it would expect MH ballasts to follow this trend. Signify 
commented that MH ballasts that operate lamps in the wattage range of 
>1000W and <=2000W are not currently subject to DOE's MHLF standards, 
and, as a result, manufacturers have had no incentive to use a high-
efficiency ballast in this range, which may explain why DOE has seen 
commercially available products not follow the expected trend. Signify 
proposed that DOE set an energy efficiency standard for MHLFs that 
includes MH ballasts that operate lamps with wattages in the range of 
>1000W and <=2000W and provided the following corresponding efficiency 
level equation reflecting a trend of increasing efficiency with lamp 
power: 0.00001*rated wattage of lamp + 0.928. (Signify, No. 3 at pp. 1-
4)
    In the October 2021 Final Determination DOE determined the 
appropriate equation for the >1000W and <=2000W equipment class to be -
0.000008*rated wattage of lamp + 0.946 which resulted in an efficiency 
of 93.7 percent for the 1500W representative lamp wattage analyzed. 86 
FR 58763, 58774, 58776. Signify's proposed equation would result in an 
efficiency of 94.3 percent for the 1500W representative lamp wattage. 
For this analysis, DOE reviewed catalog data for MHLFs in the >1000W 
and <=2000W equipment class and identified a MH ballast with a catalog 
ballast efficiency of 96.8 percent, which is higher than the 93.7 
percent efficiency representative of the max-tech level, EL 1 (for the 
1500W representative lamp wattage) identified in the October 2021 Final 
Determination. However, DOE chose not to test this product to confirm 
the catalog ballast efficiency, as its analysis would not change the 
conclusions reached in the October 2021 Final Determination. Even if 
the increase in ballast efficiency could result in positive life cycle 
cost savings for this equipment class, the energy savings for the 
nation, which were estimated as less than 0.000001 quads for this 
equipment class in the October 2021 Final Determination, would be close 
to zero due to the low market share for this equipment class and 
declining shipments for MHLFs (see section III.E of this document).
    Hence, DOE's review of the CCD and catalog data found no changes in 
product offerings or efficiencies for MHLFs that would affect the 
conclusions from the October 2021 Final Determination. Therefore, DOE 
has tentatively determined that the conclusions in the October 2021 
Final Determination remain valid.

D. Scaling Equipment Classes

    EPCA requires DOE to specify a different standard level for a type 
or class of product that has the same function or intended use, if DOE 
determines that products within such group: (1) consume a different 
kind of energy; or (2) have a capacity or other performance-related 
feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have 
and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(q)(1)) DOE selects certain equipment classes as ``representative'' 
to focus its analysis. DOE chooses equipment classes as representative 
primarily because of their high market volumes and/or unique 
characteristics.
    The current energy conservation standards for MHLF are based on 24 
equipment classes determined according to performance-related features 
that provide utility to the consumer, in terms of input voltage, rated 
lamp wattage, and designation for indoor versus outdoor applications 
(see 10 CFR 431.326). Specifically, in terms of input voltage, DOE 
separates equipment classes based on MHLFs with ballasts tested at 
input voltage of 480 volts (``V'') and those tested at all other input 
voltages per the DOE test procedure at 10 CFR 431.324. In the analysis 
for the October 2021 Final Determination, DOE did not directly analyze 
the equipment classes containing only fixtures with ballasts tested at 
480V due to low shipment volumes. DOE did directly analyze equipment 
classes containing only fixtures with ballasts tested at all input 
voltages other than 480V. DOE scaled the resulting efficiency levels to 
develop

[[Page 67994]]

efficiency levels for equipment classes containing only fixtures with 
ballasts tested at input voltage of 480V. 86 FR 58763, 58771, 58776. In 
the October 2022 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether it is necessary 
to individually analyze all 24 equipment classes identified in the 
October 2021 Final Determination and also on how the performance of 
ballasts that are tested at 480V compares to ballasts of the same 
wattage and indoor/outdoor classification that are in other equipment 
classes. 87 FR 60560, 60562.
    NEMA stated that it is not necessary to individually analyze all 24 
equipment classes as the market is changing to more efficient 
technologies at a rapid pace. NEMA also responded that market 
requirements do not support extending the rule to equipment classes not 
directly analyzed in the October 2021 Final Determination (i.e., MH 
ballasts tested at 480V). (NEMA, No. 2 at pp. 2-3) Further, NEMA 
commented that comparing the performance of MH ballasts tested at 480V 
ballasts to their counterparts with the same wattage and indoor/outdoor 
classification in other equipment classes (i.e., tested at all other 
voltages) is not economically feasible because of limited demand for 
MHLFs. NEMA added that efficiency levels are consistent among most 
multi-voltage high intensity discharge (``HID'') electronic (277-480V) 
ballasts. (NEMA, No. 2 at p. 4)
    DOE notes that equipment classes that were not directly analyzed in 
the October 2021 Final Determination (i.e., MH ballasts tested at 480V) 
are already subject to standards (see 10 CFR 431.326). Regarding 
comparing performance of MH ballasts tested at input voltage of 480V to 
those tested at other input voltages, in the analysis for the October 
2021 Final Determination, DOE was able to identify MH ballasts in DOE's 
CCD that are tested at 480V and those at other input voltages, with the 
main difference between the ballasts being the tested input voltage. 
DOE used these efficiency comparisons to develop scaling factors and 
applied them to the representative equipment class efficiency level 
equations to develop corresponding efficiency level equations for 
ballasts tested at an input voltage of 480V. 86 FR 58763, 58776. DOE 
continues to find the scaling factors from the October 2021 Final 
Determination appropriate for this analysis.

E. Shipments

    In the October 2021 Final Determination, DOE projected a steady 
decline in the shipments of MHLFs, consistent with market transition 
away from MHLFs. 86 FR 58763, 58782-58783. The shipments model was 
initialized using a time series of historical shipments data compiled 
from the 2014 MHLF final rule and data from NEMA. The historical 
shipments for 2008 from the 2014 MHLF final rule were projected to 2020 
using NEMA sales indices. Consistent with the 2014 MHLF final rule, DOE 
assumed an increasing fraction of the MHLF market would move to out-of-
scope LED alternatives. DOE modeled the incursion of LED equipment into 
the MHLF market in the form of a Bass diffusion curve. 86 FR 58763, 
58782-58783. DOE's projection resulted in fewer than 1500 shipments of 
MHLFs by 2030, a decline of more than 99 percent relative to MHLF 
shipments in 2020; see chapter 9 of the October 2021 Final 
Determination technical support document.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Chapter 9 of the October 2021 Final Determination technical 
support document is available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0016-0017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the October 2022 RFI, NEMA provided a graphical 
representation of its HID Lamp Sales Index indicating a continued 
decline for HID lamps, including metal halides, consistent with DOE's 
projections. (NEMA, No. 2 at p. 5)

F. Manufacturer Impacts

    NEMA commented that because of the reduction in volume of product 
sales, the internal annual reporting cost burden for manufacturers has 
increased relative to product sales for the industry as a whole. (NEMA, 
No. 2 at p. 6) Because DOE is proposing not to amend standards for 
MHLFs (see section IV for further details), if finalized, the 
determination would have no impact on manufacturers.

IV. Proposed Determination

    As required by EPCA, this NOPD analyzes whether amended standards 
for MHLFs would result in significant conservation of energy, be 
technologically feasible, and be cost effective. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) The criteria considered under 
42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and the additional analysis are discussed 
below. Because an analysis of potential cost effectiveness and energy 
savings first requires an evaluation of the relevant technology, DOE 
first discusses the technological feasibility of amended standards. DOE 
then addresses the cost effectiveness and energy savings associated 
with potential amended standards.

A. Technological Feasibility

    EPCA mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy conservation 
standards for MHLFs would be technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(B)) In the October 2021 Final 
Determination, DOE concluded that there are technology options that 
would improve the efficiency of MHLFs. Further, DOE concluded that 
these technology options are being used in commercially available MHLFs 
and therefore are technologically feasible. 86 FR 58763, 58791. Because 
there have been no substantive changes in the MHLF market since the 
October 2021 Final Determination analysis, DOE has tentatively 
determined that its conclusions regarding technological feasibility 
from that analysis remain valid. Hence, DOE has tentatively determined 
that amended energy conservation standards for MHLFs are 
technologically feasible.

B. Cost Effectiveness

    EPCA requires DOE to consider whether energy conservation standards 
for MHLFs would be cost effective through an evaluation of the savings 
in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered 
product compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial 
charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product which is 
likely to result from the imposition of an amended standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(m)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(C), and 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II))
    In the October 2021 Final Determination, DOE determined that the 
average customer purchasing a representative MHLF would experience an 
increase in LCC at each evaluated standards case as compared to the no-
new-standards case. The simple PBP for the average MHLF customer at 
most ELs was projected to be generally longer than the mean lifetime of 
the equipment, which further indicates that the increase in installed 
cost for more efficient MHLFs is not recouped by their associated 
operating cost savings. The analysis determined that the net present 
value (``NPV'') benefits at the trial standard levels (``TSLs'') were 
also negative for all equipment classes at 3-percent and 7-percent 
discount rates. 86 FR 58763, 58785-58791. Hence, in the October 2021 
Final Determination, DOE determined that more stringent amended energy 
conservation standards for MHLFs cannot satisfy the relevant statutory 
requirements because such standards would not be cost effective as 
required under EPCA. 86 FR 58763,

[[Page 67995]]

58791 (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(II);) 86 FR 
58763, 58791.)
    Because there have been no substantive changes in the MHLF market 
that would affect the conclusions of the October 2021 Final 
Determination analysis, DOE has tentatively determined that its 
conclusions regarding the cost effectiveness of more stringent amended 
energy conservation standards for MHLFs remain valid.

C. Significant Conservation of Energy

    EPCA also mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy 
conservation standards for MHLF would result in significant 
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 
6295(n)(2)(A))
    In the October 2021 Final Determination, having determined that 
amended energy conservation standards for MHLFs would not be cost-
effective, DOE did not further evaluate the significance of the amount 
of energy conservation under the considered amended standards because 
it had determined that the potential standards would not be cost-
effective as required under EPCA. 86 FR 58763, 58791. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(m)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)). 86 FR 
58763, 58791.
    As DOE has tentatively determined that amended standards would 
still not be cost effective, DOE has not evaluated the significance of 
the projected energy savings from an amended standard.

D. Summary

    In this proposed determination, based on the initial determination 
that amended standards would not be cost effective, DOE has tentatively 
determined that energy conservation standards for MHLFs do not need to 
be amended. DOE will consider all comments received on this proposed 
determination in issuing any final determination.

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094

    Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review,'' as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011) and 
amended by E.O. 14094, ``Modernizing Regulatory Review,'' 88 FR 21879 
(April 11, 2023), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to 
(1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination 
that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and 
costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the 
least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory 
objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent 
practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that 
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, 
public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; 
and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance 
objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance 
that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess 
available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing 
economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user 
fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices 
can be made by the public. DOE emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 
requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify 
anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as 
possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has 
emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future 
compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or 
anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, 
this proposed regulatory action is consistent with these principles.
    Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit 
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has 
determined that this proposed regulatory action does not constitute a 
``significant regulatory action'' within the scope of section 3(f)(1) 
of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for 
review under E.O. 12866.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'') 
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless 
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As required by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in 
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the 
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its 
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's website (www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
    DOE reviewed this proposed determination under the provisions of 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures 
published on February 19, 2003. Because DOE is proposing not to amend 
standards for MHLFs, if adopted, the determination would not amend any 
energy conservation standards. On the basis of the foregoing, DOE 
certifies that the proposed determination, if adopted, would have no 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared an IRFA for this proposed 
determination. DOE will transmit this certification and supporting 
statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed determination, which proposes to determine that 
amended energy conservation standards for MHLFs are unneeded under the 
applicable statutory criteria, would impose no new informational or 
recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not required 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    DOE is analyzing this proposed action in accordance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (``NEPA'') and DOE's NEPA 
implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include 
a categorical exclusion for actions which are interpretations or 
rulings with respect to existing regulations. 10 CFR part 1021, subpart 
D, appendix A4. DOE anticipates that this action qualifies for 
categorical exclusion A4 because it is an interpretation or ruling in 
regards to an existing regulation and otherwise meets the requirements 
for application of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE 
will complete its NEPA review before issuing the final action.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes 
certain requirements on Federal agencies

[[Page 67996]]

formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State 
law or that have federalism implications. The Executive order requires 
agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority 
supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of 
the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The 
Executive order also requires agencies to have an accountable process 
to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in 
the development of regulatory policies that have federalism 
implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy 
describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in 
the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this 
proposed determination and has tentatively determined that it would not 
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. 
EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as 
to energy conservation for the equipment that are the subject of this 
proposed rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such 
preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 
U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no further action is required by E.O. 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to 
adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and 
ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a 
clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general 
standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a), 
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive 
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: 
(1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly 
specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) 
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting 
simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive 
effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses 
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship 
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of 
Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations 
in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to 
determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or 
more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined 
that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed determination meets 
the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'') 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may 
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one 
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published 
a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation 
under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at 
www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
    DOE examined this proposed determination according to UMRA and its 
statement of policy and determined that the proposed determination does 
not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to 
require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by State, 
local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector. As a result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. 
This proposed determination would not have any impact on the autonomy 
or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking 
Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15, 
1988), DOE has determined that this proposed determination would not 
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review 
most disseminations of information to the public under information 
quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general 
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 
(Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 
(Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving 
Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE 
published updated guidelines which are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has 
reviewed this NOPD under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded 
that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    E.O. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly 
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 
2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') at OMB, a Statement of 
Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A 
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency 
that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final 
rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive 
Order 12866, or any successor Executive Order; and (2) is likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of

[[Page 67997]]

OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant 
energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse 
effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be 
implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their 
expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
    This proposed determination, which does not propose to amend energy 
conservation standards for MHLFs, is not a significant regulatory 
action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at 
OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

    On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy (``OSTP''), issued its Final Information 
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (``the Bulletin''). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 
14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information 
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is 
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential 
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The 
purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of 
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy 
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific 
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as ``scientific information 
the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear 
and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector 
decisions.'' Id. at 70 FR 2667.
    In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of 
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses 
that are typically used and has prepared a Peer Review report 
pertaining to the energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses.\7\ 
Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented 
evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and independent 
reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/scientific/business 
merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the productivity and 
management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. Because available 
data, models, and technological understanding have changed since 2007, 
DOE has engaged with the National Academy of Sciences to review DOE's 
analytical methodologies to ascertain whether modifications are needed 
to improve the Department's analyses. DOE is in the process of 
evaluating the resulting report.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review 
Report.'' 2007. Available at www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (last accessed June 26, 2023).
    \8\ The report is available at www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-of-methods-for-setting-building-and-equipment-performance-standards.
_____________________________________-

VI. Public Participation

A. Participation in the Webinar

    DOE will hold a public webinar upon receiving a request by the 
deadline identified in the DATES section at the beginning of this 
proposed determination. Interested persons may submit their request for 
the public webinar to the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7d3035313b4f4d4f4f2e29394d4d4f4e3d181853191218531a120b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="337e7b7f7501030101606777030301007356561d575c561d545c45">[email protected]</span></a>. 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#96d7e6e6fafff7f8f5f3c5e2f7f8f2f7e4f2e5c7e3f3e5e2fff9f8e5d6f3f3b8f2f9f3b8f1f9e0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="da9baaaab6b3bbb4b9bf89aebbb4bebba8bea98bafbfa9aeb3b5b4a99abfbff4beb5bff4bdb5ac">[email protected]</span></a>. Persons who wish to speak 
should include with their request a computer file in WordPerfect, 
Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that briefly describes 
the nature of their interest in this proposed determination and the 
topics they wish to discuss. Such persons should also provide a daytime 
telephone number where they can be reached.
    DOE requests persons selected to make an oral presentation to 
submit an advance copy of their statements at least 2 weeks before the 
webinar. At its discretion, DOE may permit persons who cannot supply an 
advance copy of their statement to participate, if those persons have 
made advance alternative arrangements with the Building Technologies 
Office. As necessary, requests to give an oral presentation should ask 
for such alternative arrangements.

C. Conduct of the Webinar

    DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar/public 
meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. 
The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, 
but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 
U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the 
proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to 
schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures 
governing the conduct of the webinar/public meeting. There shall not be 
discussion of proprietary information, costs or prices, market share, 
or other commercial matters regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After 
the webinar/public meeting and until the end of the comment period, 
interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings and 
any aspect of the proposed determination.
    The webinar/public meeting will be conducted in an informal, 
conference style. DOE will present summaries of comments received 
before the webinar/public meeting, allow time for prepared general 
statements by participants, and encourage all interested parties to 
share their views on issues affecting this proposed determination. Each 
participant will be allowed to make a general statement (within time 
limits determined by DOE), before the discussion of specific topics. 
DOE will permit, as time permits, other participants to comment briefly 
on any general statements.
    At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit 
participants to clarify their statements briefly. Participants should 
be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants 
concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of 
participants concerning other matters relevant to this proposed 
determination. The official conducting the webinar/public meeting will 
accept additional comments or questions from those attending, as time 
permits. The presiding official will announce any further procedural 
rules or modification of the above procedures that may be needed for 
the proper conduct of the webinar/public meeting.
    A transcript of the webinar/public meeting will be included in the 
docket, which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the 
beginning of this NOPD. In addition, any person may buy

[[Page 67998]]

a copy of the transcript from the transcribing reporter.

D. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed determination no later than the date provided in the DATES 
section at the beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may 
submit comments, data, and other information using any of the methods 
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.
    Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The 
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE 
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be 
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization 
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your 
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, 
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your 
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable 
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to 
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first 
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, 
and any documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which 
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as 
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted 
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received 
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information 
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential 
Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being 
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed 
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several 
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via 
email also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 
your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not 
include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, 
provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first 
and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing 
address. With this instruction followed, the cover letter will not be 
publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail 
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if 
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. 
No faxes will be accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any 
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or 
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the 
electronic signature of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#82cfcacec4b0b2b0b0d1d6c6b2b2b0b1c2e7e7ace6ede7ace5edf4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ca8782868cf8faf8f8999e8efafaf8f98aafafe4aea5afe4ada5bc">[email protected]</span></a> 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>