Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

66422

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget OMB has determined that this final determination does not constitute a significant regulatory action under section 3f of Executive Order E.O.
12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 Oct. 4, 1993.
Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under E.O. 12866 by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs OIRA at OMB.

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act NEPA of 1969, DOE has analyzed this proposed action in accordance with NEPA and DOEs NEPA implementing regulations 10 CFR part 1021. DOE has determined that this rule qualifies for categorical exclusion under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix A5 because it is an interpretive rulemaking that does not change the environmental effect of the rule and meets the requirements for application of a CX. See 10 CFR
1021.410. Therefore, DOE has determined that promulgation of this rule is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of NEPA, and does not require an EA or EIS.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

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 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 in Agency Rulemaking, 67 FR 53461
August 16, 2002, DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the DOE
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990 DOE
has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsels website www.energy.gov/gc/
office-general-counsel.
DOE reviewed this final determination under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on February 19, 2003. DOE is proposing to not amend standards for DHE. On the basis of the foregoing, DOE certifies that the final determination will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared an FRFA for this final determination. DOE
will transmit this certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605b.
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act This final determination, which determines that amended energy conservation standards for DHE are not justified, would impose no new informational or recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, OMB
clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:32 Nov 22, 2021

Jkt 256001

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, Federalism, 64 FR
43255 August 10, 1999, imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. E.O. 13132 requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. E.O. 13132 also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR
13735 DOE has examined this final determination and has determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA
governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this final determination. States can petition DOE
for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. 42 U.S.C. 6297 As this final determination would not amend the standards for DHE, there is no impact on the policymaking discretion of the States. Therefore, no action is required by E.O. 13132.

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3a of E.O.
12988, Civil Justice Reform, imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements:
1 Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; 2 write regulations to minimize litigation; 3 provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and 4
promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 Feb. 7, 1996.
Regarding the review required by section 3a, section 3b of E.O. 12988
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: 1 Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any;
2 clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; 3
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 4
specifies the retroactive effect, if any; 5
adequately defines key terms, and 6
addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3c of E.O. 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3a and section 3b to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final determination meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 UMRA requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 1044, sec.
201 codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531. For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year adjusted annually for inflation, section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 2 U.S.C. 1532a, b The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed significant intergovernmental mandate, and
E:FRFM23NOR1.SGM

23NOR1