Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

58766

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
for a metal halide lamp. 42 U.S.C.
629164; 10 CFR 431.322. The scope of coverage is discussed in further detail in section IV.B.1 of this document.
B. Test Procedure EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for DOEs adoption and amendment of test procedures. 42 U.S.C. 6293
Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product.
DOEs current energy conservation standards for MHLFs are expressed in terms of the efficiency of the ballast contained within the fixture. 10 CFR
431.326
DOE established an active mode and standby mode power test method for MHLFs in a final rule published on March 9, 2010. 75 FR 10950. The current test procedure for MHLFs appears in 10 CFR 431.324 and specifies the ballast efficiency calculation as lamp output power divided by the ballast input power. DOE has since published an RFI to initiate a data collection process to consider whether to amend DOEs test procedure for MHLFs. 83 FR 24680 May 30, 2018.
On July 14, 2021, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend DOEs test procedures for MHLFs July 2021 NOPR. 86 FR 37069.
C. Technological Feasibility
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1

1. General In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties.
DOE then determines which of those means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. Section 6c1
of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A the Process Rule. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially available products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. Sections 6c3i and 7b1 of the Process Rule.
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option in light of the following additional screening criteria: 1 Practicability to
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:11 Oct 22, 2021

Jkt 256001

manufacture, install, and service; 2
adverse impacts on product utility or availability; 3 adverse impacts on health or safety and 4 unique-pathway proprietary technologies. Sections 6c3iiv and 7b25 of the Process Rule. Additionally, it is DOE
policy not to include in its analysis any proprietary technology that is a unique pathway to achieving a certain efficiency level EL. Section IV.B.5 of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for MHLFs, particularly the designs DOE
considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards considered in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the final determination technical support document TSD.5
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such a product. 42 U.S.C.
6295p1 Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible max-tech improvements in energy efficiency for MHLFs using the design parameters for the most efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C.4 and in chapter 5 of the final determination TSD.
D. Energy Savings 1. Determination of Savings For each trial standard level TSL, DOE projected energy savings from application of the TSL to MHLFs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the first full year of compliance with the potential standards 20252054.6 The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of MHLFs purchased in the 30-year analysis period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the nonew-standards case. The no-newstandards case represents a projection of energy consumption that reflects how 5 The final determination technical support document for this notice can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-;2017-BT-STD0016.
6 DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

the market for a product would likely evolve in the absence of energy conservation standards.
DOE used its NIA spreadsheet models to estimate national energy savings NES from potential amended standards for MHLFs. The NIA
spreadsheet model described in section V.B.2 of this document calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. For natural gas, the primary energy savings are considered to be equal to the site energy savings. DOE
also calculates NES in terms of full-fuelcycle FFC energy savings. The FFC
metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels, and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards.7 DOEs approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered products or equipment. For more information on FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.1
of this document.
2. Significance of Savings To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered MHLFs, DOE
must determine that such action would result in significant energy savings. 42
U.S.C. 6295o3B Although the term significant is not defined in the EPCA, the U.S. Court of Appeals, for the District of Columbia Circuit in Natural Resources Defense Council v.
Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 D.C.
Cir. 1985, opined that Congress intended significant energy savings in the context of EPCA to be savings that were not genuinely trivial.
Historically, DOE did not provide specific guidance or a numerical threshold for determining what constitutes significant conservation of energy. Instead, DOE determined on a case-by-case basis whether a particular rulemaking would result in significant conservation of energy. In a final rule published February 14, 2020, DOE
adopted a numerical threshold for significant conservation of energy. 85
FR 8626, 8670. Specifically, the threshold requires that an energy conservation standard result in a 0.30
7 The FFC metric is discussed in DOEs statement of policy and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR
51282 Aug. 18, 2011, as amended at 77 FR 49701
Aug. 17, 2012.

E:FRFM25OCR1.SGM

25OCR1