Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 35925 

of NRC-approved cask designs in 

§ 72.214 as Certificate of Compliance 

No. 1015. 

IV. Plain Writing 

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. 

L. 111–274) requires Federal agencies to 

write documents in a clear, concise, 

well-organized manner. The NRC has 

written this document to be consistent 

with the Plain Writing Act as well as the 

Presidential Memorandum, ‘‘Plain 

Language in Government Writing,’’ 

published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31885). 

The NRC requests comment on the 

proposed rule with respect to clarity 

and effectiveness of the language used. 

V. Availability of Documents 

The documents identified in the 

following table are available to 

interested persons as indicated. 

Document ADAMS 

accession No. 

Submittal of Request for NAC International NAC–UMS Universal Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1015, 

Amendment No. 9 dated July 30, 2021.

ML21222A017 

(package) 

Proposed Certificate of Compliance for NAC International NAC–UMS Universal Storage System, Certificate of Compliance 

No. 1015, Amendment No. 9.

ML21313A071 

Safety Evaluation Report for NAC International NAC–UMS Certificate of Compliance No. 1015, Amendment 9 ......................... ML21312A495 

Corrected pages B–2, B–4, and B3–2 from NAC International NAC–UMS Certificate of Compliance No. 1015, Amendment 8 

Technical Specifications (Appendix B).

ML21312A499 

Proposed Technical Specifications (Appendix A) for NAC International NAC–UMS Certificate of Compliance No. 1015, 

Amendment 9.

ML21312A501 

Proposed Technical Specifications (Appendix B) for NAC International NAC–UMS Certificate of Compliance No. 1015, 

Amendment 9.

ML21312A500 

User Need Memorandum for forwarding Certificate of Compliance, Technical Specifications and Safety Evaluation Report for 

NAC International NAC–UMS Certificate of Compliance No. 1015, Amendment 9.

ML21312A488 

The NRC may post materials related 

to this document, including public 

comments, on the Federal rulemaking 

website at https://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket ID NRC–2022–0049. In 

addition, the Federal rulemaking 

website allows members of the public to 

receive alerts when changes or additions 

occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: 

(1) Navigate to the docket folder (NRC– 

2022–0049); (2) click the ‘‘Subscribe’’ 

link; and (3) enter an email address and 

click on the ‘‘Subscribe’’ link. 

Dated: June 1, 2022. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Daniel H. Dorman, 

Executive Director for Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2022–12745 Filed 6–13–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[EERE–2022–BT–STD–0017] 

RIN 1904–AF41 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Miscellaneous Gas Products 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’ or ‘‘the Department’’) is 

initiating an effort to evaluate the 

potential for energy conservation 

standards for consumer miscellaneous 

gas products. DOE published a proposed 

coverage determination for these 

products in the Federal Register on 

February 7, 2022. This request for 

information (‘‘RFI’’) solicits information 

from the public to help DOE determine 

whether potential standards for 

miscellaneous gas products would 

result in significant energy savings and 

whether such standards would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, information 

which will prove useful in the event 

DOE moves forward with a final 

coverage determination. As part of this 

RFI and to aid in the Department’s 

evaluation, DOE seeks comment on the 

market for these products and 

technologies to improve their energy 

efficiency or reduce their energy 

consumption. DOE also welcomes 

written comments from the public on 

any subject within the scope of this 

document (including topics not 

specifically raised), as well as the 

submission of data and other relevant 

information. 

DATES: Written comments and 

information are requested and will be 

accepted on or before July 14, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov, under docket 

number EERE–2022–BT–STD–0017. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. Alternatively, interested 

persons may submit comments, 

identified by docket number EERE– 

2022–BT–STD–0017 and/or RIN 1904– 

AF41, by any of the following methods: 

(1) Email: 

MscGasProds2022STD0017@ee.doe.gov. 

Include docket number EERE–2022–BT– 

STD–0017 and/or RIN 1904–AF41 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 

III of this document. 

Docket: The docket for this activity, 

which includes Federal Register 

notices, 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 not be publicly available, such as 

those containing information that is 

exempt from public disclosure. 

The docket web page can be found at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2022-BT-STD-0017. The docket web 

page contains instructions on how to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
35926 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 

reflects 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. 

3A terawatt is a unit of power equal to one 

trillion watts. 

access all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. See section III 

for information on how to submit 

comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ms. Julia Hegarty, 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. Telephone: (240) 597– 

6737. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–5827. Email: 

Eric.Stas@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. Introduction 

A. Authority and Background 

B. Rulemaking Process 

C. Deviation From Appendix A 

II. Request for Information and Comments 

A. Products Addressed by This Process 

B. Test Procedure 

C. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. Product Classes 

2. Technology Assessment 

D. Screening Analysis 

E. Engineering Analysis 

1. Efficiency Analysis 

2. Cost Analysis 

F. Markup Analysis 

G. Energy Use Analysis 

H. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

1. Installation Costs 

2. Energy Prices 

3. Repair and Maintenance Costs 

4. Product Lifetime 

5. No-New-Standards Case Efficiency 

Distribution 

I. Shipments Analysis 

J. National Impact Analysis 

K. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

III. Submission of Comments 

I. Introduction 

A. Authority and Background 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’),1 Public Law 

94–163 (42 U.S.C. 6291–6317, as 

codified) authorizes DOE to regulate the 

energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. Title III, Part B2

of EPCA established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 

U.S.C. 6291–6309) 

The energy conservation program 

under EPCA consists essentially of four 

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

In addition to specifying a list of 

covered residential products and 

commercial/industrial equipment, 

EPCA, as amended, contains provisions 

that enable the Secretary of Energy to 

classify additional types of consumer 

products as covered products. (42 U.S.C. 

6292(a)(20)) Specifically, for a given 

product to be classified as a covered 

product, the Secretary must determine 

that: 

(1) Classifying the product as a covered 

product is necessary or appropriate for 

carrying out the purposes of EPCA; and 

(2) The average annual per-household 

energy use by products of such type is likely 

to exceed 100 kilowatt-hours (‘‘kWh’’) (or its 

British thermal unit (‘‘Btu’’) equivalent) per 

year. 

(42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1)(A) and (B)) 

The Secretary may prescribe an 

energy conservation standard pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20) and (b)(1), 

provided that such standard meets the 

requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and 

(p), and the Secretary must also 

determine that: 

(1) The average per-household energy use 

within the United States of the type (or class) 

of products has exceeded 150 kWh (or its Btu 

equivalent) per household for any prior 12- 

month period; 

(2) The aggregate 12-month household 

energy use of the type (or class) of products 

has exceeded 4.2 terawatt-hours 3 (or its Btu 

equivalent); 

(3) Substantial improvement in energy 

efficiency of products in such type (or class) 

is technologically feasible; and 

(4) Application of a labeling rule under 42 

U.S.C. 6294 is unlikely to be sufficient to 

induce manufacturers to produce, and 

consumers and other persons to purchase, 

covered products of such type (or class) that 

achieve the maximum energy efficiency that 

is technologically feasible and economically 

justified. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1)(A)–(D)) 

On February 7, 2022, DOE published 

in the Federal Register a notice of 

proposed determination (‘‘NOPD’’) of 

miscellaneous gas products (‘‘MGPs’’) as 

a covered consumer product (‘‘February 

2022 NOPD’’). 87 FR 6786. As proposed 

in the February 2022 NOPD, 

‘‘miscellaneous gas products’’ are 

comprised of decorative hearths and 

outdoor heaters, the definitions for 

which are discussed in section II.A of 

this document. In the February 2022 

NOPD, DOE presented its preliminary 

findings relating to the energy use of 

MGPs to determine whether they could 

be classified as a type of covered 

product under the requirements of 42 

U.S.C. 6292(b)(1)(A) and (B). 87 FR 

6786, 6790–9792 (Feb. 7, 2022). DOE 

also stated that it would determine if 

MGPs satisfy the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 

6295(l)(1), if DOE proceeds with a 

rulemaking to establish energy 

conservation standards for said 

products. Id. at 87 FR 6788. 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing new or amended 

energy conservation standards for 

covered products. Any new or amended 

standard for a covered product must be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that 

the Secretary of Energy determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A) and (3)(B)) Furthermore, 

DOE may not adopt any standard that 

would not result in the significant 

conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)) 

Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a 

standard: (1) for certain products if no 

test procedure has been established for 

the product, or (2) if DOE determines by 

rule that the standard is not 

technologically feasible or economically 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)–(B)) 

In deciding whether a proposed 

standard is economically justified, DOE 

must determine whether the benefits of 

the standard exceed its burdens. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make 

this determination after receiving views 

and comments on the proposed 

standard, and by considering, to the 

greatest extent practicable, the following 

seven factors: 

(1) The economic impact of the standard 

on the manufacturers and consumers of the 

products subject to the standard; 

(2) The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of the 

covered products in the type (or class) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 35927 

4Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for 

Consideration in New or Revised Energy 

Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for 

Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial 

Equipment, 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021). 

5See Executive Order 14008, ‘‘Tackling the 

Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,’’ 86 FR 7619 

(Feb. 1, 2021). 

compared to any increase in the price, initial 

charges, or maintenance expenses for the 

covered products that are likely to result 

from the standard; 

(3) The total projected amount of energy (or 

as applicable, water) savings likely to result 

directly from the standard; 

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the products likely to result 

from the standard; 

(5) The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General, that is likely to result from 

the standard; 

(6) The need for national energy and water 

conservation; and 

(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy 

considers relevant. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII)) 

Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable 

presumption that a standard is 

economically justified if the Secretary 

finds that the additional cost to the 

consumer of purchasing a product 

complying with an energy conservation 

standard level will be less than three 

times the value of the energy savings 

during the first year that the consumer 

will receive as a result of the standard, 

as calculated under the applicable test 

procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) 

EPCA also contains what is known as 

an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ provision, which 

prevents the Secretary from prescribing 

any amended standard that either 

increases the maximum allowable 

energy use or decreases the minimum 

required energy efficiency of a covered 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the 

Secretary may not prescribe an amended 

or new standard if interested persons 

have established by a preponderance of 

the evidence that the standard is likely 

to result in the unavailability in the 

United States in any covered product 

type (or class) of performance 

characteristics (including reliability), 

features, sizes, capacities, and volumes 

that are substantially the same as those 

generally available in the United States. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) 

Additionally, EPCA specifies 

requirements when promulgating an 

energy conservation standard for a 

covered product that has two or more 

subcategories that warrant separate 

product classes and energy conservation 

standards with a level of energy 

efficiency or energy use either higher or 

lower than that which would apply for 

such group of covered products which 

have the same function or intended use. 

DOE must specify a different standard 

level for a type or class of products that 

has the same function or intended use, 

if DOE determines that products within 

such group: (A) consume a different 

kind of energy from that consumed by 

other covered products within such type 

(or class); or (B) 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)) In determining whether 

capacity or another performance-related 

feature justifies a different standard for 

a group of products, DOE must consider 

such factors as the utility to the 

consumer of the feature and other 

factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any 

rule prescribing such a standard must 

include an explanation of the basis on 

which such higher or lower level was 

established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) 

Finally, 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)) 

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for covered products 

established under EPCA generally 

supersede State laws and regulations 

concerning energy conservation testing, 

labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6297(a)–(c)) DOE may, however, grant 

waivers of Federal preemption in 

limited circumstances for particular 

State laws or regulations, in accordance 

with the procedures and other 

provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) 

There are not currently any energy 

conservation standards for MGPs, but as 

discussed, DOE has proposed to 

determine that MGPs are a covered 

product. 87 FR 6786 (Feb. 7, 2022). The 

February 2022 NOPD addresses MGPs, 

which are consumer products 

comprising: (1) Those hearth products 

that are not direct heating equipment 

(‘‘DHE’’) (i.e., those hearth products that 

are indoor or outdoor decorative hearth 

products), and (2) outdoor heaters. Id. at 

87 FR 6788. Previous rulemaking 

history related to these products is 

discussed in section II of the February 

2022 NOPD. Id. at 87 FR 6787–6788. 

Were DOE to ultimately determine that 

MGPs are a covered product, DOE 

would then consider whether to 

establish energy conservation standards 

for MGPs subject to the criteria in EPCA. 

DOE is publishing this RFI to collect 

data and information to inform its 

decision consistent with its obligations 

under EPCA. 

B. Rulemaking Process 

As discussed previously, DOE must 

follow specific statutory criteria for 

prescribing new or amended energy 

conservation standards for covered 

products. EPCA requires that any new 

or amended energy conservation 

standard prescribed by the Secretary of 

Energy (‘‘Secretary’’) shall be designed 

to achieve the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency (or for certain 

products specified by EPCA, water 

efficiency) that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE 

may not adopt any standard that would 

not result in the significant conservation 

of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

Particularly in light of the climate 

crisis, the significance of energy savings 

offered by a new or amended energy 

conservation standard cannot be 

determined without knowledge of the 

specific circumstances surrounding a 

given rulemaking.4 For example, the 

United States has now rejoined the Paris 

Agreement on February 19, 2021. As 

part of that agreement, the United States 

has committed to reducing greenhouse 

gas (‘‘GHG’’) emissions in order to limit 

the rise in mean global temperature.5 As 

such, energy savings that reduce GHG 

emissions have taken on greater 

importance. Additionally, some covered 

products and equipment have most of 

their energy consumption occur during 

periods of peak energy demand. The 

impacts of these products on the energy 

infrastructure can be more pronounced 

than products with relatively constant 

demand. In evaluating the significance 

of energy savings, DOE considers 

differences in primary energy and FFC 

effects for different covered products 

and equipment when determining 

whether energy savings are significant. 

Primary energy and FFC effects include 

the energy consumed in electricity 

production (depending on load shape), 

in distribution and transmission, and in 

extracting, processing, and transporting 

primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, 

petroleum fuels), and thus present a 

more complete picture of the impacts of 

energy conservation standards. 

Accordingly, DOE evaluates the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
35928 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

6On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of 

Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the Federal 

government’s emergency motion for stay pending 

appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary 

injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv– 

1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth 

Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no 

longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal 

government’s appeal of that injunction or a further 

court order. Among other things, the preliminary 

injunction enjoined the defendants in that case 

from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or 

relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social 

cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the 

Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to 

monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions. In the absence of further intervening 

court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior 

to the injunction and present monetized benefits 

where appropriate and permissible under law. 

significance of energy savings on a caseby-case basis. 

To determine whether a proposed 

new or amended energy conservation 

standard is economically justified, 

EPCA requires that DOE determine 

whether the benefits of the standard 

exceed its burdens by considering, to 

the greatest extent practicable, the 

following seven factors: 

(1) The economic impact of the standard 

on the manufacturers and consumers of the 

affected products subject to the standard; 

(2) The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of the 

covered product in the type (or class) 

compared to any increases in the price, 

initial charges, or maintenance expenses for 

the covered products that are likely to result 

from the standard; 

(3) The total projected amount of energy (or 

as applicable, water) savings likely to result 

directly from the standard; 

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the products likely to result 

directly from the standard; 

(5) The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General, that is likely to result from 

the standard; 

(6) The need for national energy and water 

conservation; and 

(7) Other factors the Secretary considers 

relevant. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII)) 

DOE fulfills these and other 

applicable requirements by conducting 

a series of analyses throughout the 

rulemaking process. Table I.1 shows the 

individual analyses that are performed 

to satisfy each of the requirements 

within EPCA. 

TABLE I.1—EPCA REQUIREMENTS AND CORRESPONDING DOE ANALYSIS

EPCA requirement Corresponding DOE analysis 

Significant Energy Savings .................................................................................................... • Shipments Analysis. 

• National Impact Analysis. 

• Energy and Water Use Analysis. 

Technological Feasibility ........................................................................................................ • Market and Technology Assessment. 

• Screening Analysis. 

• Engineering Analysis. 

Economic Justification: 

1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers ................................................ • Manufacturer Impact Analysis. 

• Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis. 

• Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis. 

• Shipments Analysis. 

2. Lifetime Operating Cost Savings Compared to Increased Cost for the Product ....... • Markups for Product Price Analysis. 

• Energy and Water Use Analysis. 

• Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis. 

3. Total Projected Energy Savings ................................................................................. • Shipments Analysis. 

• National Impact Analysis. 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance ................................................................................ • Screening Analysis. 

• Engineering Analysis. 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition ................................................................... • Manufacturer Impact Analysis. 

6. Need for National Energy and Water Conservation .................................................. • Shipments Analysis. 

• National Impact Analysis. 

7. Other Factors the Secretary Considers Relevant ...................................................... • Employment Impact Analysis. 

• Utility Impact Analysis. 

• Emissions Analysis. 

• Monetization of Emission Reductions Benefits.6

• Regulatory Impact Analysis. 

As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE 

is publishing this document seeking 

input and data from interested parties to 

aid in the development of the technical 

analyses on which DOE would 

ultimately rely to determine whether 

(and if so, how) to adopt energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

MGPs. 

C. Deviation From Appendix A 

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 

CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A 

(‘‘appendix A’’), ‘‘Procedures, 

Interpretations, and Policies for 

Consideration of New or Revised Energy 

Conservation Standards and Test 

Procedures for Consumer Products and 

Certain Commercial/Industrial 

Equipment,’’ DOE notes that it is 

deviating from that appendix’s 

provision that DOE will publish its final 

coverage determination prior to the 

initiation of any energy conservation 

standards rulemaking. 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart C, appendix A, section 5(c). 

DOE finds it appropriate to deviate from 

this step because DOE believes that 

providing an opportunity for comment 

on potential energy conservation 

standards prior to a final coverage 

determination for MGPs allows 

stakeholders an earlier opportunity to 

provide comment, information, and data 

that may help inform DOE’s priority 

setting. DOE also notes that in the notice 

of proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 7, 2021, DOE proposed to amend 

appendix A, in relevant part, by 

eliminating the requirement that 

coverage determination rulemakings 

must be finalized prior to initiation of 

a test procedure or energy conservation 

standard rulemaking. 86 FR 35668, 

35672. DOE explained that the coverage 

determination, test procedure, and 

energy conservation standard 

rulemakings are interdependent and 

that a coverage determination defines 

the product/equipment scope for which 

DOE can establish test procedure and 

energy conservation standards. It also 

signals that inclusion of the consumer 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 35929 

7EPCA states, in relevant part, that an amended 

or new standard may not be adopted if a test 

procedure has not been established for the relevant 

product type or class. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)) 

However, in certain cases, EPCA also authorizes 

energy conservation standards that by nature would 

not require a test procedure (i.e., design 

requirements). (42 U.S.C. 6291(6)(B)) Additionally, 

EPCA requires use of the test procedures and 

criteria prescribed in 42 U.S.C. 6293, except for 

design standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) EPCA also 

states that a test procedure need not be prescribed 

if one cannot be designed to reasonably measure 

energy efficiency, energy use, water use, or annual 

operating cost, and not be unduly burdensome to 

conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(d)(1)) EPCA requires that 

a determination be published in the Federal 

Register providing justification in such case. Id. 

product is necessary to carry out the 

purpose of EPCA (i.e., to conserve 

energy and/or water). In order to make 

this determination, DOE needs to 

consider whether energy conservation 

standards can be established for the 

consumer product. If DOE cannot 

prescribe energy conservation standards 

that result in significant energy savings 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), then making a 

coverage determination is not necessary 

as it will not result in the conservation 

of energy. Thus, it is important that DOE 

be able to gather information and 

provide stakeholders an opportunity to 

comment and provide information and 

data pertinent to test procedure and 

energy conservation standard 

rulemakings, during the course of DOE 

conducting its coverage determination 

rulemaking. Id. 

DOE further notes that it is deviating 

from that appendix’s provision 

requiring a 75-day comment period for 

all pre-NOPR rulemaking documents for 

standards. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, 

appendix A, section 6(d)(2). DOE finds 

it appropriate to deviate from this 

provision and to instead provide a 30- 

day comment period for this RFI. DOE 

believes that 30 days is sufficient time 

to respond to this initial rulemaking 

document, as DOE already requested 

information on the MGP market in the 

February 2022 NOPD. See 87 FR 6786, 

6794–6795 (Feb. 7, 2022). Market 

information developed and reviewed for 

the February 2022 NOPD would provide 

the basis for responses to the requests in 

this RFI. A 30-day comment period will 

also allow DOE to review comments 

received in response to this document 

before finalizing its coverage 

determination, thereby assisting the 

Department by helping inform its 

decisions regarding prioritizing any 

potential rulemakings for MGPs in light 

of its other on-going rulemakings and 

statutory requirements. 

II. Request for Information and 

Comments 

In the following sections, DOE has 

identified a variety of issues on which 

it seeks input to aid in the development 

of the technical and economic analyses 

regarding whether establishing energy 

conservation standards for MGPs may 

be warranted. 

A. Products Addressed by This Process 

This RFI addresses those products 

that meet the definition of MGPs as 

proposed in the February 2022 NOPD. 

87 FR 6786, 6788 (Feb. 7, 2022). More 

specifically, MGPs are consumer 

products comprising: (1) hearth 

products that are not DHE (i.e., hearth 

products that are indoor or outdoor 

decorative hearth products) and (2) 

outdoor heaters. Id. Further, the 

proposed definitions of ‘‘decorative 

hearth product’’ and ‘‘outdoor heater’’ 

are as follows: 

Decorative hearth product means a gasfired appliance that: 

(1) Simulates a solid-fueled fireplace or 

presents a flame pattern; 

(2) Includes products designed for indoor 

use, outdoor use, or either indoor or outdoor 

use; 

(3) Is not designed to be operated with a 

thermostat; 

(4) For products designed for indoor use, 

is not designed to provide space heating to 

the space in which it is installed; and 

(5) For products designed for outdoor use, 

is not designed to provide heat proximate to 

the unit. 

Outdoor heater means a gas-fired appliance 

designed for use in outdoor spaces only, and 

which is designed to provide heat proximate 

to the unit. 

87 FR 6786, 6790 (Feb. 7, 2022). 

DOE requests comment on whether 

the proposed definitions for 

‘‘miscellaneous gas products,’’ 

‘‘decorative hearth product,’’ and/or 

‘‘outdoor heater’’ require any revisions, 

and if so, how those definitions should 

be revised. 

DOE requests comment on whether 

additional product definitions are 

necessary to close any potential gaps in 

coverage between product types. DOE 

also seeks input on whether such 

products currently exist in the market or 

whether they are being planned for 

introduction. 

In addition, DOE notes that this RFI 

does not address electric or oil-fired 

products, which were also not included 

in the February 2022 NOPD. DOE has 

tentatively determined that there is little 

opportunity for additional energy 

savings for these products, as they do 

not use standing pilot ignition systems. 

B. Test Procedure 

EPCA defines ‘‘energy conservation 

standard’’ as a performance standard 

which prescribes a minimum level of 

energy efficiency or a maximum 

quantity of energy use; or for certain 

enumerated covered products, including 

products for which the Secretary has 

made a determination to classify them 

as covered products, a design 

requirement. (42 U.S.C. 6291(6)) EPCA 

requires that test procedures used to 

evaluate compliance with a performance 

standard be reasonably designed to 

produce test results which measure 

energy efficiency, energy use, or 

estimated annual operating cost of a 

covered product during a representative 

average use cycle or period of use, as 

determined by the Secretary, and not be 

unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) 7

As proposed to be defined, decorative 

hearth products simulate a solid-fuel 

fireplace and/or present an aesthetic 

flame pattern, and are not designed to 

heat the space in which they are used. 

Given the aesthetic nature of decorative 

hearth products and the subjective 

nature of the aesthetic value, DOE has 

tentatively determined that establishing 

a performance based-test procedure that 

meets the statutory criteria would not be 

possible. Instead, a design requirement 

may be better-suited to improve 

efficiency without impacting or altering 

the aesthetic appeal of these products. 

Similarly, as proposed to be defined, 

outdoor heaters are gas-fired appliances 

designed for use in outdoor spaces only, 

and which are designed to provide heat 

proximate to the units. The aesthetic 

nature of many outdoor heaters is an 

important part of the value they 

provide, with some designs featuring a 

prominent flame (although others have 

little or no visible flame). Although the 

use of certain technology options may 

reduce the energy consumption of 

outdoor heaters under a performancebased standard, DOE is not currently 

aware of any design options that would 

offer significant energy savings other 

than removal of a standing pilot ignition 

system (if present). Therefore, for 

simplicity, DOE is tentatively 

considering all outdoor heaters to be in 

a single product class. Further, DOE 

expects that a design requirement may 

be better-suited than a performance 

requirement to improve efficiency 

without impacting or altering the 

aesthetic appeal of outdoor heaters. 

Therefore, DOE is considering 

whether a prescriptive design 

requirement would be appropriate for 

MGPs. Specifically, as discussed in this 

section and later sections, DOE is 

seeking information regarding a possible 

design standard regarding the use of a 

continuously-burning pilot light in 

these products. Because the potential 

energy conservation standard being 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
35930 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

8The February 2015 NOPR was issued 

subsequent to publication in the Federal Register 

of a proposed determination of coverage for ‘‘hearth 

products.’’ 78 FR 79638 (Dec. 31, 2013; ‘‘December 

2013 NOPD’’). In the December 2013 NOPD, DOE 

proposed to define ‘‘hearth product’’ as a gas-fired 

appliance that simulates a solid-fueled fireplace or 

presents a flame pattern (for aesthetics or other 

purpose) and that may provide space heating 

directly to the space in which it is installed. Id. at 

78 FR 79640. On March 31, 2017, DOE withdrew 

the December 2013 NOPD and the February 2015 

NOPR in the bi-annual publication of the DOE 

Regulatory Agenda. 82 FR 40270, 40274 (August 24, 

2017). 

9An ‘‘on demand’’ ignition system includes a 

pilot light that burns continuously as long as the 

main burner is operated at least once within a preprogrammed period of time (e.g., 7 days) and a 

control system that shuts off the pilot light if the 

main burner is not operated within the preset time 

period. 

investigated at this time is a design 

requirement and not a performance 

standard (i.e., minimum efficiency or 

maximum energy consumption), DOE is 

not currently planning to develop or 

evaluate a potential test procedure. 

DOE requests comment on whether a 

test procedure and performance metric 

that meets the EPCA criteria would be 

feasible for decorative hearth products 

and/or outdoor heaters. If so, DOE 

requests comment on the potential 

performance metric(s) and testing 

method(s) that would be appropriate. 

C. Market and Technology Assessment 

The market and technology 

assessment that DOE routinely conducts 

when analyzing the impacts of a 

potential new or amended energy 

conservation standard provides 

information about the MGP industry 

that would be used in DOE’s analysis 

throughout the rulemaking process. 

DOE uses qualitative and quantitative 

assessments to characterize the structure 

of the industry and market, based upon 

publicly-available information. The 

subjects addressed in this market and 

technology assessment include: (1) a 

determination of the scope of the 

rulemaking and product classes; (2) 

manufacturers and industry structure; 

(3) industry market shares and trends; 

(4) existing regulatory and nonregulatory initiatives intended to 

improve energy efficiency or reduce 

energy consumption; (5) shipments 

information; and (6) technologies or 

design options that could improve the 

energy efficiency of MGPs. DOE also 

reviews product literature, industry 

publications, and company websites. 

Additionally, DOE considers conducting 

interviews with manufacturers to 

improve its assessment of the market 

and available technologies for MGPs. 

1. Product Classes 

When evaluating and establishing 

energy conservation standards, DOE 

may divide covered products into 

product classes by the type of energy 

used, or by capacity or other 

performance-related features that justify 

a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)) In making a determination 

whether a performance-related feature 

justifies a different standard, DOE must 

consider such factors as the utility of the 

feature to the consumer and other 

factors DOE deems appropriate. (Id.) 

For MGPs, there are no energy 

conservation standards. As noted in 

section I.A of this document, DOE 

published a proposed determination to 

establish MGPs as a covered consumer 

product in the Federal Register on 

February 7, 2022. 87 FR 6786. If DOE 

issues a final determination of coverage 

for MGPs, as discussed in section II.A of 

this document, the proposed scope of 

coverage for MGPs would include 

decorative hearth products and outdoor 

heaters. A wide range of decorative 

hearth products are available on the 

market, including, for example, gas log 

sets, gas fire pits, gas stoves, and gas 

fireplace inserts. Decorative hearth 

products may be used indoors or 

outdoors. Outdoor heaters are gas-fired 

products that heat the area proximate to 

the heater and that are designed to be 

used outdoors. Id. at 87 FR 6788. Were 

DOE to propose energy conservation 

standards for MGPs, DOE would 

consider whether any type of such 

products has a capacity or other 

performance-related feature that justifies 

a different standard. 

DOE requests feedback on whether 

certain decorative hearth products and/ 

or outdoor heaters have a capacity or 

other performance-related feature 

providing unique consumer utility that 

impacts energy use of the product. If so, 

DOE requests information and data 

detailing the customer utility of such a 

feature and the corresponding impacts 

on energy use that would justify 

separate product classes (i.e., 

explanation for why the presence of 

these performance-related features 

would increase energy consumption). 

2. Technology Assessment 

In analyzing the feasibility of 

potential new or amended energy 

conservation standards, DOE uses 

information about existing and past 

technology options and working 

prototype designs to help identify 

technologies that manufacturers could 

use to meet and/or exceed a given set of 

energy conservation standards under 

consideration. In consultation with 

interested parties, DOE intends to 

develop a list of technologies to 

consider in its analysis. That analysis 

may include a number of the technology 

options DOE previously considered as 

part of an energy conservation standards 

NOPR for certain products proposed to 

be defined as ‘‘hearth products’’ 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 9, 2015 (‘‘the February 2015 

NOPR’’), as well as technologies 

identified by stakeholders in response to 

that NOPR.8 80 FR 7082. The products 

evaluated in the February 2015 NOPR 

included certain products that would be 

covered under the currently proposed 

definition of MGPs. Id. Certain of those 

prior technology options that DOE 

identified in the February 2015 NOPR 

(see 80 FR 7082, 7095 (Feb. 9, 2015)) 

and that may be applicable to MGPs 

appear in Table II.1 of this document. In 

addition to the technology options 

previously identified by DOE, 

stakeholders identified ‘‘on demand’’ 

pilot ignition systems as a potential 

alternative to traditional standing pilot 

ignitions.9 The February 2015 NOPR 

covered hearth heaters in addition to 

decorative hearths and outdoor hearths, 

and, therefore, some of the technology 

options considered in that analysis may 

not be appropriate for MGPs. 

Additionally, as discussed in section 0 

of this document, DOE is currently 

considering whether a prescriptive 

design requirement would be 

appropriate for MGPs, and, therefore, 

some technologies considered in the 

February 2015 NOPR analysis were not 

included in Table II.1 of this document 

because they related to the product’s 

active mode power consumption. 

TABLE II.1—POTENTIAL TECHNOLOGY

OPTIONS

Optimized air-to-fuel ratio. 

Optimized burner port design. 

Improved simulated log design. 

Improved pan burner media/bead type. 

Reflective walls and/or other components inside 

combustion zone. 

Electronic ignition. 

DOE seeks information on the 

technologies listed in Table II.1 of this 

document regarding their applicability 

to the current market and how these 

technologies might potentially impact 

the energy efficiency and/or energy use 

of decorative hearth products and 

outdoor heaters. DOE also seeks 

information on how these technologies 

may have changed since they were 

considered in the February 2015 NOPR 

analysis. Specifically, DOE seeks 

information on the range of efficiencies 

or performance characteristics that are 

currently available for each technology 

option. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 35931 

DOE also seeks comment on any other 

technology options that it should 

consider for inclusion in its analysis, 

such as ‘‘on demand’’ pilot ignition 

systems, and whether these technologies 

might impact product features or 

consumer utility of decorative hearth 

products and outdoor heaters. 

D. Screening Analysis 

The purpose of the screening analysis 

is to further evaluate the technologies 

with the potential to improve 

equipment efficiency to determine 

which technologies should be 

eliminated from further consideration 

and which ones should proceed to the 

engineering analysis for further 

consideration in the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking. 

DOE determines whether to eliminate 

certain technology options from further 

consideration based on the following 

five screening criteria: 

(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. 

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 

sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b). 

Technology options identified in the 

technology assessment are evaluated 

against these criteria using DOE 

analyses and inputs from interested 

parties (e.g., manufacturers, trade 

organizations, and energy efficiency 

advocates). Technologies that pass 

through the screening analysis are 

referred to as ‘‘design options’’ in the 

engineering analysis. Technology 

options that fail to meet one or more of 

the five criteria are eliminated from 

further consideration. 

DOE requests feedback on what 

impact, if any, the five screening criteria 

described in this section would have 

when applied to each of the technology 

options listed in Table II.1 of this 

document pertaining to decorative 

hearth products and outdoor heaters. 

Similarly, DOE seeks information 

regarding the effect these same criteria 

would have when applied to any other 

technology options not already 

identified in this document with respect 

to their potential use in decorative 

hearth products and/or outdoor heaters. 

E. Engineering Analysis 

The purpose of the engineering 

analysis is to establish the relationship 

between the efficiency (or energy use) 

and cost of consumer MGPs. There are 

two elements to consider in the 

engineering analysis: (1) the selection of 

efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the 

‘‘efficiency analysis’’) and (2) the 

determination of product cost at each 

efficiency level (i.e., the ‘‘cost 

analysis’’). In determining the 

performance of higher-efficiency 

products, DOE considers technologies 

and design option combinations not 

eliminated by the screening analysis. 

For each product class, DOE estimates 

the baseline cost (i.e., the manufacturer 

production cost (‘‘MPC’’), as well as the 

incremental cost for the product 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 

period (‘‘PBP’’) analyses and the 

national impact analysis (‘‘NIA’’)). The 

following sections provide further detail 

on DOE’s engineering analysis and seek 

public input on specific issues pertinent 

to consumer miscellaneous gas 

products, the subject of this rulemaking. 

In the analysis accompanying the 

February 2015 NOPR, which included 

consideration of decorative hearth 

products, DOE focused its engineering 

analysis on the impacts of a prescriptive 

design requirement that would remove 

the standing pilot ignition system and 

replace it with a system that does not 

use a continuously-burning pilot. 80 FR 

7082, 7097 (Feb. 9, 2015). 

In the February 2015 NOPR analysis 

for hearth products, which included 

decorative hearths and outdoor hearths, 

as well as hearth heaters (which DOE is 

considering in a separate rulemaking 

proceeding as a category of DHE 

products), DOE used the design option 

approach (described further in section 

II.E.1 of this document) by selecting 

hearth models that represented a range 

of hearth configurations (e.g., vented 

fireplaces, vented fireplace inserts, 

unvented fireplace inserts, vented gas 

log sets, and unvented gas log sets). In 

light of the analytical focus on a 

prescriptive design requirement related 

to standby mode energy consumption, 

representative models were chosen that 

would allow a direct comparison 

between standing pilot and electronic 

ignition systems. DOE then used the 

cost assessment approach by gathering 

additional information using reverseengineering methodologies, product 

information from manufacturer catalogs 

and manuals, and discussions with 

manufacturers and other experts on 

hearth products. Id. at 80 FR 7096. DOE 

assumed that, should standing pilot 

ignitions be disallowed, manufacturers 

would convert standing pilot models to 

electronic ignition models rather than 

match-lit models in order to provide the 

same level of safety, comfort, and 

functionality. Id. DOE expects that a 

similar approach to the engineering 

analysis would be appropriate for 

MGPs. 

DOE seeks comment on its anticipated 

general approach to the engineering 

analysis and whether the approach used 

in the analysis for the February 2015 

NOPR would be appropriate for an 

analysis of all MGPs. 

1. Efficiency Analysis 

DOE typically uses one of two 

approaches to develop energy efficiency 

levels for the engineering analysis: (1) 

relying on observed efficiency levels in 

the market (i.e., the efficiency-level 

approach), or (2) determining the 

incremental efficiency improvements 

associated with incorporating specific 

design options to a baseline model (i.e., 

the design-option approach). Using the 

efficiency-level approach, the efficiency 

levels established for the analysis are 

determined based on the market 

distribution of existing products (in 

other words, based on the range of 

efficiencies and efficiency level 

‘‘clusters’’ that already exist on the 

market). Using the design-option 

approach, the efficiency levels 

established for the analysis are 

determined through detailed 

engineering calculations and/or 

computer simulations of the efficiency 

improvements from implementing 

specific design options that have been 

identified in the technology assessment. 

DOE may also rely on a combination of 

these two approaches. For example, the 

efficiency-level approach (based on 

actual products on the market) may be 

extended using the design-option 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
35932 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

approach to interpolate to define ‘‘gap 

fill’’ levels (to bridge large gaps between 

other identified efficiency levels) and/or 

to extrapolate to the max-tech level 

(particularly in cases where the maxtech level exceeds the maximum 

efficiency level currently available on 

the market). 

As stated previously, in the analysis 

for the February 2015 NOPR, DOE only 

considered prescriptive requirements. In 

that analysis, DOE identified electronic 

ignition as a design option that would 

be applicable to hearth products in 

standby mode. 80 FR 7082, 7097–7098 

(Feb. 9, 2015). The prior analysis only 

considered as an energy conservation 

standard a design requirement that 

would disallow the use of constantburning pilot lights. DOE expects that a 

similar approach considering a design 

requirement may be appropriate for 

MGPs in the current rulemaking. 

DOE requests feedback on whether 

any case exists of a product with a 

constant-burning pilot for which the 

ignition system cannot be replaced with 

an alternative ignition system that does 

not utilize a constant-burning pilot, and 

if so, what the specific situations are in 

which this would occur. DOE also seeks 

information as to whether other design 

options could be a viable approach to 

reducing the energy consumption of 

decorative hearth products and outdoor 

heaters, as well as where there are 

limitations on the use of certain design 

options. DOE requests feedback on any 

other existing technologies that would 

be technologically feasible, 

economically justified, and would result 

in significant energy consumption 

savings for miscellaneous gas products. 

For each product class, DOE selects a 

baseline model as a reference point 

against which any changes resulting 

from potential new or amended energy 

conservation standards can be 

measured. The baseline model in each 

product class represents the 

characteristics of common or typical 

products in that class (e.g., capacity, 

physical size). Typically, a baseline 

model is one that just meets the current 

minimum energy conservation 

standards, or if no standards are in place 

(as is the case for miscellaneous gas 

products), the baseline is generally the 

most common or least-efficient units on 

the market that provides basic consumer 

utility. In the February 2015 NOPR, 

DOE tentatively determined that the 

standing pilot ignition system 

represents the baseline design in terms 

of energy consumption for hearth 

products, to the extent such products 

were evaluated. 80 FR 7082, 7098 (Feb. 

9, 2015). 

DOE requests feedback on the 

appropriate baseline efficiency levels 

and/or designs for decorative hearth 

products and outdoor heaters. 

As part of DOE’s analysis, the 

maximum available efficiency level is 

the highest-efficiency unit currently 

available on the market. DOE defines a 

‘‘max-tech’’ efficiency level to represent 

the theoretical maximum possible 

efficiency if all available design options 

are incorporated in a model. In applying 

these design options, DOE would only 

include those that are compatible with 

each other and that when combined 

would represent the theoretical 

maximum possible efficiency. In many 

cases, the max-tech efficiency level 

differs from the maximum available 

efficiency level, because the max-tech 

design options are not economically 

feasible to implement. 

Although MGPs do not currently have 

energy conservation standards, and test 

data for both decorative hearth products 

and outdoor heaters are limited, DOE 

expects that having electronic ignition 

(including intermittent pilot ignition 

systems) would necessarily result in a 

lower energy consumption than if 

electronic ignition is not present. In the 

February 2015 NOPR, electronic 

ignition was identified as providing the 

maximum reduction in energy use 

possible. 80 FR 7082, 7098 (Feb. 9, 

2015). DOE used this as the max-tech 

design option, as it was unaware of any 

other design options on the market that 

would substantially reduce the energy 

consumption of hearth products during 

standby operation. Id. 

DOE seeks input on the max-tech 

efficiency level and/or design for 

decorative hearth products and outdoor 

heaters. Additionally, for any max-tech 

efficiency level and/or design identified 

by stakeholders, DOE also seeks input 

on whether such a max-tech efficiency 

level would be appropriate and 

technologically feasible for potential 

consideration as possible energy 

conservation standards for decorative 

hearth products and outdoor heaters, 

and if not, why not. 

2. Cost Analysis 

The cost analysis portion of the 

engineering analysis is conducted using 

one or a combination of cost 

approaches. The selection of cost 

approach depends on a suite of factors, 

including availability and reliability of 

public information, characteristics of 

the regulated product, and the 

availability and timeliness of 

purchasing the product on the market. 

The cost approaches are summarized as 

follows: 

• Physical teardowns: Under this 

approach, DOE physically dismantles a 

commercially-available product, 

component-by-component, to develop a 

detailed bill of materials (‘‘BOM’’) for 

the product. 

• Catalog teardowns: In lieu of 

physically deconstructing a product, 

DOE identifies each component using 

parts diagrams (available from 

manufacturer websites or appliance 

repair websites, for example) to develop 

the BOM for the product. 

• Price surveys: If neither a physical 

nor catalog teardown is feasible (e.g., 

tightly integrated products such as 

fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible 

to disassemble and for which parts 

diagrams are unavailable) or costprohibitive and otherwise impractical 

(e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE 

conducts price surveys using publiclyavailable pricing data published on 

major online retailer websites and/or by 

soliciting prices from distributors and 

other commercial channels. 

In the analysis for the February 2015 

NOPR, DOE performed physical 

teardowns to generate a BOM for each 

product torn down. 80 FR 7082, 7098 

(Feb. 9, 2015). DOE selected products 

for the physical teardown analysis that 

represented the most common 

configurations of products being 

analyzed, including some products that 

are now being evaluated as MGPs. In the 

analysis for the February 2015 NOPR, 

DOE conducted 14 physical teardowns 

to create a detailed BOM for each 

product type or style. Id. 

The resulting BOM provided the basis 

for the manufacturer production cost 

(‘‘MPC’’) estimates. DOE converted the 

materials and components in the BOM 

to dollar values based on the price of 

materials, average labor rates associated 

with manufacturing and assembly and 

the cost of overhead and depreciation. 

DOE then applied a cost multiplier (the 

manufacturer markup) to convert the 

MPC to manufacturer selling price 

(‘‘MSP’’). The manufacturer markup 

accounts for non-production costs (i.e., 

selling, general, and administrative 

expenses, research and development, 

and interest), along with profit. The 

resulting MSP is the price at which the 

manufacturer distributes a unit into 

commerce. The MPC and MSP were 

calculated for products utilizing 

standing pilot ignition systems and 

products utilizing intermittent pilot 

ignition systems. 80 FR 7082, 7098 (Feb. 

9, 2015). 

As described at the beginning of this 

section, the main outputs of the 

engineering analysis are cost-efficiency 

relationships that describe the estimated 

increases in MPC associated with 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 35933 

10Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/ 

EERE-2014-BT-STD-0036-0002. 

11Heating, Air Conditioning & Refrigeration 

Distributors International 2013 Profit Report 

(Available at: www.hardinet.org) (Last accessed 

March 31, 2022). 

12Air Conditioning Contractors of America 

(ACCA), Financial Analysis for the HVACR 

Contracting Industry: 2005 (Last accessed April 10, 

2013). 

13U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census 

Data (Available at: www.census.gov/econ/) (Last 

accessed March 31, 2022). 

14Sales Tax Clearinghouse, Inc. State Sales Tax 

Rates Along with Combined Average City and 

County Rates, 2013 (Available at: https://

thestc.com/STrates.stm) (Last accessed March 31, 

2022). 

higher-efficiency products for the 

analyzed product classes. For the 

February 2015 NOPR, DOE developed 

the cost-efficiency relationships by 

estimating the efficiency improvements 

and costs associated with incorporating 

an intermittent pilot ignition (i.e., an 

electronic ignition) into the assumed 

baseline model for each hearth type. Id. 

DOE requests feedback on whether, 

and if so how, manufacturers would 

incorporate the technology options 

listed in Table II.1 of this document to 

increase energy efficiency and/or reduce 

energy use in decorative hearth 

products and outdoor heaters beyond 

baseline. This includes information on 

the order in which manufacturers would 

incorporate the different technologies to 

incrementally improve the efficiencies 

of products. DOE also requests feedback 

on whether the increased energy 

efficiency would lead to other design 

changes that would not occur otherwise. 

Furthermore, DOE is interested in 

information regarding any potential 

impact of design options on a 

manufacturer’s ability to incorporate 

additional functions or attributes in 

response to consumer demand. 

DOE also seeks input on the increase 

in MPC associated with incorporating 

each particular design option. 

Specifically, DOE is interested in 

whether and how the costs estimated for 

design options presented in the 

February 2015 NOPR have changed 

since the time of that analysis. DOE also 

requests information on the investments 

necessary to incorporate specific design 

options, including, but not limited to, 

costs related to new or modified tooling 

(if any), materials, engineering and 

development efforts to implement each 

design option, and manufacturing/ 

production impacts. 

DOE requests comment on whether 

certain design options may not be 

applicable to (or incompatible with) 

specific product types. 

F. Markup Analysis 

DOE derives consumer prices based 

on manufacturer markups, retailer 

markups, distributor markups, 

contractor markups (where appropriate), 

and sales taxes. In deriving these 

markups, DOE determines the major 

distribution channels for product sales, 

the markup associated with each party 

in each distribution channel, and the 

existence and magnitude of differences 

between markups for baseline products 

(‘‘baseline markups’’) and higherefficiency products (‘‘incremental 

markups’’). The identified distribution 

channels (i.e., how the products are 

distributed from the manufacturer to the 

consumer) and estimated relative sales 

volumes through each channel are used 

in generating end-user price inputs for 

the LCC analysis and NIA. The markups 

are multipliers that are applied at each 

stage in the distribution channel for 

consumer MGPs. 

In its prior analysis, DOE analyzed 

decorative hearths and outdoor hearth 

products (which included outdoor 

fireplaces, outdoor fireplace inserts, 

outdoor fire pits, outdoor gas lamps, and 

patio heaters). (See Chapter 3 of the 

2015 NOPR TSD 10 for a detailed 

description of the products analyzed in 

that notice.) The same distribution 

channels were used for all products in 

the previous analysis. DOE utilized 

several sources including: (1) the 

Heating, Air-Conditioning & 

Refrigeration Distributors International 

(‘‘HARDI’’) 2013 Profit Report 11 to 

develop wholesaler mark-ups; (2) the 

Air Conditioning Contractors of 

America’s (‘‘ACAA’’) 2005 financial 

analysis for the heating, ventilation, airconditioning, and refrigeration 

(‘‘HVACR’’) contracting industry 12 to 

develop mechanical contractor 

markups, and (3) U.S. Census Bureau 

2007 Economic Census data 13 for the 

residential and commercial building 

construction industry to develop general 

contractor markups. 80 FR 7082, 7100 

(Feb. 9, 2015). DOE characterized two 

distribution channels to describe how 

hearth products pass from the 

manufacturer to consumers: (1) 

replacement market and (2) new 

construction. 

The replacement market channel was 

characterized as: 

Manufacturer ‰ Wholesaler ‰ 

Mechanical Contractor ‰ Consumer 

The new construction distribution 

channel was characterized as: 

Manufacturer ‰ Wholesaler ‰ 

Mechanical Contractor ‰ General 

Contractor ‰ Consumer 

Id. It is DOE’s understanding that these 

distribution channels remain in place at 

the current time in essentially the same 

form. 

For wholesalers and contractors, DOE 

developed baseline and incremental 

markups. The baseline markup relates 

the change in the MSP of baseline 

models to the change in the consumer 

purchase price. The incremental 

markup relates the change in the MSP 

of higher-efficiency models to the 

change in consumer purchase price. In 

addition to the markups, DOE derived 

State and local taxes from data provided 

by the Sales Tax Clearinghouse.14 DOE 

derived shipment-weighted-average tax 

values for each region considered in the 

analysis. Id. DOE plans to use the most 

updated versions of these data sources 

to develop mark-ups for consumer 

MGPs. 

DOE did not account for the retail 

outlets distribution channel in which 

the manufacturer sells the equipment to 

a retailer, who in turn sells it to a 

mechanical contractor, who in turn sells 

it to the consumer. DOE did not have 

sufficient data to estimate a separate 

markup for this distribution channel. 

Accordingly, DOE assumed that the 

retailer markup was similar to the 

wholesaler markup. 

DOE is also aware that there may be 

two additional distribution channels for 

hearth products: (1) an online 

distribution channel where 

manufacturers sell the products to 

online retailers who in turn sell them 

directly to consumers; and (2) a 

rebranding distribution channel where 

wholesalers or retailers negotiate good 

pricing from the hearth product 

manufacturer based on high volumes 

and have the product customized to 

carry their name, and then send it 

through their normal distribution 

channel to the contractors. The former 

one mainly applies to the do-it-yourself 

(‘‘DIY’’) installation, which was 

estimated at the time of the 2015 

analysis to account for a very small 

fraction of the total hearth products 

shipments. For the latter one, DOE 

assumes that it would have the same 

overall markups as the conventional 

distribution channels. Although 

manufacturers may have a lower margin 

in such cases, wholesalers and retailers 

would redistribute the profit throughout 

the distribution channel to set the final 

retail price so as to be comparable with 

products sold through conventional 

distribution channels. For the reasons 

mentioned above, DOE did not consider 

any of these additional distribution 

channels in the February 2015 NOPR 

analysis. 

DOE requests information on the 

distribution channels outlined 

previously, and their relevance to 

decorative hearths and outdoor heaters. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
35934 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

15U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Information 

Administration, Residential Energy Consumption 

Survey: 2009 RECS Survey Data (2013) (Available 

at: www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/ 

2009/) (Last accessed March 31, 2022). 

16Hayden, A.C.S. Fireplace Pilots Take Gas Use 

Sky High. Home Energy Magazine (Jan. 1997). 

(Available at: www.homeenergy.org/show/article/ 

nav/hvac/page/28/id/1264) (Last accessed Feb. 9, 

2015). 

17Menkedick, John, Pam Hartford, Shawna 

Collins, Shawn Shumaker, and Darlene Wells, 

Hearth Products Meter Study (1995–1997), Rep. no. 

GRI–97/0298, Gas Research Institute (1997). 

18Armstrong M.M., Swinton, M.C. and 

Szadkowski, F., Assessment of the Impact of a 

Natural Gas Fireplace on Heating Energy 

Consumption and Room Temperatures at the 

Canadian Centre for Housing Technology (March 

31, 2010) Canada Mortgage and Housing 

Corporation (Available at: https://chic.cmhc-schl.

gc.ca/uhtbin/cgisirsi.exe/?ps=Ey6u7UxnJz/CHIC/ 

17510006/60/502/X) (Last accessed Feb. 9, 2015). 

19 David Siap, Henry Willem, Sarah K. Price, 

Hung-Chia Yang, and Alex Lekov, Survey of Hearth 

Products in U.S. Homes (2017) LBNL–2001030 

(Available at: https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/ 

default/files/lbnl-2001030.pdf) (Last accessed June 

6, 2022.). 

20 Id. 

21 Id. 

22 U.S. Department of Energy, Technical Support 

Document: Energy Conservation Programs for 

Consumer Products, Energy Conservation Standards 

for Hearth Products. Chapter 7: Energy Use Analysis 

(Jan. 30, 2015) (Available at: www.regulations.gov/ 

document/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0036-0002). 

DOE requests information on the 

existence of any distribution channels 

other than those listed above for 

decorative hearths and outdoor heaters. 

Further, DOE seeks input on the 

percentage of decorative hearth 

products and outdoor heaters being 

distributed through the different 

distribution channels, as well as 

whether the share of products through 

each channel varies based on capacity 

or other features. 

DOE seeks updated data, if available, 

and recommendations regarding data 

sources to establish the markups for the 

parties involved with the distribution of 

consumer MGPs. 

G. Energy Use Analysis 

As part of the rulemaking process, 

DOE conducts an energy use analysis to 

identify how products are used by 

consumers to determine the annual 

energy consumption of these products at 

issue, and to assess the energy savings 

potential of energy efficiency 

improvements. In this case, the energy 

use analysis is expected to represent 

typical energy consumption of various 

ignition systems in the field. DOE 

previously developed a sample of 

residential homes that use a hearth 

product based on the 2009 Residential 

Energy Consumption Survey 

(‘‘RECS’’).15 80 FR 7082, 7100 (Feb. 9. 

2015). DOE developed ranges of 

operating hours from hearth product 

field studies.16 17 Id. DOE represented 

different modes of consumer behavior 

(i.e., only using the pilot light when 

starting the hearth product, leaving the 

standing pilot light on for the entirety of 

the heating season, or leaving the 

standing pilot light on year-round) with 

a continuous distribution of standing 

pilot operating hours. Id. The pilot light 

operating hours for standing pilot lights 

coupled with the pilot light input 

capacity from the engineering analysis 

allowed DOE to calculate the annual 

pilot light energy use. Id. (‘‘On demand’’ 

pilot ignition systems were not 

separately considered in the February 

2015 NOPR analysis, and DOE did not 

develop separate estimates for the 

typical operating hours of ‘‘on demand’’ 

pilot ignition systems.) DOE also 

calculated the electricity use of an 

intermittent pilot using the 

representative burner input and the 

average duty cycle length to calculate a 

number of cycles, and a conservative 

estimates of 30 seconds on-time per 

ignition. Id. DOE assumed a 50 watt 

(‘‘W’’) representative input to derive 

electricity consumption. Id. 

DOE also considered the space 

heating impact of the pilot light in its 

analysis. The elimination of a pilot light 

would mean that the home’s main 

heating system would have to operate 

somewhat more and the air conditioning 

system somewhat less in cases where 

the pilot is on year-round. DOE based 

this analysis on a report from the 

Canadian Centre for Housing 

Technology.18 DOE used this study to 

estimate the ratio of energy consumed 

by the standing pilot light to the heat 

delivered to the conditioned space for 

each vented hearth product group. For 

unvented hearth products, DOE 

assumed that the majority of the heat 

from the pilot is input into the space. 

For outdoor units, none of the energy 

consumed by the pilot is considered 

useful heat. 80 FR 7082, 7101 (Feb. 9, 

2015). 

In 2017, the Lawrence Berkeley 

National Laboratory conducted a survey 

(‘‘2017 Hearth Survey’’) of 2,100 homes 

with hearth products.19 The 2017 

Hearth Survey defined hearths as a gasfired or electrical appliance that 

displays a flame or a flame pattern. 

Hearth product types are fireplaces, or 

fireplace inserts, gas log sets that are 

typically inserted into an existing empty 

hearth, freestanding stoves, or outdoor 

units.20 The survey provided hearth 

product characteristics, usage data, and 

repair and maintenance costs. The 

hearth product characteristics include 

the hearth product type, fuel type, 

ignition system type, features, venting, 

and installation details. The usage 

information includes seasonal usage of 

the main burner and standing pilot (if 

present), daily usage, and the primary 

utility (whether decorative or for 

heating). DOE plans to use this survey 

for the operating hours of decorative 

hearth products. The survey does not 

provide product characteristics or usage 

data for outdoor heaters.21

In the previous analysis, DOE used an 

input capacity of 35,000 British thermal 

units per hour (‘‘Btu/h’’) to represent 

decorative fireplace main burners and 

1,000 Btu/h to represent standing pilot 

light input capacity, and calculated 

annual national intermittent ignition 

electricity use of a decorative fireplace 

to be 29 kilowatt-hours per year (‘‘kWh/ 

yr’’). (See chapter 7 of the February 2015 

NOPR TSD).22 DOE did not have 

separate estimates for other decorative 

hearth products, such as gas log sets, gas 

fire pits, gas stoves, or gas fireplace 

inserts. (Id.) Further, DOE used an input 

capacity of 50,000 Btu/h to represent the 

main burners of outdoor products and 

1,000 Btu/h to represent the standing 

pilots, and calculated annual national 

intermittent ignition electricity use of an 

outdoor product to be 29 kWh/yr. (Id.) 

The outdoor product category in the 

2015 NOPR included decorative 

products and heaters; DOE did not 

develop separate estimates for outdoor 

decorative hearths and outdoor heaters. 

DOE requests comment on the 

national average input capacities, 

standing pilot input capacities, and 

annual intermittent ignition electricity 

use estimated in the February 2015 

NOPR for decorative fireplace main 

burners and outdoor products (the 

outdoor product class included 

decorative hearths and heaters) 

Specifically, DOE requests comment on 

the applicability of these values to 

currently available decorative hearth 

products and outdoor heaters. 

DOE requests comment on the typical 

operating hours of ‘‘on demand’’ pilot 

ignition systems, and whether the 

energy consumption of such ignition 

systems when lit is comparable to that 

of continuously-burning pilot lights. 

Specifically, DOE requests data and 

information about the frequency with 

which these systems ‘‘time-out’’ (i.e., 

automatically extinguish the pilot light), 

the typical length of time before ‘‘timeout,’’ and how often these pilot lights 

need to be relit. DOE also requests 

comment on the market share of ‘‘on 

demand’’ pilot ignition systems for 

decorative hearth products. 

DOE requests comment on the 

approach of using the 2017 Hearth 

Survey to develop the decorative hearth 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 35935 

23RS Means Company Inc., RS Means Residential 

Cost Data (2013) (Available at: 

rsmeans.reedconstructiondata.com/) (Last accessed 

Feb. 9, 2015). 

24U.S. Department of Energy—Energy 

Information Administration, Form EIA–826 

Database Monthly Electric Utility Sales and 

Revenue Data (2013) (Available at: 

www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/ 

eia826.html). 

25U.S. Department of Energy—Energy 

Information Administration, Natural Gas Navigator 

(2013) (Available at: tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_

pri_sum_dcu_nus_m.htm). 

26U.S. Department of Energy—Energy 

Information Administration, 2012 State Energy 

Consumption, Price, and Expenditure Estimates 

(SEDS) (2013) (Available at: www.eia.doe.gov/ 

emeu/states/_seds.html). 

27Annual Energy Outlook—Energy Information 

Administration (2014) (Available at: www.eia.gov/ 

outlooks/archive/aeo14/). 

28 David Siap, Henry Willem, Sarah K. Price, 

Hung-Chia Yang, and Alex Lekov, Survey of Hearth 

Products in U.S. Homes (2017) LBNL–2001030 

(Available at: eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/ 

files/lbnl-2001030.pdf) pp. 44–46. 

product characteristics and usage data 

to measure the energy use of standing 

pilot lights of decorative hearths. 

DOE requests data on the breakdown 

of ignition types (standing pilot, on 

demand pilot, intermittent, and match 

lit) and usage data for outdoor heaters. 

DOE also seeks comment on whether 

the ignition types and usage of outdoor 

heaters vary significantly from outdoor 

decorative hearths. 

H. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

DOE conducts the LCC and PBP 

analysis to evaluate the economic effects 

of potential energy conservation 

standards for MGPs on individual 

consumers, which usually involves a 

reduction in operating cost and an 

increase in purchase cost. For any given 

efficiency level, DOE measures the PBP 

and the change in LCC relative to an 

estimated baseline level. The LCC is the 

total consumer expense of an appliance 

or product over the life of that product, 

consisting of the total installed cost and 

operating costs (expenses for energy use, 

maintenance, and repair). Inputs to the 

calculation of total installed cost 

include the purchase cost of the 

product—which includes MSPs, 

distribution channel markups, and sales 

taxes—and installation costs. Inputs to 

the calculation of operating expenses 

include annual energy consumption, 

energy prices and price projections, 

repair and maintenance costs, 

equipment lifetimes, discount rates, and 

the year that compliance with new and 

amended standards is required. 

1. Installation Costs 

Installation costs represent the labor 

and materials required to install an 

MGP. However, in the analysis for the 

February 2015 NOPR, DOE assumed 

that because a pilot light is a component 

of a hearth product, the installation cost 

for most installations was $0. 80 FR 

7082, 7102 (Feb. 9, 2015). In a fraction 

of installations, the intermittent pilot 

could necessitate an electrical 

connection (although many are battery 

powered). For these cases, DOE used RS 

Means 2013 Residential Cost Data 23 to 

determine the material and labor costs 

associated with a new electrical 

connection and electrical grounding. Id. 

DOE plans to take this same approach, 

but with the most recent version of RS 

Means, which is currently 2021. 

DOE requests comment on its 

approach to installation costs and the 

use of RS Means 2021 for labor and 

material costs. 

2. Energy Prices 

In the analysis for the February 2015 

NOPR, DOE used data from the Energy 

Information Administration (‘‘EIA’’) on 

average prices in various States and 

regions 24 25 26 to assign an energy price 

to each house in the sample based on its 

location. 80 FR 7082, 7102 (Feb. 9, 

2015). Average electricity prices and 

natural gas prices from the EIA data 

were adjusted using seasonal marginal 

price factors to derive monthly marginal 

electricity and natural gas prices. Id. 

Future prices were estimated using the 

reference case projection of the Annual 

Energy Outlook (‘‘AEO’’) 2014.27 Id. 

DOE plans to use a similar approach 

and with updated data from the EIA and 

AEO 2022. 

DOE requests comment on its 

approach to develop electricity and 

natural gas prices for consumer MGPs. 

3. Repair and Maintenance Costs 

Repair costs are associated with 

repairing or replacing components in 

the MGPs that have failed, whereas 

maintenance costs are routine annual 

costs associated with the continued 

proper operation of equipment. The 

2017 Hearth Survey asked respondents 

about the average cost and frequency of 

hearth repairs and maintenance over the 

lifetime of the product. Repair 

categories included in the survey were 

ignition failure, controls failure, 

combustion damage, and other. 

Maintenance categories included in the 

survey were chimney cleaning, firebox 

cleaning, exterior cleaning, and other.28

DOE intends to use this data along with 

data from RS Means about ignition 

system repairs to estimate the repair and 

maintenance costs of MGPs. In the 

analysis for the February 2015 NOPR, 

DOE assumed that the cost of repairing 

an intermittent pilot was 44 percent 

higher than for units with standing 

pilots. 80 FR 7082, 7103 (Feb. 9, 2015). 

DOE intends to use the same repair 

and maintenance categories, with the 

exception of chimney maintenance, for 

outdoor heaters. 

DOE requests comment on the repair 

and maintenance categories included in 

the 2017 Hearth Survey and whether 

they apply to decorative hearths and 

outdoor heaters. 

DOE requests comment on the 

assumption that the cost of repairing an 

intermittent pilot is 44 percent higher 

than the cost of a standing pilot repair. 

DOE requests information and data on 

the frequency of repair and repair costs 

for decorative hearth heaters and 

outdoor heaters for the technology 

options listed in Table II.1 of this 

document. While DOE is interested in 

information regarding each of the listed 

technology options, the Department is 

also interested in whether consumers 

simply replace the products when they 

fail as opposed to repairing them. 

4. Product Lifetime 

Product lifetime is the age at which a 

product is retired from service. In the 

analysis for the February 2015 NOPR, 

DOE developed a hearth product 

survival function, which provides a 

range of minimum to maximum 

lifetime, as well as an average lifetime. 

Furthermore, DOE assumed that the 

lifetime of the ignition device is the 

same as the lifetime of the hearth 

product. 80 FR 7082, 7103 (Feb. 9, 

2015). The average lifetime was 

estimated to be 16 years. Id. 

DOE requests comment on whether 

the average lifetime of 16 years for 

decorative hearth products that was 

used in the analysis for the February 

2015 NOPR is still a valid estimate, and 

whether such estimate is appropriate for 

all MGPs. 

5. No-New-Standards Case Efficiency 

Distribution 

To estimate the share of consumers 

affected by a potential energy 

conservation standard, DOE’s LCC and 

PBP analysis considers the projected 

distribution (i.e., market shares) of 

product efficiencies that consumers 

would be expected to purchase in the 

first compliance year in the base case 

(i.e., the case without new or amended 

energy conservation standards). DOE 

intends to develop the no-newstandards case efficiency distribution 

using data from the 2017 Hearth Survey 

indicate that 71 percent of decorative 

hearths use a standing pilot, 18 percent 

use intermittent ignition, and 12 percent 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
35936 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

29 David Siap, Henry Willem, Sarah K. Price, 

Hung-Chia Yang, and Alex Lekov, Survey of Hearth 

Products in U.S. Homes (2017) LBNL–2001030 

(Available at: eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/ 

files/lbnl-2001030.pdf) p. 48. 

30 Id. 

31See chapter 9 of the technical support 

document that accompanied the February 2015 

NOPR. (Available at: www.regulations.gov/ 

document/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0036-0002). (Last 

accessed June 6, 2022). 

32Table of Size Standards—U.S. Small Business 

Administration (Available at: www.sba.gov/ 

document/support--table-size-standards) (Last 

accessed March 22, 2022). 

are match lit.29 The 2017 Hearth Survey 

did not include data specifically for 

outdoor heaters, but instead for all 

outdoor products (including decorative 

products and heaters). The data for 

outdoor products indicate that 48 

percent use a standing pilot, that 15 

percent use intermittent ignition, and 

that 37 percent are match lit.30

DOE requests comment on the 

distribution of ignition types from the 

2017 Hearth Survey, and whether such 

estimates remain valid. 

DOE requests data on the breakdown 

of ignition systems for outdoor heaters, 

particularly the percentage of outdoor 

heaters that use standing pilots, 

intermittent ignition, and match lit. 

I. Shipments Analysis 

DOE typically develops shipments 

forecasts of a covered product as an 

input to calculate the national impacts 

of potential new or amended energy 

conservation standards on energy 

consumption, net present value (‘‘NPV’’) 

of consumer benefits and costs, and 

future manufacturer cash flows. DOE 

shipments projections are based on 

available historical data broken out by 

product group. Current sales estimates 

allow for a more accurate model that 

captures recent trends in the market. 

In the analysis for the February 2015 

NOPR, DOE relied on historical 

shipments data from the Hearth, Patio, 

and Barbeque Association (‘‘HPBA’’) 

and manufacturer interviews for hearth 

products, as shown in Table II.2 of this 

document. The HBPA shipments values 

included decorative hearth products 

and hearth heaters. Outdoor heater 

shipment estimates were based on 

manufacturer interviews.31

TABLE II.2—ANNUAL SHIPMENTS FOR HEARTH PRODUCTS FROM THE FEBRUARY 2015 NOPR ANALYSIS

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

Shipments (millions) ..................... 1.69 1.30 1.13 0.785 0.462 0.487 0.423 0.436 0.586 

DOE requests annual sales data (i.e., 

number of shipments) for decorative 

hearth products and outdoor heaters. If 

disaggregated fractions of annual sales 

are not available based on these 

classifications, DOE requests more 

aggregated fractions of annual sales. If 

available, DOE requests the annual 

shipments information for the years 

2014 to 2021. 

J. National Impact Analysis 

The purpose of the NIA is to estimate 

the aggregate economic impacts of 

potential energy conservation standards 

at the national level. The NIA assesses 

the potential NES and the national NPV 

of total consumer costs and savings that 

would be expected to result from new 

or amended standards at specific 

efficiency levels over 30 years of 

shipments. An important component of 

the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency 

in the no-new-standards case over the 

30-year analysis period. In the analysis 

for the February 2015 NOPR, DOE 

assumed a constant efficiency trend 

over the 30-year period. 80 FR 7082, 

7104 (Feb. 9, 2015). 

DOE requests data on the expected 

future growth trends of decorative 

hearth products and outdoor heaters by 

ignition type (standing pilot, 

intermittent ignition, and match lit). 

K. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

The purpose of the manufacturer 

impact analysis (‘‘MIA’’) is to identify 

and quantify the estimated financial 

impacts of any new or amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of consumer MGPs, and 

to evaluate the potential impacts of such 

standards on direct employment and 

manufacturing capacity. The MIA 

includes both quantitative and 

qualitative aspects. The quantitative 

part of the MIA primarily relies on the 

Government Regulatory Impact Model 

(‘‘GRIM’’), an industry cash-flow model 

adapted for each product in this 

analysis, with the key output being 

industry net present value (‘‘INPV’’). 

The qualitative part of the MIA 

addresses the potential impacts of 

energy conservation standards on 

manufacturing capacity and industry 

competition, as well as factors such as 

product characteristics, impacts on 

particular subgroups of firms, and 

important market and product trends. 

As part of the MIA, DOE intends to 

analyze impacts of potential energy 

conservation standards on subgroups of 

manufacturers of covered products, 

including domestic small business 

manufacturers. DOE uses the Small 

Business Administration’s (‘‘SBA’’) 

small business size standards to 

determine whether manufacturers 

qualify as small businesses, which are 

listed by the applicable North American 

Industry Classification System 

(‘‘NAICS’’) code.32 Manufacturing of 

outdoor heaters is classified under 

NAICS 333414, ‘‘Heating Equipment 

(except Warm Air Furnaces) 

Manufacturing,’’ and the SBA sets a 

threshold of 500 employees or less for 

a domestic entity to be considered a 

small business in this category. For 

decorative hearth products, DOE will 

rely on NAICS 337124, ‘‘Metal 

Household Furniture Manufacturing,’’ 

and the SBA sets a threshold of 750 

employees or less for a domestic entity 

to be considered a small business in this 

category. These employee thresholds 

include all employees in a business’s 

parent company and any other 

subsidiaries. 

One aspect of assessing manufacturer 

burden involves examining the 

cumulative impact of multiple DOE 

standards and the product-specific 

regulatory actions of other Federal 

agencies that affect the manufacturers of 

a covered product or equipment. While 

any one regulation may not impose a 

significant burden on manufacturers, 

the combined effects of several existing 

or impending regulations may have 

serious consequences for some 

manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, 

or an entire industry. Assessing the 

impact of a single regulation may 

overlook this cumulative regulatory 

burden. In addition to energy 

conservation standards, other 

regulations can significantly affect 

manufacturers’ financial operations. 

Multiple regulations affecting the same 

manufacturer can strain profits and lead 

companies to abandon product lines or 

markets with lower expected future 

returns than competing products. For 

these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis 

of cumulative regulatory burden as part 

of its rulemakings pertaining to 

appliance efficiency. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 35937 

To the extent feasible, DOE seeks the 

names and contact information of any 

domestic or foreign-based 

manufacturers that distribute decorative 

hearth products and outdoor heaters in 

the United States. 

DOE identified small businesses as a 

subgroup of manufacturers that could be 

disproportionally impacted by potential 

energy conservation standards for 

consumer MGPs. DOE requests the 

names and contact information of small 

business manufacturers, as defined by 

the SBA’s size thresholds, that 

manufacture decorative hearth products 

and outdoor heaters in the United 

States. In addition, DOE requests 

comment on any other manufacturer 

subgroups that could be 

disproportionally impacted by potential 

energy conservation standards for 

consumer MGPs. DOE requests feedback 

on any potential approaches that could 

be considered to address impacts on 

such manufacturers, including small 

businesses. 

DOE requests information regarding 

the cumulative regulatory burden 

impacts on manufacturers of decorative 

hearth products and outdoor heaters 

associated with: (1) other DOE energy 

conservation standards applying to 

different products or equipment that 

these manufacturers may also make and 

(2) product-specific regulatory actions of 

other Federal agencies. DOE also 

requests comment on its methodology 

for computing cumulative regulatory 

burden and whether there are any 

flexibilities it can consider that would 

reduce this burden while remaining 

consistent with the requirements of 

EPCA. 

III. Submission of Comments 

DOE invites all interested parties to 

submit in writing by the date specified 

in the DATES section of this document, 

comments and information on matters 

addressed in this document and on 

other matters relevant to DOE’s 

consideration of energy conservations 

standards for MGPs. After the close of 

the comment period, DOE will review 

the public comments received and may 

begin collecting data and conducting the 

analyses discussed in this document. 

Submitting comments via 

www.regulations.gov. The 

www.regulations.gov web page requires 

you to provide your name and contact 

information. Your contact information 

will be viewable to DOE Building 

Technologies Office 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 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. If 

this instruction is followed, 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, hand 

delivery/courier, or postal mail. 

Comments and documents submitted 

via email, hand delivery/courier, or 

postal mail 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. 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 

telefacsimiles (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, written in English, and 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 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 as to 

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). 

DOE considers public participation to 

be a very important part of the process 

for developing energy conservation 

standards. DOE actively encourages the 

participation and interaction of the 

public during the comment period in 

each stage of this process. Interactions 

with and between members of the 

public provide a balanced discussion of 

the issues and assist DOE in the process. 

Anyone who wishes to be added to the 

DOE mailing list to receive future 

notices and information about this 

process should contact Appliance and 

Equipment Standards Program staff at 

(202) 287–1445 or via email at 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on June 9, 2022, by 

Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
35938 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. 

2See Listing Standards for Recovery of 

Erroneously Awarded Compensation, Release No. 

34–75342 (Jul. 1, 2015) [80 FR 41144 (Jul. 14, 

2015)]. 

3See Reopening of Comment Period for Listing 

Standards for Recovery of Erroneously Awarded 

Compensation, Release No. 34–93311 (Oct. 14, 

2021) [86 FR 58232 (Oct. 21, 2021] (‘‘Re-opening 

Release’’). 

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 June 9, 

2022. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2022–12786 Filed 6–13–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

17 CFR Parts 229, 240, 249, and 274 

[Release No. 33–11071; 34–95057; IC– 

34610; File No. S7–12–15] 

RIN 3235–AK99 

Reopening of Comment Period for 

Listing Standards for Recovery of 

Erroneously Awarded Compensation 

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) is 

reopening the comment period for its 

proposal for Listing Standards for 

Recovery of Erroneously Awarded 

Compensation, Exchange Act Release 

No. 34–75342 (July 1, 2015) (the 

‘‘Proposing Release’’). The proposed 

rules would direct the national 

securities exchanges and national 

securities associations to establish 

listing standards that would require 

each issuer to develop and implement a 

policy providing for the recovery, under 

certain circumstances, of incentivebased compensation based on financial 

information required to be reported 

under the securities laws that is 

received by current or former executive 

officers, and require disclosure of the 

policy. The Commission reopened the 

comment period for Proposing Release 

in the Reopening of Comment Period for 

Listing Standards for Recovery of 

Erroneously Awarded Compensation 

Release, Exchange Act Release No. 

Release No. 34–93311 (Oct. 14, 2021) 

(the ‘‘Reopening Release’’). The 

Commission is re-opening the comment 

period to allow interested persons to 

analyze and comment on the additional 

analysis and data on compensation 

recovery policies and accounting 

restatements contained in a staff 

memorandum that was added to the 

public comment file on June 8, 2022. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

proposed rule published July 14, 2015, 

at 80 FR 41144, which was initially 

reopened on October 21, 2021, at 86 FR 

58232, is again reopened. Comments 

should be received on or before July 14, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s internet 

comment form (https://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/submitcomments.htm). 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments to Vanessa 

A. Countryman, Secretary, Securities 

and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street 

NE, Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number S7–12–15. This file number 

should be included on the subject line 

if email is used. To help us process and 

review your comments more efficiently, 

please use only one method. The 

Commission will post all comments on 

the Commission’s website (https://

www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml). 

Comments also are available for website 

viewing and printing in the 

Commission’s Public Reference Room, 

100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 

20549–1090 on official business days 

between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. 

Operating conditions may limit access 

to the Commission’s public reference 

room. All comments received will be 

posted without change. Persons 

submitting comments are cautioned that 

we do not redact or edit personal 

identifying information from comment 

submissions. You should submit only 

information that you wish to make 

available publicly. 

Studies, memoranda, or other 

substantive items may be added by the 

Commission or staff to the comment file 

during this rulemaking. A notification of 

the inclusion in the comment file of any 

such materials will be made available 

on our website. To ensure direct 

electronic receipt of such notifications, 

sign up through the ‘‘Stay Connected’’ 

option at www.sec.gov to receive 

notifications by email. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven G. Hearne, Senior Special 

Counsel, in the Office of Rulemaking, at 

(202) 551–3430, Division of Corporation 

Finance, Securities and Exchange 

Commission, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

954 of the Dodd-Frank Act added 

Section 10D to the Securities Exchange 

Act of 1934 1 (‘‘Exchange Act’’), which 

provides that the Commission require 

national securities exchanges and 

national securities associations to 

prohibit the listing of any security of an 

issuer that does not develop and 

implement a policy providing for the 

recovery of erroneously awarded 

compensation and for disclosure of that 

policy. As described more fully in the 

Proposing Release,2 under the proposed 

rules, an issuer would be subject to 

delisting if it does not adopt a 

compensation recovery policy that 

complies with the applicable listing 

standard, disclose the policy in 

accordance with Commission rules, and 

comply with the policy’s recovery 

provisions. The Commission previously 

reopened the comment period for the 

Proposing Release to allow interested 

persons further opportunity to analyze 

and comment upon the proposed rules 

in light of developments since the 

publication of the Proposing Release 

and our further consideration of the 

Section 954 mandate.3 The Reopening 

Release put forth additional requests for 

comment on potential revisions to the 

proposal and sought additional 

comment on the proposal. The 

Reopening Release was published for 

comment in the Federal Register on 

October 21, 2021, and the comment 

period closed on November 22, 2021. 

The staff of the Division of Economic 

and Risk Analysis has prepared a 

memorandum that provides additional 

analysis and data on compensation 

recovery policies and accounting 

restatements. Specifically, the staff 

memorandum (i) discusses the increase 

in voluntary adoption of compensation 

recovery policies by issuers; (ii) 

provides estimates of the number of 

additional restatements that would 

trigger a compensation recovery analysis 

if, as the Commission described in the 

Reopening Release, the rules were 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1