Quiero saber acerca de...

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
58791

TABLE V.18CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CUSTOMER BENEFITS FOR MHLFS; 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS
20252033
Trial standard level Equipment class 1

2

3

3 percent millions 2020$:
50 W and 100 W
>100 W and <150 W
150 W and 250 W
>250 W and 500 W
>500 W and 1,000 W
>1,000 W and 2,000 W

0.12
0.0027
0.11
0.25
0.077
0.00038

2.39
0.32
1.67
3.27
0.077
0.00038

2.44
0.66
1.67
3.27
0.077
0.00038

Total

0.56

7.72

8.12

7 percent millions 2020$:
50 W and 100 W
>100 W and <150 W
150 W and 250 W
>250 W and 500 W
>500 W and 1,000 W
>1,000 W and 2,000 W

0.10
0.00059
0.10
0.21
0.080
0.0014

1.28
0.17
1.38
2.86
0.080
0.0014

1.35
0.41
1.38
2.86
0.080
0.0014

Total

0.49

5.78

6.10

Total may not equal sum due to rounding.

The previous results reflect the use of a default trend to estimate the change in price for MHLFs over the analysis period see section IV.H.2 of this document. DOE also conducted a sensitivity analysis that considered one scenario with a lower rate of price decline than the reference case and one scenario with a higher rate of price decline than the reference case. The results of these alternative cases are presented in appendix 10C of the final determination TSD. In the high-pricedecline case, the NPV of consumer benefits is higher than in the default case. In the low-price-decline case, the NPV of consumer benefits is lower than in the default case.

jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1

C. Final Determination For this final determination, DOE
analyzed whether amended standards for MHLFs would be technologically feasible and cost effective. 42 U.S.C.
6295m1A and 42 U.S.C. 6295n2
EPCA mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy conservation standards for MHLFs would be technologically feasible. 42 U.S.C.
6316a; 42 U.S.C. 6295m1A and 42
U.S.C. 6295n2B DOE has determined that there are technology options that would improve the efficiency of MHLFs. These technology options are being used in commercially available MHLFs and therefore are technologically feasible. See section IV.B for further information. Hence, DOE has determined that amended energy conservation standards for MHLFs are technologically feasible.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:11 Oct 22, 2021

Jkt 256001

EPCA requires DOE to consider whether energy conservation standards for MHLFs would be cost effective through an evaluation of the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product/equipment compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered products/equipment which are/is likely to result from the imposition of an amended standard. 42
U.S.C. 6316a; 42 U.S.C. 6295m1A, 42 U.S.C. 6295n2C, and 42 U.S.C.
6295o2BiII As presented in the prior section, the average customer purchasing a representative MHLF
would experience an increase in LCC at each evaluated standards case as compared to the no-new-standards case.
The simple PBP for the average MHLF
customer at most ELs is projected to be generally longer than the mean lifetime of the equipment, which further indicates that the increase in installed cost for more efficient MHLFs is not recouped by their associated operating cost savings. The NPV benefits at these TSLs are also negative for all equipment classes at 3-percent and 7-percent discount rates. Based on the previous considerations, DOE has determined that more stringent amended energy conservation standards for MHLFs cannot satisfy the relevant statutory requirements because such standards would not be cost effective as required under EPCA. See 42 U.S.C. 6295n2;
42 U.S.C. 6295o2BII; 42 U.S.C.
6316a
PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

Having determined that amended energy conservation standards for MHLFs would not be cost-effective, DOE did not further evaluate the significance of the amount of energy conservation under the considered amended standards because it has determined that the potential standards would not be cost-effective and by extension, would not be economically justified as required under EPCA. 42
U.S.C. 6316a; 42 U.S.C. 6295m1A;
42 U.S.C. 6295n2; 42 U.S.C.
6295o2B.
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866
This final determination has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order E.O.
12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 Oct. 4, 1993. As a result, OMB did not review this final determination.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq. requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis IRFA and a final regulatory flexibility analysis FRFA for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by E.O. 13272, Proper Consideration of Small Entities
E:FRFM25OCR1.SGM

25OCR1