[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 132 (Monday, July 11, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40646-40648]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17012]
[[Page 40646]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Chapters II, III, and X
Notice of Availability of Preliminary Plan for Retrospective
Analysis of Existing Rules
AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel, Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Through this notice, the Department of Energy (DOE) announces
the availability of its preliminary plan for retrospective analysis of
existing rules to make the agency's regulatory program more effective
and less burdensome in achieving its regulatory objectives. As part of
its implementation of Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review,'' issued by the President on January 18, 2011, DOE
sought public comments on whether any of its existing regulations
should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed. DOE has
considered these comments in the development of its preliminary plan.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding its EO
13563 Preliminary Plan received no later than August 1, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments,
identified by ``EO 13563 Preliminary Plan,'' by any of the following
methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected]. Include ``EO 13563
Preliminary Plan'' in the subject line of the message.
Mail: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 6A245, Washington, DC 20585.
Copies of the final plan and comments received are available for
public inspection at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Public
inspection can be conducted between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The preliminary plan and public
comments can also be accessed online at http://www.gc.energy.gov/1705.htm and at http://www.regulations.gov/exchange/sites/default/files/doc_files/Department%20of%20Energy_05_18_2011.pdf.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Cohen, Assistant General
Counsel for Legislation, Regulation, and Energy Efficiency, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. E-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 18, 2011, the President issued
Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,''
to ensure that Federal regulations seek more affordable, less intrusive
means to achieve policy goals, and that agencies give careful
consideration to the benefits and costs of those regulations.
Additionally, the Executive Order directs agencies to consider how best
to promote retrospective analyses of existing rules. DOE's preliminary
plan was issued on April 29, 2011, and posted for public review at
http://www.regulations.gov/exchange/sites/default/files/doc_files/Department%20of%20Energy_05_18_2011.pdf. DOE now seeks additional
comments on its preliminary plan so that it can consider and
incorporate further public input in its final plan and ongoing
retrospective review process.
In developing its preliminary plan, DOE issued a Request for
Information (RFI) seeking public comment on how best to review its
existing regulations and to identify whether any of its existing
regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed. (76
FR 6123, Feb. 3, 2011) In addition, DOE sought reply comments on the
suggestions received in response to the RFI to foster a public dialogue
on its retrospective review processes.
DOE received numerous detailed comments in response to its RFI and
request for reply comments. These comments, available at http://www.gc.energy.gov/1705.htm and summarized below, have informed DOE's
development of its preliminary plan and its early regulatory review
efforts pursuant to Executive Order 13563. The results of these initial
efforts are also described below and in the preliminary plan. DOE is
committed to continuing these efforts and to maintaining a consistent
culture of retrospective review and analysis of its regulations. As
specified in the preliminary plan, DOE will continually engage in
review of its rules to determine whether there are burdens on the
public that can be avoided by amending or rescinding existing
requirements. Because public input plays a significant role in the
retrospective review of DOE regulations, DOE also intends to seek
public comment on a regular basis as part of this review process.
Comments Received
DOE received seven comments on current DOE certification,
compliance, and enforcement rules. Commenters encouraged DOE to allow
for voluntary independent certification programs (VICPs) as a way to
reduce regulatory burdens (A.O. Smith Corporation, 2; Association of
Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), 6; Zero Zone Inc.) or to allow
manufacturers to do in-house testing (Zero Zone Inc.). One commenter
suggested DOE use the Air-Conditioning Heating and Refrigeration
Institute (AHRI) VICP as a model. (Hussmann Corporation, 4). DOE
received three comments that the March 2011 final rule on
certification, compliance, and enforcement is increasing manufacturer
costs and burdens of compliance, including concern about the number of
base models required for testing. (A.O. Smith Corporation, 1-2; AHRI,
3; Ingersoll Rand, 1; Zero Zone Inc.). In addition, one comment
encouraged DOE to move forward with verification testing and lab
accreditation rulemakings (Appliance Standards Awareness Project
(ASAP), 3). Another urged DOE to leverage third party verification
programs that utilize independent testing laboratories and are
developed by industry trade associations in these rulemakings. (AHAM,
6)
DOE received eight comments on the collection of information the
commenters believed to be unnecessary or ineffectively used. Related to
appliance efficiency standards rulemakings, two comments expressed
concern that the discount rate used by DOE for residential and
commercial consumers was too low. (Edison Electric Institute (EEI), 5-
6; Ingersoll Rand, 2). Another comment suggested that the payback
period used by DOE to calculate consumer savings is overly long and
does not consider the impact of regulatory changes on the employees of
manufacturers and their families. (Ingersoll Rand, 2). In other DOE
program areas, two comments expressed concern that certain DOE programs
collect information unrelated to and unnecessary for achieving their
objectives. (AHRI, 2; Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), 1-
2). Another comment encouraged DOE to streamline its reporting
databases to improve efficiency and reduce maintenance costs.
(Honeywell FM&T, 4). In addition, two commenters encouraged DOE to
review the terms and conditions of its federal research agreements.
(Council on Governmental Relations (COGR), 3; MIT, 1-2).
[[Page 40647]]
Three comments addressed consensus standards. One comment
encouraged DOE to develop a formal process for reviewing consensus
standards for test procedures as they are developed. (AHRI, 2). Two
others encouraged the use of consensus standards developed by
interested parties and setting forth energy conservation standards for
covered products and commercial equipment, as a way for DOE to meet its
energy savings goals while leveraging commercial mechanisms and
expertise. (ASAP, 2; AHAM, 2).
One commenter encouraged DOE to develop and publish a timeline for
its approval process of import and export authorization of fossil
energy to improve certainty. (Cheniere, Inc., 5). The commenter also
suggested that intervenors in import and export authorization request
proceedings should have to show changed circumstances to reduce
uncertainty and delays in these proceedings. (Cheniere, Inc., 4).
Another commenter encouraged DOE to limit its use of interpretive
rules. (National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), 25-27).
Two commenters addressed using curves in DOE analysis, including
learning curves for costs of production and experience curves for
equipment price. (ASAP, 3; California Investor Owned Utilities (CAIOU),
4-5).
Two commenters provided suggestions on how to maximize net
benefits, including considering factors other than direct economic
impact on purchasers when developing standards and balancing competing
considerations. (ASAP, 1-2; Ingersoll Rand, 2).
DOE received numerous comments concerning energy conservation
standards that the commenters asserted failed to justify the imposed
costs or are overly burdensome. Two comments were concerned that the
energy conservation standards for residential storage water heaters
over 55 gallons will be overly burdensome on consumers and
manufacturers. (American Gas Association (AGA), 2; EEI, 2). Two
comments addressed energy conservation standards for refrigeration
equipment: one commenter suggested the life cycle costs for residential
equipment under the new standard will be too high for most consumers
(EEI, 4, 7) and another commenter suggested the testing process for
commercial equipment could be streamlined and simplified through
computer modeling.(Hussmann Corporation, 2). Eight commenters addressed
energy conservation standards for direct heating equipment (DHE) as
applied to decorative hearth products. (AHRI, 1-2; AGA, 4; Empire
Comfort Systems, 1-2; Hearth and Home Technologies, 1-2; Hearth, Patio
& Barbecue Association (HPBA), 1-2; Lennox Hearth Products; NAHB, 35;
National Propane Gas Association (NPGA), 1-2). DOE notes that it is
currently involved in litigation over its standards for decorative
hearth heaters. Any retrospective review of these regulations will
depend upon the outcome of this litigation. Additionally, one comment
suggested that DOE should set appliance energy conservation standards,
but allow states to set building standards for new construction, while
another encouraged DOE to focus its building programs on existing
buildings. (CAIOU, 2-3; NAHB, 31) Another comment suggested DOE
reevaluate its performance standards for products assembled on site.
(CAIOU, 2).
Three commenters addressed the process by which guidance is
communicated. One comment encouraged DOE to streamline the guidance
given to stakeholders on products covered by energy conservation
standards and test procedures used to measure compliance with those
standards. (AHAM, 6-7). Another suggested streamlining of exceptions or
additions to DOE orders. (Honeywell FM&T, 4-5). Another comment
stressed the importance of transparency in calculating economic and
technological justifications. (NAHB, 6, 27).
DOE received six comments regarding coordination and harmonization
with agencies, state governments, and industry. Four comments stressed
the importance of coordination with other agencies in relevant program
areas, such as the Environmental Protection Agency's ENERGY STAR
Program, the Federal Trade Commission, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection for the implementation and enforcement of its appliance
efficiency program. (A.O. Smith Corporation, 1; AHAM, 6; AHRI, 2; ASAP,
3; Hussmann Corporation, 2-3). Two comments addressed the importance of
coordination with industry and other stakeholders to reduce burden.
(A.O. Smith Corporation, 1; AHAM, 6). Another comment encouraged DOE to
publish its final test procedure for battery charging systems because
of its interaction with the proposed standards for these products being
considered in California. (AHAM, 4). This commenter also urged DOE to
consider industry burden in developing its test procedure for clothes
washers (AHAM, 5-6).
DOE received comments on regulations that the commenters claimed
are outdated, working well, or not operating as well as expected. One
commenter praised the 1996 Process Improvement Rule and encouraged DOE
to continue following those procedures rather than the updated
procedures set out by DOE in November 2010 and available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/changes_standards_process.pdf. (EEI, 2, 13-14). Another comment encouraged the
continued use of contract H Clauses. (Honeywell FM&T, 5). One comment
suggested that DOE update its site specific reporting requirements to
reflect policy changes. (Honeywell FM&T, 3). Another comment encouraged
DOE to modernize its approach to National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) rulemaking. (Alton Strategic Environmental Group, 3-9). One
comment suggested that certain construction subcontractor regulations
were cumbersome. (Honeywell FM&T, 3). Additionally, another encouraged
DOE to restructure its state preemption waiver conditions. (CAIOU, 3).
DOE received numerous comments about how to structure a
retrospective analysis. Four commenters stressed the need for
transparency in retrospective analysis. (CAIOU, 1; Honeywell FM&T, 2;
Ingersoll Rand, 2-3; Institute for Policy Integrity, NYU School of Law,
9). Five commenters encouraged DOE to consider the real world impact of
regulations over relying on modeling and assumptions. (ASAP, 1; EEI,
12-13; Ingersoll Rand, 2; Institute for Policy Integrity, NYU School of
Law, 7-8; NAHB; 13-14). Four commenters also encouraged DOE to do an
initial review of existing regulations to prioritize regulations for
which revision will have the biggest impact. (AGA, 5-6; AHAM, 5;
Institute for Policy Integrity, NYU School of Law, 5-6; NAHB, 16-19).
Another comment encouraged DOE to revisit previous decisions denying
petitions for regulation to see if regulation may now be warranted.
(Institute for Policy Integrity, NYU School of Law, 3). One comment
suggested DOE publish a monthly schedule on current rulemaking. (CAIOU,
4).
DOE received comments on information and data about the costs,
burdens, and benefits of existing regulations. One commenter encouraged
DOE to evaluate the value of continuous efficiency improvement in
industry. (Honeywell FM&T, 5). Another commenter encouraged DOE to
evaluate its cost sharing and contracts programs. (COGR, 4-5). One
commenter also encouraged DOE to revise its consideration of climate
variations for energy conservation standards, which can affect payback.
(CAIOU, 4). Two
[[Page 40648]]
commenters addressed the full-fuel-cycle analysis of energy
consumption. (AGA, 5; EEI, 4-5, 7).
DOE received comments on unnecessarily complicated regulations,
reporting requirements, or regulatory processes other than the
certification reporting requirements discussed previously. Three
commenters suggested DOE streamline and simplify its various reporting
requirements. (COGR, 3; Honeywell FM&T, 4; MIT, 2).
Early Retrospective Review Results
Although DOE's implementation of Executive Order 13563 has only
just begun, as a result of public input and its own internal analysis,
DOE has already accomplished or proposed a number of significant
changes in retrospective review of specific regulations:
1. In response to industry concerns that a new energy-efficiency
rule would cost as much as $500 million to implement and would
significantly interrupt industry research and development efforts, DOE
has proposed an 18-month extension of that rule.
2. DOE has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking considering the
use alternative efficiency determination methods (AEDMs), such as
computer modeling, to reduce testing burden and eliminate many millions
of dollars of testing costs. This effort is particularly significant as
industry has suggested that testing under the current rule could take
several years to complete and undermine their research and development
efforts.
3. DOE has issued a proposed rule to amend its existing NEPA
regulations. The changes, proposed primarily for the categorical
exclusions provisions, are intended to better align DOE's categorical
exclusions with current activities and recent experiences, and to
update the provisions with respect to current technologies and
regulatory requirements. DOE believes the changes made by this
rulemaking could save the taxpayers as much as $100 million over ten
years and provide greater transparency to the public as to the NEPA
standards that DOE employs in analyzing particular technologies.
4. DOE is undertaking a series of initiatives to reduce paperwork
burdens on recipients of financial assistance. DOE expects these
initiatives to result in more than a 90% reduction--a reduction of over
270,000 hours--in the paperwork burden imposed on recipients of DOE's
financial assistance.
5. DOE has sought public input on the potential uses of computer
simulations to further reduce testing costs and burdens relating to
efficiency certifications.
6. After receiving public comment on a draft interpretive rule, DOE
issued enforcement guidance to explain how DOE intends to enforce
existing water conservation standards for showerheads. DOE also
provided an enforcement grace period of two years to allow such
manufacturers to sell any remaining non-compliant products. DOE changed
course in order to enforce the existing standards in a manner that
avoids needless economic dislocation that some industry representatives
estimated at $400 million.
7. DOE has issued a proposed rule to standardize procedures for the
submission and protection of trade secrets and privileged or
confidential commercial or financial information.
8. DOE is considering revisions to its regulation concerning sales
from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to streamline the process for
periodic review and publication of the standard contract provisions.
9. DOE has published a test procedure for fluorescent lamp ballasts
that reduces testing burdens by adopting a metric suggested by public
comment. The revised procedure is anticipated to reduce testing time,
and therefore laboratory testing costs, by 50 percent.
Request for Further Public Input
DOE seeks input on its preliminary retrospective review plan, which
sets forth its intended process for regulatory review pursuant to
Executive Order 13563. The preliminary plan and comments received to
date are available at http://www.gc.energy.gov/1705.htm. DOE welcomes
further comments submitted by August 1, 2011. See the ADDRESSES section
for further information on how to submit comments.
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 30, 2011.
Sean A. Lev,
Acting General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2011-17012 Filed 7-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P