Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

58768

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
considering the need for national energy conservation. Because DOE has concluded that amended standards for MHLFs would not be economically justified, DOE did not conduct a utility impact analysis or emissions analysis for this final determination.
g. Other Factors In determining whether an energy conservation standard is economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. 42 U.S.C. 6295o2BiVII
To the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the other categories described previously, DOE could consider such information under other factors.

jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1

2. Rebuttable Presumption As set forth in 42 U.S.C.
6295o2Biii, EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first years energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE
test procedure. DOEs LCC and PBP
analyses generate values used to calculate the effect potential amended energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C.
6295o2Bi. The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOEs evaluation of the economic justification for a potential standard level thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification. The rebuttable presumption payback calculation is discussed in section IV.F.9 of this final determination.
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this rulemaking with regards to MHLFs. Separate subsections address each component of DOEs analyses and respond to comments received.
DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the standards considered in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:11 Oct 22, 2021

Jkt 256001

LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and calculates national energy savings and net present value of total consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy conservation standards. These spreadsheet tools are available on the DOE website for this rulemaking: www1.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/appliance_standards/
standards.aspx?productid=14.
A. Overall DOE received several comments regarding its tentative conclusion in the August 2020 NOPD to not amend standards for MHLFs. NEMA agreed with DOEs proposed determination stating that the industry would not be able to recover investments in new standards for MHLFs based on the continued decline of shipments 80
percent reduction in MHLF shipments from 2008 through 2018. NEMA, No.
12 at p. 2 Additionally, NEMA stated that due to the rapidly declining market, attaining significant energy savings in a reasonable time did not seem possible.
NEMA, No. 12 at p. 4 Signify agreed with DOEs proposed determination that standards for MHLFs do not need to be amended. However, Signify stated that it supported standards for metal halide MH ballasts designed to operate lamps with wattages between >1,000 W
and 2,000 W as such standards would incentivize a rational use of energy for high power MH lamp luminaire applications. Signify, No. 13 at pp. 2, 12
A private citizen also agreed with DOEs proposed determination, stating that shipments have declined over 90
percent in the last 1015 years and will continue to do so. The citizen also stated that MH lamps are not used in new buildings or new outdoor lighting.
The citizen recommended DOE not have to repeat this analysis in three years unless shipment increased by at least some X percent during that time.
Anonymous, No. 10, p. 1
When expressing concerns regarding max-tech levels proposed in the August 2020 NOPD, NEMA recommended DOE
publish a supplemental notice to the August 2020 NOPD rather than a final rule to avoid risking future challenges.
NEMA, No. 12 at p. 3 See section IV.C.4 for the discussion of NEMAs comment regarding max-tech levels.
Additionally, in response to a separate rule requesting comment regarding rulemaking prioritizations, NEMA
stated that if DOE were to quickly verify the decline in sale and no notable
PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

energy saving opportunities for MHLFs, a negative determination could be made and allow DOE resources to be applied elsewhere with more significant energy savings. NEMA, No. 15 8 at p. 4
The CA IOUs stated that DOEs analysis was incomplete and that it should consider revising its shipments and cost data. The CA IOUs urged DOE
to refrain from issuing a final determination until the adjustments to the data have been made and shared with stakeholders. CA IOUs, No. 14, pp. 23 See section IV.C.6 for discussion of the CA IOUs comments on prices and section IV.G for shipments.
Concerns raised in comments received on the August 2020 NOPD are addressed in this document and do not result in major changes to the analysis.
Hence, DOE is not publishing supplemental notice to the August 2020
NOPD. In this final determination DOE
is not amending current standards for MHLFs because more stringent standards would not be cost-effective and by extension, would not be economically justified. DOE made this determination by conducting an analysis of covered MHLFs including those containing MH ballasts designed to operate lamps with wattages between >1,000 W and 2,000 W. As noted in section II.A, DOE is completing this final determination as directed by EPCA
to conduct a secondary rulemaking for MHLFs.
B. Market and Technology Assessment DOE conducted a market and technology assessment in support of this final determination. DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment that provides an overall picture of the market for the products concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly-available information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment for this rulemaking include 1 a determination of the scope of the rulemaking and product classes, 2 manufacturers and 8 This comment was received in response to a Request for Comment on the prioritization of rulemakings pursuant to the Departments updated and modernized rulemaking methodology titled, Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment Process Rule, Docket ID: EERE2020
BTSTD004, available at www.regulations.gov/
document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0004-0001.

E:FRFM25OCR1.SGM

25OCR1