Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

35678

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules
The revised discussion reflects DOEs established practice of calculating weighted discount rates based on debt and equity holdings for both residential and commercial/industrial consumers, for the purposes of the LCC analysis.
4. New Section 15 Consideration of Non-Regulatory Approaches DOE proposes to simplify the text to reflect its current practice and to clarify the data available for use in DOEs analyses. Specifically, the proposed revisions clarify that DOEs established practice is to compare non-regulatory initiatives relative to candidate/trial standard levels rather than considering their individual impacts. In addition, the proposed revisions clarify that DOE
bases its assessment on the actual impacts of existing non-regulatory initiatives, and does not typically speculate on potential future nonregulatory initiatives or initiatives that have not yet been implemented. Finally, DOE proposes to eliminate reference to assessing appropriate compliance dates, as these are nearly always statutorily defined.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

5. New Section 16 Cross-Cutting Analytical Assumptions DOE proposes minor updates to reflect DOEs long-standing analytical practice. In particular, DOE proposes the following clarifications: 1 DOE will continue to utilize a 30-year analysis period along with a 9-year sensitivity analysis, but DOE no longer analyzes a time length specific to each product; 2
energy-efficiency trends will be based on the best available historical market data which may or may not be based on NEMS; 3 analyses will generally adopt the reference energy price scenario of EIAs most current Annual Energy Outlook while demand is not typically considered; and 4 the discount rates used in determining national costs and benefits formerly referred to as social discount rates are in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget OMBs guidance to Federal agencies on developing regulatory analyses OMB
Circular A4, September 17, 2003, and section E., Identifying and Measuring Benefits and Costs, therein.
6. New Section 17 Emissions Analysis DOE also proposes a new section 17
discussing the Departments emissions analysis that is based on text that is currently part of section 17, CrossCutting Analytical Assumptions. The proposed updates clarify that DOE will estimate emissions reductions of greenhouse gases and pollutants likely to result from candidate/trial standard
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:33 Jul 06, 2021

Jkt 253001

levels following best practices at the time. These emissions reductions will potentially include the effect on electric power sector and site combustion emissions, as well as on upstream activities in the fuel production chain.
The proposed updates also clarify that estimation of the monetary value of the avoided greenhouse gas emissions, as well as those of other air pollutants, will be based on best practices at the time, for example, by using accepted benefitper-ton values from the scientific literature.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
This regulatory action is a significant regulatory action under section 3f4 of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735
Oct. 4, 1993. Accordingly, this proposed regulatory action was subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs OIRA in the Office of Management and Budget OMB.
The revisions contained in this proposed regulatory action are procedural changes designed to improve DOEs ability to meet its rulemaking obligations and deadlines under EPCA.
These proposed revisions would not impose any regulatory costs or burdens on stakeholders, nor would they limit public participation in DOEs rulemaking process. Instead, these proposed revisions would allow DOE to tailor its rulemaking processes to fit the facts and circumstances of a particular rulemaking for a covered product or equipment.
DOE currently has energy conservation standards and test procedures in place for more than 60
categories of covered products and equipment and is typically working on anywhere from 50 to 100 rulemakings for both energy conservation standards and test procedures at any one time.
Further, these rulemakings are all subject to statutory or other deadlines.
Typically, review cycles for energy conservation standards and test procedures for covered products are 6
and 7 years, respectively. 42 U.S.C.
6295m1; 42 U.S.C 6293b1
Additionally, if DOE decides not to amend an energy conservation standard for a covered product, the subsequent review cycle is shortened to 3 years. 42
U.S.C. 6295m3B It is challenging to meet these cyclical deadlines for more than 60 categories of covered products and equipment. In fact, as previously discussed, DOE is currently facing two
PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

lawsuits that allege DOE has failed to meet rulemaking deadlines for 25
different consumer products and commercial equipment.
In order to meet these rulemaking deadlines, DOE cannot afford the inefficiencies that come with a one-sizefits-all rulemaking approach. For example, having to issue an early assessment RFI followed by an ANOPR
to collect early stakeholder input when a NODA or other pre-rule document would accomplish the same purpose unnecessarily lengthens the rulemaking process and wastes limited DOE
resources. Similarly, having to identify any necessary modifications to a test procedure prior to initiating an energy conservation standard rulemaking makes it more difficult for DOE to meet rulemaking deadlines, while offering little to no benefit to stakeholders. The revisions proposed in this document would allow DOE to eliminate these types of inefficiencies that lengthen the rulemaking process and waste DOE
resources, while not affecting the ability of the public to participate in the rulemaking process. Eliminating inefficiencies that lengthen the rulemaking process allows DOE to more quickly develop energy conservation standards that deliver the environmental benefits, including reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, that DOE is directed to pursue under E.O. 13990. Further, the sooner new or amended energy conservation standards eliminate less-efficient covered products and equipment from the market, the greater the resulting energy savings and environmental benefits.
Finally, the revisions proposed in this document would not dictate any particular rulemaking outcome in an energy conservation standard or test procedure rulemaking. DOE will continue to calculate the regulatory costs and benefits of new and amended energy conservation standards and test procedures issued under EPCA in future, individual rulemakings.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis IRFA for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment and a final regulatory flexibility analysis FRFA for any such rule that an agency adopts as a final rule, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A

E:FRFM07JYP1.SGM

07JYP1