Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Fiscal Service
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of the loss of all air data system information provided to the flightcrew during flight; the air data system information was recovered as the airplane descended to lower altitudes. This AD requires revising the existing airplane flight manual (AFM) to update the Unreliable Airspeed and Landing Distance Factor emergency procedures, which provide instructions for the flightcrew to stabilize the airspeed and altitude. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective August 11, 2022.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 11, 2022.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier Business Aircraft Customer Response Center, 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 1-514-855-2999; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Chirayu Gupta, Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; email
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued TCCA AD CF-2020-50, dated November 20, 2020 (TCCA AD CF-2020-50) (also referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
Bombardier has issued the following service information. This service information describes procedures for stabilizing the airspeed and altitude of the airplane. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.
• Unreliable Airspeed procedure, Section 03-12, Primary Flight Displays, Chapter 3—Emergency Procedures, of the Bombardier Global Express AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-1, Revision 107, dated February 22, 2021. (For obtaining the procedures for Bombardier Global Express AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-1, use Document Identification No. GL 700 AFM-1.)
• Instruments procedure, Landing Distance Factors section, of the Emergency Procedures section of Supplement 20—Operations at Airport Elevations Above 10,000 Feet, Chapter 7—Supplements, of the Bombardier Global Express AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-1, Revision 107, dated February 22, 2021. (For obtaining the
• Unreliable Airspeed procedure, Section 03-12, Primary Flight Displays, Chapter 3—Emergency Procedures, of the Bombardier Global Express AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-1A, Revision 107, dated February 22, 2021. (For obtaining the procedures for Bombardier Global Express AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-1A, use Document Identification No. GL 700 AFM-1A.)
• Instruments procedure, Landing Distance Factors section, of the Emergency Procedures section of Supplement 20—Operations at Airport Elevations Above 10,000 Feet, Chapter 7—Supplements, of the Bombardier Global Express AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-1A, Revision 107, dated February 22, 2021. (For obtaining the procedures for Bombardier Global Express AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-1A, use Document Identification No. GL 700 AFM-1A.)
• Unreliable Airspeed procedure, Section 03-12, Primary Flight Displays, Chapter 3—Emergency Procedures, of the Bombardier Global 5000 AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-5000-1, Revision 68, dated February 22, 2021. (For obtaining the procedures for Bombardier Global 5000 AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-5000-1, use Document Identification No. GL 5000 AFM.)
• Instruments procedure, Landing Distance Factors section, of the Emergency Procedures section of Supplement 20—Operations at Airport Elevations Above 10,000 Feet, Chapter 7—Supplements, of the Bombardier Global 5000 AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-5000-1, Revision 68, dated February 22, 2021. (For obtaining the procedures for Bombardier Global 5000 AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-5000-1, use Document Identification No. GL 5000 AFM.)
• Unreliable Airspeed procedure, Section 03-12, Instruments System, Chapter 3—Emergency Procedures, of the Bombardier Global 5000 Featuring Global Vision Flight Deck AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-5000-1V, Revision 37, dated February 22, 2021. (For obtaining the procedures for Bombardier Global 5000 Featuring Global Vision Flight Deck AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-5000-1V, use Document Identification No. GL 5000 GVFD AFM.)
• Instruments procedure, Landing Distance Factors section, of the Emergency Procedures section of Supplement 20—Operations at Airport Elevations Above 10,000 Feet, Chapter 7—Supplements, of the Bombardier Global 5000 Featuring Global Vision Flight Deck AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-5000-1V, Revision 37, dated February 22, 2021. (For obtaining the procedures for Bombardier Global 5000 Featuring Global Vision Flight Deck AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-5000-1V, use Document Identification No. GL 5000 GVFD AFM.)
• Unreliable Airspeed procedure, Section 03-12, Instruments System, Chapter 3—Emergency Procedures, of the Bombardier Global 5500 AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-5500-1, Revision 8, dated November 11, 2020. (For obtaining the procedures for Bombardier Global 5500 AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-5500-1, use Document Identification No. GL 5500 AFM.)
• Unreliable Airspeed procedure, Section 03-12, Instruments System, Chapter 3—Emergency Procedures, of the Bombardier Global 6000 AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-1V, Revision 37, dated February 22, 2021. (For obtaining the procedures for Bombardier Global 6000 AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-1V, use Document Identification No. GL 6000 AFM.)
• Instruments procedure, Landing Distance Factors section, of the Emergency Procedures section of Supplement 20—Operations at Airport Elevations Above 10,000 Feet, Chapter 7—Supplements, of the Bombardier Global 6000 AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-1V, Revision 37, dated February 22, 2021. (For obtaining the procedures for Bombardier Global 6000 AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-1V, use Document Identification No. GL 6000 AFM.)
• Unreliable Airspeed procedure, Section 03-12, Instruments System, Chapter 3—Emergency Procedures of the Bombardier Global 6500 AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-6500-1, Revision 8, dated November 11, 2020. (For obtaining the procedures for Bombardier Global 6500 AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-6500-1, use Document Identification No. GL 6500 AFM.)
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 395 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative,
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective August 11, 2022.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers (S/Ns) 9002 through 9998 inclusive, and S/Ns 60001 through 60027 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.
This AD was prompted by reports of the loss of all air data system information provided to the flightcrew during flight; the air data system information was recovered as the airplanes descended to lower altitudes. The FAA is issuing this AD to address loss of all air data system information, which could lead to loss of continued safe flight and landing of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the existing AFM to incorporate the information specified in the AFM sections and supplements, as applicable, of the AFM revisions specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) TCCA AD CF-2020-50, dated November 20, 2020, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Chirayu Gupta, Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; email
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Unreliable Airspeed procedure, Section 03-12, Primary Flight Displays, Chapter 3—Emergency Procedures, of the Bombardier Global Express Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), Publication No. CSP 700-1, Revision 107, dated February 22, 2021.
(ii) Instruments procedure, Landing Distance Factors section, of the Emergency Procedures section of Supplement 20—Operations at Airport Elevations Above 10,000 Feet, Chapter 7—Supplements, of the Bombardier Global Express AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-1, Revision 107, dated February 22, 2021.
(iii) Unreliable Airspeed procedure, Section 03-12, Primary Flight Displays, Chapter 3—Emergency Procedures, of the Bombardier Global Express AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-1A, Revision 107, dated February 22, 2021.
(iv) Instruments procedure, Landing Distance Factors section, of the Emergency Procedures section of Supplement 20—Operations at Airport Elevations Above 10,000 Feet, Chapter 7—Supplements, of the Bombardier Global Express AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-1A, Revision 107, dated February 22, 2021.
(v) Unreliable Airspeed procedure, Section 03-12, Primary Flight Displays, Chapter 3—Emergency Procedures, of the Bombardier Global 5000 AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-5000-1, Revision 68, dated February 22, 2021.
(vi) Instruments procedure, Landing Distance Factors section, of the Emergency Procedures section of Supplement 20—Operations at Airport Elevations Above 10,000 Feet, Chapter 7—Supplements, of the Bombardier Global 5000 AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-5000-1, Revision 68, dated February 22, 2021.
(vii) Unreliable Airspeed procedure, Section 03-12, Instruments System, Chapter 3—Emergency Procedures, of the Bombardier Global 5000 Featuring Global Vision Flight Deck AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-5000-1V, Revision 37, dated February 22, 2021.
(viii) Instruments procedure, Landing Distance Factors section, of the Emergency Procedures section of Supplement 20—Operations at Airport Elevations Above 10,000 Feet, Chapter 7—Supplements, of the Bombardier Global 5000 Featuring Global Vision Flight Deck AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-5000-1V, Revision 37, dated February 22, 2021.
(ix) Unreliable Airspeed procedure, Section 03-12, Instruments System, Chapter 3—Emergency Procedures, of the Bombardier Global 5500 AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-5500-1, Revision 8, dated November 11, 2020.
(x) Unreliable Airspeed procedure, Section 03-12, Instruments System, Chapter 3—Emergency Procedures, of the Bombardier Global 6000 AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-1V, Revision 37, dated February 22, 2021.
(xi) Instruments procedure, Landing Distance Factors section, of the Emergency Procedures section of Supplement 20—Operations at Airport Elevations Above 10,000 Feet, Chapter 7—Supplements, of the Bombardier Global 6000 AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-1V, Revision 37, dated February 22, 2021.
(xii) Unreliable Airspeed procedure, Section 03-12, Instruments System, Chapter 3—Emergency Procedures, of the Bombardier Global 6500 AFM, Publication No. CSP 700-6500-1, Revision 8, dated November 11, 2020.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier Business Aircraft Customer Response Center, 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 1-514-855-2999; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Diamond Aircraft Industries Inc. Model DA 40, DA 40 F, and DA 40 NG airplanes. This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
This AD is effective August 11, 2022.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 11, 2022.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Diamond Aircraft Industries Inc., Att: Thit Tun, 1560 Crumlin Road, London, N5V 1S2, Canada; phone: (519) 457-4000; email:
You may examine the AD docket at
Chirayu Gupta, Aviation Safety Engineer, New York ACO Branch, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (516) 228-7300; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Diamond Aircraft Industries Inc. Model DA 40, DA 40 F, and DA 40 NG airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Diamond Aircraft Industries Inc. (DAI) has received reports of defective buckles installed as part of the baggage nets on DA 40 NG and DA 62 aeroplanes. An investigation revealed a quality escape in the manufacturing of the Quick Fix Baggage Net Assembly, part number (P/N) D44-2550-90-00 and P/N D67-2550-90-00_02, by the supplier. P/N D44-2550-90-00 baggage nets can also be installed on DA 40, DA 40 D and DA 40 F aeroplanes. The baggage nets installed with defective buckles may not maintain sufficient holding force to restrain the baggage or cargo that is carried in the same compartment as passengers, and consequently, may not provide adequate means to protect the passengers from injury.
This condition, if not corrected, could result in the failure of the baggage net to restrain the baggage or cargo, which could lead to injury to the occupants in the case of an emergency landing.
DAI undertook a voluntary campaign to replace all defective Quick Fix Baggage Net Assemblies. However, DAI was unable to complete the campaign in its entirety, and therefore, a number of aeroplanes with defective baggage nets that have not yet been replaced, remain in operation.
As a result, DAI issued Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) 40-093, MSB D4-110, MSB F4-039, MSB 40NG-065 and MSB 62-028, providing accomplishment instructions to replace the defective Quick Fix Baggage Net Assemblies.
This [Transport Canada] AD mandates the removal and replacement of the affected baggage nets. This [Transport Canada] AD also renders any affected baggage nets not eligible for installation as a replacement part on DA 40, DA 40 D, DA 40 F, DA 40 NG and DA 62 aeroplanes.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require identifying and replacing affected baggage nets. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the baggage net to restrain the baggage or cargo. This unsafe condition, if not corrected, could result in injury to occupants in the case of an emergency landing.
The FAA received one comment on the NPRM from an individual. The commenter supported the NPRM without change.
These products have been approved by the aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. This AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.
The FAA reviewed the following service information issued by Diamond Aircraft Industries Inc., which specify procedures for identifying, removing, and replacing the affected baggage nets.
• Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB 40-093, Rev. 0, dated July 6, 2021.
• Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB F4-039, Rev. 0, dated July 6, 2021.
• Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB 40NG-065, Rev. 1, dated July 6, 2021.
These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
The MCAI applies to Diamond Aircraft Industries Inc. Model DA 40, DA 40 D, DA 40 F, DA 40 NG, and DA 62 airplanes. This AD does not apply to Model DA 62 airplanes. The FAA plans to address Model DA 62 airplanes in future rulemaking.
In addition, the MCAI applies to the Model DA 40 D airplanes and this AD does not because it does not have an FAA type certificate.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 800 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective August 11, 2022.
None.
This AD applies to Diamond Aircraft Industries Inc. Model DA 40, DA 40 F, and DA 40 NG airplanes (including Model DA 40 D airplanes that have been converted to Model DA 40 NG airplanes), all serial numbers, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2550, Cargo Compartments.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as baggage nets installed with defective buckles. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the baggage net to restrain the baggage or cargo. This unsafe condition, if not corrected, could result in injury to occupants in the case of an emergency landing.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
The following are “affected baggage nets” for purposes of this AD:
(1) Quick fix baggage net assembly part number (P/N) D44-2550-90-00 with a date of manufacture of December 2015, November 2016, or March 2017; and
(2) Quick fix baggage net assembly P/N D67-2550-90-00_02 with a date of manufacture of June 2016.
(1) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD or within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect each baggage net to determine whether an affected baggage net is installed on your airplane.
(i) If an affected baggage net is installed, before further flight, remove the baggage net from service.
(ii) Before the next flight carrying baggage or cargo in the baggage compartment, install a baggage net that is not an affected baggage net in accordance with Figure 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions in the applicable service information in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(2) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install an affected baggage net on any airplane.
(1) Diamond Aircraft Industries Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB 40-093, Rev. 0, dated July 6, 2021, for Model DA 40 airplanes.
(2) Diamond Aircraft Industries Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB F4-039, Rev. 0, dated July 6, 2021, for Model DA 40 F airplanes.
(3) Diamond Aircraft Industries Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB 40NG-065, Rev. 1, dated July 6, 2021, for Model DA 40 NG airplanes.
(1) The Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.
(2) For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must instead be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Diamond Aircraft Industries Inc.'s Design Organization Approval (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Chirayu Gupta, Aviation Safety Engineer, New York ACO Branch, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
(2) Refer to Transport Canada AD CF-2021-24, dated July 21, 2021, for more information. You may view the Transport Canada AD at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Diamond Aircraft Industries Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB 40-093, Rev. 0, dated July 6, 2021.
(ii) Diamond Aircraft Industries Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB 40NG-065, Rev. 1, dated July 6, 2021.
(iii) Diamond Aircraft Industries Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB F4-039, Rev. 0, dated July 6, 2021.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Diamond Aircraft Industries Inc., Att: Thit Tun, 1560 Crumlin Road, London, N5V 1S2, Canada; phone: (519) 457-4000; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email:
Department of the Treasury.
Final rule.
The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) is issuing in final form several technical amendments to the terms and conditions for the sale and issuance to the public of marketable Treasury securities. These amendments are designed to modernize the regulations, enhance clarity, and improve consistency in the use of terminology.
Effective August 8, 2022.
This final rule is available at
Lori Santamorena (Executive Director), Kurt Eidemiller (Associate Director), Kevin Hawkins (Associate Director) or John Garrison (Associate Director), Government Securities Regulations Staff, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Department of the Treasury, (202) 504-3632 or email us at
Chapter 31 of Title 31 of the United States Code authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to issue United States obligations, and to offer them for sale under such terms and conditions as the Secretary may prescribe. Title 31 CFR part 356, also referred to as the Uniform Offering Circular (UOC), sets out the terms and conditions for the sale and issuance by Treasury to the public of marketable, book-entry Treasury bills, notes, and bonds.
The first change removes specific references to the Legacy Treasury Direct and TreasuryDirect systems. This change removes outdated references to legacy technology and reduces the likelihood that Treasury would need to make future regulation changes based on technological developments.
The second change removes references to “press release” throughout part 356 to allow for a range of distribution methods for Treasury auction announcements and results.
The third change modifies § 356.5 paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(2) to clarify that Treasury does not conduct unscheduled reopenings of Treasury inflation-protected securities (TIPS). In a reopening, Treasury auctions an additional amount of an outstanding security. Treasury's planned auction schedule includes regularly scheduled reopenings. In an unscheduled reopening, the highest accepted yield determined in the auction of a new, non-indexed note or bond coincidentally aligns with the yield of an outstanding non-indexed note or bond with the same maturity date. In that situation, Treasury reopens the outstanding non-indexed note or bond rather than issuing a new security. Because TIPS have a 6-digit, inflation-index ratio set when each security is issued, there is an extremely low probability that a previously issued TIPS will have an initial index ratio, coupon rate, and maturity date that coincidentally aligns with a newly issued TIPS. Therefore, Treasury does not conduct unscheduled reopenings of TIPS.
The fourth change increases the noncompetitive bid limit for all marketable Treasury securities auctions from $5 million to $10 million considering the increase in auction sizes and inflation over several decades. This change aims to encourage participation by smaller investors by expanding their opportunities to bid noncompetitively.
The fifth change adds clarifying language at § 356.14(a) to confirm that the bidder has been properly identified when submitting a customer bid in an auction. Currently, the UOC does not directly address the identification of customers on bids that satisfy guarantee arrangements.
The sixth change revises paragraph § 356.20(b) to clarify that new inflation-protected notes and bonds are issued with a minimum interest rate of
The seventh change revises certain examples in Appendix B to part 356 to replace references to “inflation-indexed” with “inflation-protected” for consistency.
The eighth change adds clarifying language in Appendix B to part 356 to the examples for calculating the investment rate (coupon-equivalent yield) for Treasury bills. The clarifying language explains how to calculate variable
To provide market participants and Treasury sufficient time to modify their systems and to make any other
Banks, Banking, Bonds, Federal Reserve System, Government securities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, amend 31 CFR part 356 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 3102,
The revisions read as follows:
We issue marketable Treasury securities into the commercial book-entry system and into accounts maintained directly on the records of the Department of the Treasury (“securities held directly with Treasury”).
(b)
We offer securities under this part exclusively in book-entry form and as direct obligations of the United States issued under Chapter 31 of Title 31 of the United States Code. When we issue additional securities with the same CUSIP number as outstanding securities, we consider them to be the same securities as the outstanding securities.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) Are only reopened as scheduled or announced.
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) Are only reopened as scheduled or announced.
(a) * * *
(1) All bids must be submitted using an approved method, which depends on the system into which the awarded securities will be issued. (
(c)
(b) * * *
(1)
(c) * * *
(3)
(a)
(b)
(b)
(a)
(a) After the conclusion of the auction, we will make the auction results available on our website at
(b) The auction results will include such information as:
(a)
(b)
(c) * * *
(2)
The revisions read as follows:
I. * * *
C. * * *
1. * * * We issue floating rate notes with a daily interest accrual feature. This means that the interest rate “floats” based on changes in the representative index rate. We pay interest on a quarterly basis. The index rate is the High Rate of the 13-week Treasury bill auction announced on the auction results that has been converted into a simple-interest money market yield computed on an actual/360 basis and rounded to nine decimal places. * * *
3. * * * In general, accrued interest for a particular calendar day in an accrual period is calculated by using the index rate from the most recent auction of 13-week bills that took place before the accrual day, plus the spread determined at the time of a new floating rate note auction, divided by 360, subject to a zero-percent minimum daily interest accrual rate. However, the rate determined in a 13-week bill auction that takes place in the two-business-day period prior to a settlement date or interest payment date will be excluded from the calculation of accrued interest for purposes of the settlement amount or interest payment. * * *
VI. * * *
D. * * *
1. * * *
y = number of days in year following the issue date; normally 365, but if the period from the issue date to the same date 1 year ahead contains February 29, then y is 366. (
2. * * *
y = number of days in year following the issue date; normally 365, but if the period from the issue date to the same date 1 year ahead contains February 29, then y is 366. (
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Publication of Web General Licenses.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing four general licenses (GLs) issued pursuant to the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations: GL 25B, GL 36, GL 37, and GL 38, each of which was previously issued on OFAC's website.
GL 25B, GL 36, GL 37, and GL 38 were each issued on June 2, 2022. See
OFAC: Assistant Director for Licensing, 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, 202-622-4855; or Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, 202-622-2490.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website:
On June 2, 2022, OFAC issued GL 25B, GL 36, GL 37, and GL 38 on its website to authorize certain transactions otherwise prohibited by the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587. GL 25B and GL 38 do not contain expiration dates. GL 36 expires at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, August 31, 2022. GL 37 expires at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, July 1, 2022. The texts of GLs 25B, 36, 37, and 38 are provided below.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this general license, all transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to the receipt or transmission of telecommunications involving the Russian Federation that are prohibited by the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587 (RuHSR), are authorized.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this general license, the exportation or reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States or by U.S. persons, wherever located, to the Russian Federation of services, software, hardware, or technology incident to the exchange of communications over the internet, such as instant messaging, videoconferencing, chat and email, social networking, sharing of photos, movies, and documents, web browsing, blogging, web hosting, and domain name registration services, that is prohibited by the RuHSR, is authorized.
(c) This general license does not authorize:
(1) The opening or maintaining of a correspondent account or payable-through account for or on behalf of any entity subject to Directive 2 under Executive Order (E.O.) 14024,
(2) Any debit to an account on the books of a U.S. financial institution of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, the National Wealth Fund of the Russian Federation, or the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation;
(3) Any transactions prohibited by E.O. 14066 or E.O. 14068; or
(4) Any transactions involving Joint Stock Company Channel One Russia, Joint Stock Company NTV Broadcasting Company, Television Station Russia-1, or Limited Liability Algoritm, unless separately authorized.
(d) Effective June 2, 2022, General License No. 25A, dated May 8, 2022, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 25B.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of transactions involving Public Joint Stock Company Severstal, or any entity in which Public Joint Stock Company Severstal owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, August 31, 2022, provided that any payment to Public Joint Stock Company Severstal or any other blocked person must be made into a blocked account in accordance with the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587 (RuHSR):
(b) This general license does not authorize:
(1) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 2 under E.O. 14024,
(2) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 4 under E.O. 14024,
(3) Any transactions otherwise prohibited by the RuHSR, including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to the RuHSR other than the blocked persons described in paragraph (a) of this general license, unless separately authorized.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of transactions involving Nord Gold PLC or any entity in which Nord Gold PLC owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, July 1, 2022, provided that any payment to Nord Gold PLC or any other blocked person must be made into a blocked account in accordance with the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587 (RuHSR).
(b) This general license does not authorize:
(1) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 2 under E.O. 14024,
(2) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 4 under E.O. 14024,
(3) Any transactions otherwise prohibited by the RuHSR, including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to the RuHSR other than the blocked persons described in paragraph (a) of this general license, unless separately authorized.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this general license, all transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to the processing of pension payments to U.S. persons that are prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 14024 are authorized, provided that the only involvement of blocked persons is the processing of funds by financial institutions blocked pursuant to E.O. 14024.
(b) This general license does not authorize:
(1) The opening or maintaining of a correspondent account or payable-through account for or on behalf of any entity determined to be subject to the prohibitions of Directive 2,
(2) Any debit to an account on the books of a U.S. financial institution of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, the National Wealth Fund of the Russian Federation, or the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation; or
(3) Any transactions otherwise prohibited by the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587 (RuHSR), including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to the RuHSR other than the blocked persons described in paragraph (a) of this general license, unless separately authorized.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing temporary regulations for certain waters of the Back River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near Baltimore County, MD, during a fireworks display on July 16, 2022. This regulation prohibits persons and vessels from being in the regulated area and safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Maryland-National Capital Region or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 8 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 16, 2022.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Ron Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region; telephone 410-576-2674, email
On February 8, 2022, Fantastic Fireworks, on behalf of Tiki Lee's Dock Bar, notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a fireworks display between 9 and 10 p.m. on July 16, 2022, as a part of the “Shootout on the River” event activities. The fireworks are to be launched from a barge in the Back River located near Tiki Lee's Dock Bar in Sparrows Point, MD. Hazards from firework displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port, Maryland-National Capital Region (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this display would be a safety concern for anyone within a 420-foot radius of the barge. The Coast Guard anticipates a large spectator fleet for these events. In response, on May 20, 2022, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Special Local Regulation and Safety Zone; Back River, Baltimore County, MD” (87 FR 30846). There, we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this fireworks event. During the comment period that ended June 21, 2022, we received no comments.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231) and 46 U.S.C. 70041. The Captain of the Port, Maryland-National Capital Region (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in the July 16, 2022, display will be a safety concern for anyone intending to operate within certain waters of Back River in Baltimore County, MD, in or near the event area.
As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published May 20, 2022. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
This rule establishes a special local regulation for the area in the Back River
In addition to establishing a special local regulation, the COTP is establishing a temporary safety zone around the fireworks discharge site, in approximate position latitude 39°15′35.54″ N, longitude 76°26′56.62″ W. The safety zone covers all navigable waters within 420 feet of a fireworks barge in the Back River located near Tiki Lee's Dock Bar in Sparrow's Point, MD. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, duration, and time-of-day of the special local regulation and safety zone, which would impact a small designated area of the Back River for a total of no more than 2.5 enforcement hours during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Local Notices to Mariners and a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zones.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 applicable to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States that could negatively impact the safety of waterway users and shore side activities in the event area, and within 33 CFR part 165 establishing a temporary safety zone that would prohibit entry within 420 feet of a fireworks barge, both lasting a total of 2.5 consecutive hours.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR parts 100 and 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
(a)
(1)
(2) [Reserved]
(b)
(c)
(2) Except for participants and vessels already at berth, a person or vessel within the regulated area at the start of enforcement of this section must immediately depart the regulated area.
(3) A spectator must contact the Event PATCOM to request permission to either enter or pass through the regulated area. The Event PATCOM and official patrol vessels enforcing the regulated area can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) and channel 22A (157.1 MHz). If permission is granted, the spectator must enter a designated spectator area or pass directly through the regulated area as instructed by Event PATCOM. A vessel within the regulated area must operate at safe speed that minimizes wake. A spectator vessel must not loiter within the navigable channel while within the regulated area.
(4) A person or vessel that desires to transit, moor, or anchor within the regulated area must obtain authorization from the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or Event PATCOM. A person or vessel seeking such permission can contact the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region at telephone number 410-576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) or the Event PATCOM on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
(5) The Coast Guard will publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners and issue a marine information broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio announcing specific event dates and times.
(d)
(e)
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by telephone at 410-576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be contacted on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
(3) Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
(e)
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 140-yard radius of a fireworks barge on Henderson Harbor, Henderson Harbor, NY. The safety zone is necessary to restrict usage by persons and vessels to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the fireworks display. Entry of persons or vessels into this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated representative.
This rule is effective from 8:45 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 30, 2022.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LTJG William Kelley, Chief of Waterways Management Sector Buffalo, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 716-843-9322, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. This safety zone must be established by July 30, 2022, in order to protect the public and vessels from the hazards associated with a fireworks display with an expected fall-out area over the water.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks display occurring on July 30, 2022 will be a safety concern for anyone within a 140-yard radius of the barge. This rule is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within a 140-yard radius of the fireworks barge before, during, and immediately after the scheduled event.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 8:45 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 30, 2022. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 140 yards of a barge in Henderson Harbor located approximately 1,100 yards north of the town boat ramp located on the southern shore of Henderson Harbor in Henderson Harbor, NY. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP Buffalo or his designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would impact a small designated area of Henderson Harbor for less than 2 hours during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the safety zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the safety zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting only 1 hour and 15 minutes that will prohibit entry within 140 yards of a fireworks barge. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP Buffalo or his designated representative by telephone at 716-843-9322. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP Buffalo or his designated representative.
(d)
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the waters of Boot Key Harbor, surrounding Boot Key Harbor Bridge, Marathon, FL, during the Hoonigan Gymkhana event. The safety zone will include all waters of Boot Key Harbor, 300 feet East and West of the Boot Key Harbor Bridge in Marathon, FL, and is necessary to ensure the safety of participant vessels, spectators, and the public during the event. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the designated area unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Key West or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 7:00 a.m. on July 11, 2022, until 7:30 p.m., on July 12, 2022. The event is scheduled to take place from 7:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. on July 11, 2022, but if there is adverse weather on July 11, 2022, the event will be held from 7:00 a.m. until 7:30 p.m. on July 12, 2022.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Isaiah Quinones, Waterways Management Division, Sector Key West, FL, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (305) 292-8823, e-mail
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule. Doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The primary justification for this action is that the Coast Guard did not receive final details of the event until June 27, 2022, and the event is scheduled to take place on July 11, 2022. Therefore, the Coast Guard lacks sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule. It would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay promulgating this rule, as it is necessary to protect the safety of participants, spectators, the public, and vessels transiting the Boot Key Harbor Bridge.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Key West has determined that potential hazards associated with the Hoonigan Gymkhana event will be a safety concern for anyone within 300 feet East and West of the Boot Key Harbor Bridge in Marathon, FL. This rule is necessary to ensure the safety of the event participants, the public, vessels, and the navigable waters of Marathon, Florida, during the Hoonigan Gymkhana event.
This rule establishes a safety zone on certain navigable waters of Boot Key Harbor near Marathon, FL, during the Hoonigan Gymkhana event. The safety zone will encompass all waters of Boot Key Harbor 300 feet East and West of the Boot Key Harbor Bridge in Marathon, FL. The event is scheduled to take place from 7:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. on July 11, 2022. In case of adverse weather on July 11, 2022, the event will be held from 7:00 a.m. until 7:30 p.m. on July 12, 2022. Approximately 10 spectator craft are anticipated to attend the event. No person or vessel will be permitted to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without first obtaining permission from the COTP Key West or a designated representative. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone is granted by the COTP Key West or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP Key West or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone by Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and potentially by on-scene designated representatives.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the following reasons: (1) the safety zone only being enforced for a total of eleven hours and thirty minutes; (2) although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the zone without authorization from the COTP or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (3) persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the areas during the enforcement period if authorized by the COTP or a designated representative.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entity” comprises of small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone that will prohibit persons and vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within a limited area on the navigable waters of Marathon, Florida, during the Hoonigan Gymkhana even lasting eleven hours and thirty minutes. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the COTP Key West by telephone at (305) 292-8727, or a designated representative via VHF-FM radio on channel 16 to request authorization. If authorization is granted, all persons and vessels
(3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM channel 16, and/or by on-scene designated representatives.
(d)
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for waters near Gerald Desmond Bridge during the removal of the over-the-water span. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near Long Beach, CA, from July 9 through July 11, 2022, where the over-the-water portion of the Gerald Desmond Bridge will be lowered and transported to pier T, Port of Long Beach. This rulemaking will prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP), Los Angeles—Long Beach, or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. on July 9, 2022, through 11:59 p.m. July 11, 2022.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rulemaking, call or email LCDR Maria Wiener at Sector Los Angeles—Long Beach Waterways Management Branch at (310) 521-3860 or email
On March 3, 2022, the Port of Long Beach notified the Coast Guard that it will be removing the over-the-water span of the Gerald Desmond Bridge from 12:01 a.m. on July 9, 2022, to 11:59 p.m. on July 11, 2022. The removal will take place at mile 3.3 over Long Beach Harbor on the section of the bridge that is over the water. Hazards from removal include falling debris and construction work conducted on a barge that will be moored in such a way that it blocks the entire channel. The Captain of the Port (COTP), Los Angeles—Long Beach has determined that potential hazards associated with the removal of Gerald Desmond Bridge would be a safety concern for anyone within a 200-yard radius of freight barge FOSS 3612 (O.N. 1255436) during lowering and transport of the bridge span.
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable; the Coast Guard must establish this safety zone by July 9, 2022. This urgent safety zone is required to protect the maritime public and the surrounding waterways from hazards associated with the bridge lowering and removal project. The Coast Guard lacks sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Los Angeles—Long Beach (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the Gerald Desmond Bridge span removal and transport on July 9 through July 11, 2022, will be a safety concern for waterways users within a 200-yard radius of freight barge FOSS 3612 (O.N. 1255436). This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled demolition.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within a 200-yard radius north of the bridge to 1,000-yard radius south of the Gerald Desmond Bridge before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard is issuing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).
The COTP is establishing a safety zone from 12:01 a.m. on July 9, 2022, to 11:59 p.m. on July 11, 2022. The safety zone covers all navigable waters within a 200-yard radius of freight barge FOSS 3612 (O.N. 1255436). The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled lowering of the over-water-span of the Gerald Desmond Bridge. The COTP will announce the dates and times of enforcement via local notice to mariners. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text appears at the end of this document.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the size location and duration of the safety zone. The safety zone will only last 3 days and will be limited in size to the area around the bridge.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting 48 hours that would prohibit entry within a 200-yard radius surrounding freight barge FOSS 3612 (O.N. 1255436) due to potential hazards associated with the removal and transport of the over-water portion of the Gerald Desmond Bridge. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) In the event of an emergency, vessels requiring entry into the safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. To seek entry into the safety zone, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by telephone at (310) 521-3801 or on VHF-FM channel 16. To coordinate the movement of vessel traffic, vessel operators may contact the Jacobsen Pilot Station at (562) 432-0664 or the Water Traffic Coordinator, Andres Velasco, at (602) 376-5765.
(3) Persons and vessels permitted to enter the safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
(e)
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA or Department) amends its regulations concerning the standards of ethical conduct and related responsibilities of its employees by adopting an overarching principle-based ethics framework for access to and use of veteran data. This framework is an important part of VA's data governance strategy. A data ethics framework can ensure uniform ethics standards for data practices and address consumer protection and data stewardship concerns that are beyond traditional privacy and confidentiality practices. This framework is intended to be applied by all parties who oversee the access to, sharing of, or the use of veteran data, or who access, share, or use veteran data themselves in the context of all other specific clinical, technical, fiscal, regulatory, professional, industry, and other standards.
This final rule is effective July 7, 2022.
Kenneth Berkowitz MD FCCP, Special Advisor, VHA National Center for Ethics in Health Care (10ETH), Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20420. 202-632-8457. (This is not a toll-free number.)
Federal statutes and regulation establish parameters for accessing, sharing, and use of data collected by Federal and state agencies as well as non-governmental organizations and institutions. Limitations on accessing, sharing, or use of data varies based on what type of data is collected. Various Federal laws require or permit disclosure or sharing of data under specific circumstances.
While law, regulation, and policy set important standards for data access, sharing, and use, they do not always provide definitive guidance about how VA should manage access, sharing, or use of veteran data when regulation and policy permit organizational discretion. Given burgeoning access to, sharing of, and use of VA data, proceeding without establishing clear expectations for access to, sharing of, and use of VA data is a disservice to veterans, the Department, and our partners, and creates a serious risk due to inconsistent or problematic data access, sharing, or use. These risks could undermine our imperative to harness the tremendous potential of VA data to support and improve veteran health and wellness; the delivery of services to veterans; and overall public health. VA has adopted an overarching principle-based ethics framework for access to, sharing of, and use of veteran data which is the subject of this rulemaking. This framework is an important part of VA's data governance strategy. A data ethics framework ensures uniform ethics standards for data practices and addresses concerns that are beyond traditional privacy and confidentiality practices.
This data ethics framework is intended to be applied by all parties who oversee the access to, sharing of, or the use of veteran data, or who access or use veteran data themselves in the context of all other specific clinical, technical, fiscal, regulatory, professional, industry, and other standards.
In brief, the Ethical Framework Principles for Access to and Use of Veteran Data, explained in further detail in regulation, are as follows:
Principle 1. The primary goal for use of veteran data is for the good of veterans. Veteran data is personal and sensitive.
Principle 2. Veteran data should be used in a manner that ensures equity to veterans.
Principle 3. The sharing of veteran data should be based on the veteran's meaningful choice.
Principle 4. Access to and exchange of veteran data should be transparent and consistent.
Principle 5. De-identified veteran data should not be reidentified without authorization.
Principle 6. There is an obligation of reciprocity for gains made using veteran data.
Principle 7. All parties are obligated to ensure data security, quality and integrity of veteran data.
Principle 8. Veterans should be able to access to their own information.
Principle 9. Veterans have the right to request amendments to their own information.
The Administrative Procedure Act provides that the general requirement that notice and opportunity for public comment does not apply to a matter relating to agency management or personnel, rules of agency procedure or practice, or general statements of policy. 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2) and (b)(3)(A). The Secretary finds that this rulemaking concerning VA's data ethics framework for access to and use of veteran data relates solely to agency procedure or practice and is a general statement of policy and is exempt from notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. For the same reason, this rule is also exempt from the delayed effective-date requirement in 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
This final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Oder 12866. The Regulatory Impact Analysis associated with this rulemaking can be found as a supporting document at
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule has no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
There are no Assistance Listing numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Conflict of interests.
Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on June 30, 2022, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs amends 38 CFR part 0 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 38 U.S.C. 501; see sections 201, 301, and 502(a) of E.O. 12674, 54 FR 15159, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 215 as modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR 42547, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306.
(a) Veterans trust VA to promote and respect their privacy, confidentiality, and autonomy in the services we provide or support. We earn this trust when we adhere to VA's core values of integrity, commitment, advocacy, respect, and excellence (commonly referred to as ICARE).
(b) Consistent with the values listed in paragraph (a) of this section, VA must promote and ensure responsible practices whenever veteran data is accessed, shared, or used by VA or its partners. Veteran data is accessed, shared, and used for many purposes which are developing at an unparalleled pace. While the regulatory and policy framework that governs data access, sharing, and use sets important standards about what is required with respect to data access, sharing, and use, it does not always provide definitive guidance about how VA should manage access, sharing, or use of veteran data when regulation and policy permit organizational discretion, except in cases where there are already established federally protected classes.
(c) The following principles establish an overarching ethical framework for all individuals, groups, or entities to apply when managing access to, sharing of, or use of VA veteran data. All parties who have or obtain access to and use VA veteran data are encouraged to carefully consider and apply this principle-based ethical framework when not contradicted by other specific clinical, technical, fiscal, regulatory, professional, industry, and other standards. VA and its partners must apply this principle-based ethical framework when accessing, sharing or using veteran data unless prohibited by law. Consistent application of this framework will ensure the integrity and trustworthiness that veterans and other stakeholders expect and deserve when veteran data is accessed, shared, or used.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(d) As used in this section,
Postal Service
Final rule.
The Postal Service is amending
Effective July 7, 2022.
Dale Kennedy at (202) 268-6592.
On March 24, 2022, the Postal Service published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (87 FR 16702-16703) to revise verification requirements for authorized audit bureaus. The Postal Service did not receive any comments regarding the NPRM.
The Postal Service is enacting new procedures for auditing compliance with circulation standards for Periodicals requester publications and standardizing existing procedures across Postal Service publications.
In addition, the Postal Service is revising the applicable Customer Support Ruling and customer Handbooks to reflect this DMM revision.
We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes.
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
Accordingly, the Postal Service amends
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401-404, 414, 416, 3001-3018, 3201-3220, 3401-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3629, 3631-3633, 3641, 3681-3685, and 5001.
The publisher must keep records for each issue of a publication for 3 years from its issue date, except for circulation records for general or requester publications for which USPS verification of circulation is done by a USPS-authorized audit bureau. In addition, the publisher must retain records for paid subscribers for 12 months following the issue date. A publisher whose records are verified by an authorized audit bureau is not required to keep source records of requests and subscriptions longer than required by the audit bureau, provided, however, the authorized audit bureau shall be required to retain records related to such requests and
USPS employees or an authorized audit bureau may conduct verifications of circulation for an application for Periodicals mailing privileges, reentry application, or other required circulation verification of general or requester publications, provided, however, that the Postal Service will have the authority to review audit procedures upon request. In addition, the Postal Service reserves the right to verify each audit bureau's compliance with such audit procedures. The Postal Service shall have the authority to revoke any audit bureau's authorization to conduct verifications if it finds such audit bureau has failed to follow approved audit procedures.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Direct final rule.
The Commission is announcing an update to the Market Dominant and Competitive product lists. This action reflects a publication policy adopted by Commission rules. The referenced policy assumes periodic updates. The updates are identified in the body of this document. The Market Dominant and Competitive product lists, which are re-published in their entirety, include these updates.
This rule is effective August 22, 2022, without further action, unless adverse comment is received by August 8, 2022. If adverse comment is received, the Commission will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
For additional information, this document can be accessed electronically through the Commission's website at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6800.
Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(2) and 39 CFR 3040.103, the Commission provides a Notice of Update to Product Lists by listing all necessary modifications to both the Market Dominant and Competitive product lists between January 1, 2022, and March 31, 2022.
Pursuant to 39 CFR part 3040, the Commission maintains a Mail Classification Schedule (MCS) that includes rates, fees, and product descriptions for each Market Dominant and Competitive product, as well as product lists that categorize Postal Service products as either Market Dominant or Competitive.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3040.103(d)(1), this Notice of Update to Product Lists identifies any modifications made to the Market Dominant or Competitive product list, including product additions, removals, and transfers.
The following list of products is being added to 39 CFR part 3040, appendix A to subpart A, Market Dominant Product List:
The following list of products is being added to 39 CFR part 3040, appendix B to subpart A, Competitive Product List:
The following list of products is being removed from 39 CFR part 3040, appendix A to subpart A, Market Dominant Product List:
The following list of products is being removed from 39 CFR part 3040, appendix B to subpart A, Competitive Product List:
The above-referenced changes to the Market Dominant product list and the Competitive product list are incorporated into 39 CFR part 3040, appendices A and B to subpart A.
1. Part 3040 of title 39, Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as set forth below the signature of this notification, effective 45 days after the date of publication of the notification in the
2. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of the notification in the
3. Interested persons may submit adverse comments no later than 30 days from the date of the publication of this notification in the
4. If adverse comments are received, the Secretary will publish a timely withdrawal of the notification in the
By the Commission.
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Postal Regulatory Commission amends chapter III of title 39 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
39 U.S.C. 503; 3622; 3631; 3642; 3682.
(An asterisk (*) indicates an organizational class or group, not a Postal Service product.)
(An asterisk (*) indicates an organizational class or group, not a Postal Service product.)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements an accountability measure for the commercial hook-and-line component of golden tilefish in the South Atlantic exclusive economic zone (EEZ). NMFS projects that commercial hook-and-line landings for golden tilefish will reach the commercial quota for the hook-and-line component by July 6, 2022. Therefore, NMFS closes the commercial hook-and-line component for golden tilefish in the South Atlantic EEZ on July 6, 2022. This closure is necessary to protect the golden tilefish resource.
This temporary rule is effective at 12:01 a.m., eastern time, on July 6, 2022, until 12:01 a.m., eastern time, on January 1, 2023.
Frank Helies, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes golden tilefish and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and NMFS, and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. All weights in this temporary rule are given in gutted weight.
The commercial sector for golden tilefish has two components, each with its own quota: The hook-and-line and longline components (50 CFR 622.190(a)(2)). The golden tilefish commercial annual catch limit (ACL) is allocated 25 percent to the hook-and-line component and 75 percent to the longline component. The total commercial ACL (equivalent to the commercial quota) for golden tilefish is 331,740 lb (150,475 kg), and the hook-and-line component ACL is 82,935 lb (37,619 kg).
Under 50 CFR 622.193(a)(1)(i), NMFS is required to close the commercial hook-and-line component for golden tilefish when its commercial ACL has been reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing such a notification with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined that the commercial ACL for the golden tilefish hook-and-line component in the South Atlantic will be reached by July 6, 2022. Accordingly, the commercial hook-and-line component of South Atlantic golden tilefish is closed effective at 12:01 a.m., eastern time, on July 6, 2022.
The commercial longline component for South Atlantic golden tilefish also closed on March 16, 2022, and will remain closed for the remainder of the current fishing year, through December 31, 2022 (87 FR 14419; March 15, 2022). Therefore, because the commercial longline component is already closed, and NMFS is closing the commercial hook-and-line component through this temporary rule, all harvest of South Atlantic golden tilefish in the EEZ is limited to the recreational bag and possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.187(b)(2)(iii) and (c)(1) as long as the recreational sector is open.
The operator of a vessel with a valid Federal commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper having golden tilefish on board harvested by hook-and-line must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such golden tilefish prior to 12:01 a.m., eastern time, on July 6, 2022. During the closure, the sale or purchase of golden tilefish taken from the EEZ is prohibited. The prohibition on sale or purchase does not apply to the sale or purchase of golden tilefish that were harvested by hook-and-line, landed ashore, and sold prior to 12:01 a.m., eastern time, on July 6, 2022, and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor. For a person on board a vessel for which a Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery has been issued, the sale and purchase provisions of the commercial closure for golden tilefish apply regardless of whether the fish are harvested in state or Federal waters, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(c)(1)(ii).
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 622.193(a)(1), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the regulations associated with the commercial closure of the golden tilefish hook-and-line component have already been subject to notice and public comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because of the need to implement the closure and protect the golden tilefish resource and minimize the risk of exceeding the sector's ACL.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Acting Assistant Administrator also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2021-14-20, which applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737 airplanes. AD 2021-14-20 requires repetitive functional tests of the cabin altitude pressure switches, and on-condition actions, including replacement, if necessary. AD 2021-14-20 also requires reporting test results. Since the FAA issued AD 2021-14-20, data collected from the reports required by AD 2021-14-20 revealed that the switches were subject to false test failures due to lack of clear instructions for setup of the test adapters during the functional tests. This proposed AD would retain the repetitive functional tests and on-condition actions, and specify certain adapter requirements for the functional tests. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 22, 2022.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket at
Nicole Tsang, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3959; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Nicole Tsang, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3959; email:
The FAA issued AD 2021-14-20, Amendment 39-21647 (86 FR 38214, July 20, 2021) (AD 2021-14-20), for all The Boeing Company Model 737 airplanes. AD 2021-14-20 was prompted by reports of latent failures of the cabin altitude pressure switches. AD 2021-14-20 requires repetitive functional tests of the pressure switches, and on-condition actions, including replacement, if necessary. The agency issued AD 2021-14-20 to address the unexpectedly high rate of latent failure of both pressure switches on the same airplane, which could result in the cabin altitude warning system not activating if the cabin altitude exceeds 10,000 feet, resulting in hypoxia of the flightcrew and loss of control of the airplane.
Since the FAA issued AD 2021-14-20, Boeing, Eaton Aerospace (the cabin altitude warning switch supplier) and the FAA analyzed data collected from the reports required by AD 2021-14-20. That data revealed that the switches were subject to false test failures due to lack of clear instructions for setup of the test adapters during the functional tests.
The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2021-14-20. This proposed AD would continue to require repetitive functional tests of the pressure switches having part number 214C50-2, and on-condition actions, including replacement, if necessary. This proposed AD would require using adapters and matching hoses meeting certain criteria when performing the functional tests, as specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD. This proposed AD would also eliminate the reporting required by AD 2021-14-20.
The FAA issued AD 2015-21-11, Amendment 39-18304 (80 FR 65927, October 28, 2015) (AD 2015-21-11) applicable to certain Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, -500, -600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. AD 2015-21-11 requires, among other actions, the installation of a redundant cabin altitude pressure switch in accordance with specified Boeing service information. The FAA has since approved numerous supplemental type certificates (STCs) and other means for installing the redundant pressure switch. As a result of its oversight of these newly-installed switches, the FAA has determined that use of approved maintenance procedures for the cabin altitude pressure switch functional test other than the task cards specified in Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, is acceptable for the functional test, provided the adapter meets the criteria specified in paragraph (g) of this AD. Therefore, those other procedures do not require approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC).
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 2,693 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of the functional test. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, Section 44701, General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA has determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD 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.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) action by August 22, 2022.
This AD replaces AD 2021-14-20, Amendment 39-21647 (86 FR 38214, July 20, 2021) (AD 2021-14-20).
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, -500, -600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes and Model 737-8, 737-9, and 737-8200 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 21, Air conditioning.
This AD was prompted by reports of latent failures of the cabin altitude pressure switches, and the determination that using certain adapters while performing a functional test may lead to false failures of the cabin altitude pressure switches. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unexpectedly high rate of latent failure of both pressure switches on the same airplane which could result in the cabin altitude warning system not activating if the cabin altitude exceeds 10,000 feet, resulting in hypoxia of the flightcrew, and loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) At the latest of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (iii) of this AD, perform a functional test of the cabin altitude pressure switches having part number 214C50-2, using an adapter as specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, or an equivalent adapter, and matching hose to connect to the cabin altitude warning switch. Repeat the functional test thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight hours. If, during any functional test, any cabin altitude pressure switch fails to activate at an altitude of between 9,000 and 11,000 feet, replace the switch before further flight.
(i) Within 2,000 flight hours since the last functional test of the cabin altitude pressure switches.
(ii) Prior to the accumulation of 2,000 total flight hours on the airplane.
(iii) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Adapters are considered to be equivalent as long as the mating side with the switch meets the specifications in either paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (ii) of this AD:
(i) Greater than or equal to 0.265 inches (0.673 cm) X 7/16-20-UNJF-3A and less than or equal to 0.438 inches (1.113 cm) X 7/16-20-UNJF-3A for the flareless end; or
(ii) Less than or equal to 0.5 inches (1.27 cm) total with greater than or equal to 0.265 inches (0.673 cm) X 7/16-20-UNJF-3A thread for AN4 flared end.
If any cabin altitude warning switch fails any functional test as required by this AD, the airplane may be operated as specified in the operator's existing FAA-approved MEL, provided provisions that specify operating the airplane at a flight altitude at or below 10,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) with the cabin altitude warning system inoperative are included in the operator's existing FAA-approved MEL.
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Nicole Tsang, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3959; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Commission seeks comment on the state
Comments are due on or before August 8, 2022; reply comments are due on or before September 6, 2022.
You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 16-142, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
• Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19.
• During the time the Commission's building is closed to the general public and until further notice, if more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of a proceeding, paper filers need not submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number; an original and one copy are sufficient.
For additional information on this proceeding, contact Evan Baranoff,
This is a summary of the Commission's Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), FCC 22-47, adopted on June 21, 2022 and released on June 22, 2022. The full text of this document is available electronically via the FCC's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) website at
1. In this Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), we seek comment on the state of the Next Generation Television (“Next Gen TV” or “ATSC 3.0”) transition and on the scheduled sunsets of two rules adopted in the
2. Next Gen TV is the newest broadcast TV transmission standard, developed by the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC), which promises to enable broadcasters to deliver an array of new video and non-video services and enhanced content features to consumers. Also called “ATSC 3.0” or “3.0”, this new standard merges the capabilities of over-the-air (OTA) broadcasting with the broadband viewing and information delivery methods of the internet, using the same 6 MHz channels presently allocated for DTV service. As 3.0 proponents have previously explained to the Commission, the greater spectral capacity of the new standard and its internet-Protocol (IP) delivery component will allow broadcasters to provide consumers with a higher quality television viewing experience, such as ultra-high-definition (UHD) picture resolutions and immersive audio. It also has the potential to enable broadcasters to reach viewers on both home and mobile screens. In addition, ATSC 3.0 will allow broadcasters to offer enhanced public safety capabilities, such as geo-targeting of emergency alerts to tailor information to particular communities and emergency alerting capable of waking up sleeping devices to warn consumers of imminent emergencies, as well as greater accessibility options, localized content, and interactive educational children's content. And as an IP-based standard, ATSC 3.0 could enable advanced one-way datacasting services to help support the proliferation of new, IP-based consumer applications.
3. In November 2017, the Commission authorized television broadcasters to use the Next Gen TV transmission standard on a voluntary, market-driven basis.
4. The Commission found that a local simulcasting requirement is crucial to deploying Next Gen TV service in order to minimize viewer disruption. The Next Gen TV standard is not backward-compatible with pre-existing TV sets or receivers, which have only ATSC 1.0 and, in many cases, now-obsolete analog tuners.
5. The Commission also required that Next Gen TV broadcasters comply with all of its broadcast rules, including, but not limited to, our rules regarding foreign ownership, political broadcasting, children's programming, equal employment opportunities, public inspection file, indecency, sponsorship identification, contests, the CALM Act, the Emergency Alert System (EAS), and accessibility for people with disabilities. The Commission emphasized that broadcasters, equipment manufacturers, and MVPDs must comply with the Commission's Part 79 captioning rules including closed captioning decoder requirements, video description and emergency information accessibility requirements, and requirements for user interfaces, programming guides, and menus.
6.
7.
8.
9. As an initial matter, we seek comment on the state of the ATSC 3.0 marketplace, including specifically information and data on broadcasters' present deployment of ATSC 3.0 service; current availability and pricing of ATSC 3.0 consumer television equipment; the number of over-the-air (OTA) television viewers currently watching ATSC 3.0 broadcasts; whether any MVPDs are currently carrying or have plans to carry 3.0 signals; and how the 3.0 marketplace is handling patent royalties for essential patents in ATSC 3.0 technology. Next, we seek comment on whether we should retain the substantially similar requirement, which is set to expire in July 2023. Finally, we seek comment on whether we should retain the requirement that Next Gen TV broadcasters' primary video programming stream must comply with the ATSC A/322 standard, which is set to expire in March 2023, and, if so, for how long.
10. First, we seek comment regarding the ATSC 3.0 marketplace. It has been more than four years since the Commission authorized Next Gen TV broadcasters to provide OTA broadcast ATSC 3.0 service on a voluntary, market-driven basis.
11. As part of this review, we seek comment on whether broadcasters still consider ATSC 3.0 to be a trial technology and the extent to which broadcasters intend to fully transition to 3.0 at some point. Is the expectation still a uniform transition by all broadcasters at some future point? The Commission intended for broadcasters to operate in both 1.0 and 3.0 only for a “temporary” period of time. We seek comment on the appropriate length of time broadcasters should be required or allowed to operate in both 1.0 and 3.0. What is the impact on OTA viewers and MVPDs of not having a date certain 3.0 transition deadline? For example, without a certain transition date, are viewers and MVPDs able to prepare for their own transitions? We also seek comment on the ways in which broadcasters are educating consumers about the continued progress of the transition.
12. We seek comment and data on broadcasters' current and future deployment of ATSC 3.0 service. According to our licensing records, as of June 21, 2022, the Commission has licensed 306 broadcast television stations to provide ATSC 3.0 service. Based on our records, ATSC 3.0 stations have been licensed to operate in 68 markets, though in some cases it may be a single low power television station. Furthermore, most markets with 3.0 deployments have a single 3.0 “lighthouse” facility licensed to provide ATSC 3.0 service. According to S&P Global, Next Gen TV now reaches nearly 66.3 million unique households, or about 51.1% of total U.S. households. Given current deployments, is this an accurate estimate of the percentage of the U.S. population that could have access to at least one ATSC 3.0 broadcast signal if they had 3.0 TV equipment? We seek comment on these data points, as well as additional data. In how many DMAs has ATSC 3.0 service actually been launched, and what percentage of viewers could receive ATSC 3.0 programming if they had 3.0 equipment? In how many markets are broadcasters providing access to all of the “Big-4” networks (NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX) and what percentage of 3.0 viewers have access to such programming? In how many markets are broadcasters providing access to all of the “Big-4” networks and PBS programming and what percentage of 3.0 viewers can receive such programming? What other programming networks are available in 3.0 and in which markets? What other data should the Commission be tracking in order to monitor the state of the ATSC 3.0 transition, and how should it collect such information? Are existing Commission databases sufficient to track such information?
13. We seek further information on the ATSC 3.0 broadcast rollout. Just
14. What are broadcasters' plans for future voluntary ATSC 3.0 deployment? For example, by what date do broadcasters expect that there will be some ATSC 3.0 service in all 210 markets, and when do they expect to be ready to transition entire markets to ATSC 3.0? To what extent are enhanced datacasting capabilities expected to help promote the transition to ATSC 3.0 and what, if any, services are already being offered? We also specifically seek comment from any broadcasters that do not currently have plans to voluntarily deploy ATSC 3.0 service. Do they have plans to transition at a later date? Why have they decided not to undertake ATSC 3.0 service, and what factors are most important to these stations as they plan for future services (be it in 1.0 or 3.0)?
15.
16.
17. We seek comment in particular on the types of viewer data that broadcasters deploying ATSC 3.0 may collect and on the expected uses of such data. Will all 3.0 viewers be potentially subject to ATSC 3.0-enabled viewer data collection, or does that capability apply only to those 3.0 viewers whose television receivers have an internet connection? What efforts are broadcasters taking to inform 3.0 viewers about the data that is being collected? Will 3.0 viewers have the ability to opt out of undesired 3.0 features, such as data collection and targeted advertising? Would limitations or regulations on the collection of user data by ATSC 3.0 broadcasters be in the public interest? Commenters should identify the authority on which the Commission might rely to impose such limitations or regulations.
18. We seek comment on the current availability and pricing of TV sets with ATSC 3.0 tuners and other ATSC 3.0 consumer TV equipment (
19. We seek specific comment on the availability of low-cost consumer 3.0 to 1.0 set-top boxes or other converter devices, such as external tuners or dongles, that can make a legacy 1.0 TV set capable of receiving 3.0 signals. How many 3.0 converter devices have been sold in the U.S. to date? Where are such devices available for sale? Do all currently available converter devices require an internet connection, and if so are there plans to create devices that do not require internet access? What manufacturers are developing or have plans to develop ATSC 3.0 converter devices, particularly low-cost devices, and where will such devices be sold? When might such devices become available and at what prices? We believe the availability of low-cost 3.0 converter devices will be critical for consumers who are not ready to replace their 1.0 TV sets. What is the price range that should be considered “low-cost,” and what is that range based on? The cheapest 3.0 gateway device currently available for purchase, of which we are aware, is the “HDHomeRun 4K” device that can be purchased over the internet and retails for $199. We are not aware of any low-cost set-top boxes or converters (
20. We seek comment and data on how many OTA TV viewers are currently watching 3.0 broadcasts. Are there any current sources for this information? Are any companies able or planning to track this data as the transition progresses? If so, how? How many OTA TV households have a TV set with (or attached to) a 3.0 tuner? Is the number of 3.0 TV sets or other 3.0 TV equipment sold with ATSC 3.0 tuners a good indicator of consumer viewing trends for ATSC 3.0 service? Is there evidence that consumers are currently using the ATSC 3.0 tuner featured in these sets? Are OTA TV viewers and other consumers aware of the broadcasters' voluntary transition to 3.0 and how it may affect them now and in the future?
21. We seek comment on how broadcasters are educating OTA TV viewers and other consumers about the broadcasters' voluntary transition to 3.0 and how it may affect them now and in the future. How effective have the required on-air notices been in informing OTA viewers about the 3.0 transition? Following the transitions of individual stations, have broadcasters received any complaints or questions? What (if any) additional, voluntary education efforts are currently being employed by broadcasters, manufacturers and/or retailers? Other than the “NEXTGEN TV” branding noted above, are manufacturers and retailers providing information about the 3.0 transition to consumers before they buy new TV equipment?
22. We seek comment and data on whether any MVPDs are currently carrying or have plans to carry 3.0 signals. We note that MVPDs are not required to carry 3.0 signals but may do so voluntarily if they obtain retransmission consent from the Next Gen TV broadcast station. We seek comment about the technical challenges, if any, that MVPDs face in carrying 3.0 signals. Is there equipment available that will allow MVPDs to receive 3.0 signals and redistribute them to their subscribers? We seek comment on the coordination efforts between Next Gen TV broadcasters and MVPDs to resolve any existing technical issues, including the status of any relevant ATSC 3.0 working groups.
23. We seek comment on how the 3.0 marketplace is handling patent royalties for essential patents in ATSC 3.0 technology. As noted above, ATSC requires patentees to make essential patents available on RAND terms. Are holders of essential patents in ATSC 3.0 technologies licensing such patents on RAND terms? How have the available licensing terms impacted current and potential participants in the 3.0 marketplace, the deployment of 3.0 services, and the availability of consumer devices? The Commission previously found that it would be premature to impose regulations on 3.0 patent licensing in the absence of any issues. Have there been any developments that would warrant such Commission action at this time and how should the Commission continue to monitor this issue in the future? If so, what precisely should such a rule require and upon what authority would the rule be based? What are the advantages, disadvantages, and legal limitations of such a requirement? Finally, we observe that a “ATSC 3.0 Patent Portfolio License” is being offered by MPEG LA, LLC. We seek more information and comment about this portfolio license. Is this portfolio license being made available on RAND terms? What essential patents, if any, are not included in this portfolio license?
24. We seek comment on whether we should retain the substantially similar rule or permit it to sunset in 2023.
25. To what extent would allowing the sunset of the substantially similar rule undermine the 1.0 simulcast rule? For example, without the substantially similar rule, how can the Commission ensure that 1.0 viewers are able to keep watching the same programming they watch today, as well as any new programming offerings on a broadcaster's primary channel that can be offered in 1.0 format? The voluntary transition to 3.0 is intended to “minimize[e] the impact on, and costs to, consumers and other industry stakeholders.” Yet many consumers may not want or be financially able to purchase new TV equipment with 3.0 tuners in the current market. Would eliminating the rule make the underlying requirement to simulcast in 1.0 less effective or ineffective? In the absence of the substantially similar rule, how would the Commission determine whether a 1.0 stream was a “simulcast” of a specific 3.0 stream when enforcing the underlying requirement to simulcast in 1.0?
26. While broadcasters have incentives to provide the programming their viewers want, after making significant investments in ATSC 3.0 technology they may also have incentives to favor their ATSC 3.0 offerings. For example, without a requirement to make programming substantially similar, Next Gen TV broadcasters would be free to provide the most desirable programming only to those viewers with 3.0 TV equipment. This could create two different tiers of free, OTA television service.
27. Have marketplace developments to date in any way reduced or eliminated the need for the substantially similar rule? What marketplace conditions are relevant to this question, independent of the underlying requirement to simulcast in 1.0?
28. We also seek comment on whether the substantially similar rule is currently impeding innovations in broadcast programming and, if so, how? Is it likely that the rule will hinder 3.0 programming innovations in the near future? If so, how? Should any such innovations outweigh the protections afforded to 1.0 viewers by the rule? We observe that the substantially similar rule already affords significant flexibility for broadcasters to innovate and experiment with new, innovative programming features using Next Gen TV technology in that it does not require Next Gen TV broadcasters to duplicate enhanced content or features that cannot reasonably be provided in the 1.0 format, and does not require any degree of simulcasting on any stream other than the primary stream.
29. Finally, we seek comment about any other advantages or disadvantages associated with the sunset of the substantially similar rule, and if we do decide to retain it, for how long? How would the sunset of the rule impact MVPDs, including small MVPDs, particularly given that the 1.0 simulcast signal remains the relevant signal for carriage purposes?
30. We seek comment on whether we should retain the requirement that Next Gen TV broadcasters' primary video programming stream must comply with the ATSC A/322 standard and, if so, for how long. If we retain the requirement, should we apply a different sunset date or is it needed on an ongoing basis? The purpose of this requirement is to provide certainty to consumers, television receiver manufacturers, and MVPDs that 3.0 TV sets or other 3.0 TV equipment will be able to receive all 3.0 primary broadcast signals. What would be the impact on consumers, television receiver manufacturers, and MVPDs if this requirement were to sunset? If we do not require compliance with the ATSC A/322 standard, how can we ensure that 3.0 TV sets and other 3.0 TV equipment will be able to receive all 3.0 primary broadcast signals? What would be the potential impact, if any, of eliminating the requirement on consumers, television manufacturers, and MVPDs? Would the sunset of this requirement jeopardize the provision of ATSC 3.0 service as a free and universally available digital broadcast television service? Have marketplace developments since 2017 reduced or eliminated the need for mandatory compliance with the ATSC A/322 standard? What marketplace conditions are relevant to this question?
31. In 2017, broadcasters acknowledged that “adopting the full physical layer of the Next Gen standard, including A/322” may “ensure that consumer electronics manufacturers can build television receivers with confidence.” Is this no longer the case? Is A/322 no longer necessary to provide such certainty? Is the A/322 standard currently impeding broadcast innovations? If so, how? Does the need to facilitate any such innovations outweigh the protections the rule affords to consumers, television receiver manufacturers and MVPDs? Might retention of the A/322 standard—which applies only to the primary broadcast stream—hinder broadcast innovation in the future? If so, how? Do broadcasters merely hope to use methods that are likely to be adopted in future versions of A/322, or do they contemplate the use of a physical layer standard that ATSC would never incorporate into A/322? What is the impact on small broadcasters of requiring continued compliance with the A/322 standard? What could be the impact on small television receiver manufacturers and small MVPDs if the requirement is allowed to sunset? We seek comment on these questions.
32. Finally, we observe that ATSC has updated the A/322 standard since we mandated its use in 2017. It appears, however, that the most recent 2021 version of the A/322 standard makes only ministerial changes to the standard and contains no substantive changes. We seek comment on this observation as well as whether it is necessary or advisable to incorporate into our rules the 2021 version of the A/322 standard to the extent that the requirement is retained.
33.
34. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
35. In this
36. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 4, 7, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 325(b), 336,
37. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. The rules proposed herein will directly affect small television and radio broadcast stations. Below, we provide a description of these small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, where feasible.
38.
39. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 5,183 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,737 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities.
40.
41.
42.
43. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 3,054 firms operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Based on this data, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small under the SBA small business size standard. According to Commission data however, only two entities provide DBS service—DIRECTV (owned by AT&T) and DISH Network, which require a great deal of capital for operation. DIRECTV and DISH Network both exceed the SBA size standard for classification as a small business. Therefore, we must conclude based on internally developed Commission data, in general DBS service is provided only by large firms.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48. In light of the use of wireless frequencies by BRS and EBS services, the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard applicable to these services is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (
49. According to Commission data as December 2021, there were approximately 5,869 active BRS and EBS licenses. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to BRS involves eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for these services. For the auction of BRS licenses, the Commission adopted criteria for three groups of small businesses. A very small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average annual gross revenues exceed $3 million and did not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years, a small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues exceed $15 million and did not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years, and an entrepreneur is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years. Of the ten winning bidders for BRS licenses, two bidders claiming the small business status won 4 licenses, one bidder claiming the very small business status won three licenses and two bidders claiming entrepreneur status won six licenses. One of the winning bidders claiming a small business status classification in the BRS license auction has an active licenses as of December 2021.
50. The Commission's small business size standards for EBS define a small business as an entity that, together with its affiliates, its controlling interests and the affiliates of its controlling interests, has average gross revenues that are not more than $55 million for the preceding five (5) years, and a very small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates, its controlling interests and the affiliates of its controlling interests, has average gross revenues that are not more than $20 million for the preceding five (5) years. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56. The Commission estimates that as of March 2022, there were 1,373 licensed commercial television stations. Of this total, 1,280 stations (or 93.2 percent) had revenues of $41.5 million or less in 2021, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on June 1, 2022, and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In addition, the Commission estimates as of March 2022, there were 384 licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations, 383 Class A TV stations, 1,840 LPTV stations and 3,231 TV translator stations. The Commission however does not compile, and otherwise does not have access to financial information for these television broadcast stations that would permit it to determine how many of these stations qualify as small entities under the SBA small business size standard. Nevertheless, given the SBA's large annual receipts threshold for this industry and the nature of these television station licensees, we presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.
57. The
58.
59.
60. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
61. The Commission has authorized television broadcasters to use the Next Gen TV (ATSC 3.0) standard on a voluntary, market-driven basis. As observed in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the 2017
62. None.
63. This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
64. This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
65. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
•
•
• Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
○ Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
○ U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
• Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19.
• During the time the Commission's building is closed to the general public and until further notice, if more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of a proceeding, paper filers need not submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number; an original and one copy are sufficient.
66.
67.
68.
Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
The General Services Administration (GSA) is publishing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to seek public feedback pertaining to the use of plastic consumed in both packaging and shipping, as well as other single-use plastics for which the agency contracts. The issues raised in the comments submitted in response to this ANPR will inform future rulemaking to establish requirements and reporting mechanisms for reducing unnecessary single-use plastic, to include plastic packaging and shipping materials.
Interested parties should submit written comments at the address shown below on or before September 6, 2022 to be considered in the formulation of a proposed rule.
Submit comments in response to GSAR Case 2022-G517 to the Federal eRulemaking portal at
Ms. Adina Torberntsson, Procurement Analyst, at 303-236-2677 or
This ANPR concerns reducing single-use plastics, to include those used in packaging and shipping required for the delivery of products under General Services Administration (GSA) contracts as well as items included on the contracts. For this ANPR, plastic materials that are used and then immediately disposed of once the item is delivered are considered single-use plastics.
Executive Order 14008 states “it is the policy of my Administration to lead the Nation's effort to combat the climate crisis by example-specifically, by aligning the management of Federal procurement and real property, public lands and waters, and financial programs to support robust climate action.” As America's Buyer, GSA is interested in its potential to play a supporting role including by reducing single use plastics. GSA has taken some initial internal policy steps towards a leadership role in using the Federal Government's buying power towards this goal. The GSA Acquisition Manual (GSAM) was amended in October 2021 through Change 138
Since the last sustainability GSAM change, E.O. 14057 Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability
GSA will consider comments received in response to this ANPR in future rulemaking to amend the GSAR through a proposed rule, and to revise other GSA policies, procedures, and guidance that further support GSAM Change 138 and address E.O. 14057 regarding single-use plastics.
GSA is a leader in acquisition and provides supplies and services across the Federal government through the agency's acquisition vehicles to include the Federal Supply Schedule program. Also known as the Government's landlord, GSA has the ability to make a difference by addressing single-use plastics in our construction, concession, and facility maintenance contracts as well.
GSA continues to provide the best customer service experience by providing access to thousands of products and services. Our agency also looks for the most advantageous solutions, remaining ahead of problems before they culminate, and making the best decisions on behalf of the American taxpayer. To do this, GSA has adopted internal policy changes to address sustainability in our acquisitions. With single-use plastics being a significant contributor to the global plastic pollution concern, it is a logical step for the agency to examine this.
The Center for Biological Diversity, along with 180 signatories, submitted a petition to GSA on February 3, 2022, requesting that the agency address single-use plastics through rulemaking. This ANPR, among other things, seeks to better understand the implications of any such rulemaking.
GSA invites comment on the issues discussed in this ANPR to help inform future rulemaking on how to best reduce single-use plastics from packaging, while limiting burden and liability on our industry and logistics partners. Specifically, GSA seeks responses to the questions listed below. Please explain the reasoning behind your responses in detail. Also, provide any data, studies, or other evidence that supports your response. You do not have to answer all the questions in your response.
To help GSA review comments efficiently, identify the question to which you are responding by its associated number and letter (
1. What is your role in your product's supply chain?
Are you a manufacturer, distributor, reseller, or other (comments are encouraged from any impacted parties including local municipalities and economically and/or disadvantaged communities)?
2. Does your company have control over the methodology in which your product is packaged for shipment?
3. What are the differences between a paper based, aluminum based, or compostable packaging and a single-use plastic based packaging?
a. What are the performance differences?
b. What are the cost differences?
4. Does your company have experience using environmentally preferable packaging?
a. If an environmentally preferable option was utilized, what benefits did your company experience from such a change?
b. What is the relationship between your packaging and your product branding?
c. Will packaging be considered as part of your company's climate financial disclosure, if applicable?
5. What is the best way for GSA to aid its contractors in moving to environmentally preferable packing and packaging? How quickly should it move?
6. Are there any market, regulatory, statutory or cost barriers to selecting environmentally preferable packaging such as paper based or biodegradable packaging?
If yes, please specify what the barrier is and what is creating the barrier (
7. What should be considered when developing a timeline to implement regulatory changes in reducing single use plastic as either the primary product, or as the packaging material?
8. Which, if any, single use plastic items GSA should choose not to contract for through its federal supply schedules? Are there exceptions GSA should make to ensure no harm to customer agency missions?
9. How could compliance with reduced or eliminated plastic content be verified?
a. How can GSA and industry take advantage of innovative technologies or business practices to improve accuracy of verification while minimizing the administrative burden on companies?
b. Are there private sector standards, ecolabels, and/or certifications your company is using to meet environmentally preferred packaging goals?
Aside from the feedback questions listed above, GSA also seeks to better understand the economic impact regarding single-use plastic products, and single-use plastics in packaging and shipping, and what industry changes are feasible. GSA seeks economic data and consumer research to help increase its understanding of the market. In your response please consider the intent and details of the questions below. You do not have to answer all the questions in your response.
To help GSA review comments efficiently, identify the question to which you are responding by its associated number and letter (
1. What will the estimated cost be to change, reduce, or eliminate single-use plastic from your product lines?
2. What will the estimated costs be to change, reduce, or eliminate single-use plastic packaging?
3. Will a change from single-use plastic packaging result in a reduced cost in freight?
4. What reporting or monitoring standards, if any, exist to track the use of more environmentally preferable packaging material?
5. What is the liability risk of any of the purchased goods being damaged if packaging is reduced or changed?
6. What other identifiable risks are posed to industry, the government, and overall economy if packaging is reduced or changed?
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; reopening of the comment period.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 6-month extension of the final determination on whether to remove the ivory-billed woodpecker (
The comment period on the proposed rule that published September 30, 2021 (86 FR 54298), is reopened. We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before August 8, 2022. If you comment using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
You may submit comments on the proposed rule by one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
Brigette Firmin, Acting Field Supervisor, Louisiana Field Office, 200 Dulles Dr., Lafayette, LA 70506; on the internet at
On September 30, 2021, we published a proposed rule (86 FR 54298) to remove 23 species, including the ivory-billed woodpecker, from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List) due to extinction. The proposed rule had a 60-day comment period, ending November 29, 2021. On January 11, 2022, we reopened the comment period for 30 days (87 FR 1390) in order to hold a public hearing on the proposed rule to remove the ivory-billed woodpecker from the List (
Section 4(b)(6) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531
Since the publication of the proposed rule to delist the ivory-billed woodpecker, there has been substantial disagreement regarding the interpretation of the evidence that exists for the ivory-billed woodpecker. This situation has led to a significant disagreement regarding whether the species is extinct. Therefore, in consideration of the disagreements among experts surrounding the ivory-billed woodpecker's status, we are extending the final determination on the proposal to delist the species for 6 months in order to solicit additional information that will help to clarify these issues.
We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposed delisting rule for ivory-billed woodpecker (86 FR 54298; September 30, 2021). We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We intend that any final action resulting from the proposal be as accurate as possible and based on the best available scientific and commercial data.
Due to the scientific disagreements described above, we are particularly interested in new information and evidence regarding the status of the ivory-billed woodpecker that has not previously been provided. We particularly seek clear video or photographic evidence of the presence of the ivory-billed woodpecker that can be repeatedly interpreted the same way by independent observers, such as definitive photographic evidence collected by a field observer (Ivory-billed Woodpecker Final Recovery Plan, Service 2010, pp. 99-110).
If you previously submitted comments or information on the September 30, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 54298), please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated previously submitted comments into the public record, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our final determination concerning the proposed delisting of the ivory-billed woodpecker will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
If you submit information via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability (NOA); request for comments.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council) and
Written comments on Amendment 32 must be received on or before September 6, 2022.
You may submit comments on Amendment 32 identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2022-0030” by either of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of Amendment 32, which includes a fishery impact statement and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office website at
Kelli O'Donnell, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email:
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each regional fishery management council to submit any FMP or FMP amendment to NMFS for review and approval, partial approval, or disapproval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP or amendment, publish an announcement in the
The FMP being revised by Amendment 32 was prepared by the Gulf Council and the South Atlantic Council (Councils), and Amendment 32, if approved, would be implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Under the CMP FMP, the Councils jointly manage fishing for Gulf group cobia in Federal waters from Texas to the Florida/Georgia boundary. The Gulf group cobia acceptable biological catch (ABC) is apportioned between the Gulf zone, which spans from the Councils' jurisdictional boundary west of the Dry Tortugas, Florida, to the Texas/Mexico border, and the Florida east coast (FLEC) zone, which spans from the Florida/Georgia border to the Councils' jurisdictional boundary west of the Dry Tortugas, Florida. Under the current framework procedures in the CMP FMP, the Gulf Council is responsible for specifying management measures for Gulf group cobia, except that the South Atlantic Council is responsible for specifying trip limits, closed seasons or areas, and gear restrictions in the FLEC zone.
The current overfishing limit (OFL) and ABC are 2,660,000 lb (1,206,556 kg) and 2,600,000 lb (1,179,340 kg), respectively. The current stock annual catch limit (ACL) is equal to the ABC. These catch limits were established in 2015 in Amendment 20B to the CMP FMP (80 FR 4216; January 27, 2015), and are based on the recommendations of the Councils' Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSCs) from the Southeast Data Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 28 stock assessment. The recreational landings estimates used in SEDAR 28 were generated using the Marine Recreational Information Program's (MRIP) Coastal Household Telephone Survey (CHTS).
In Amendment 20B, the Councils apportioned the Gulf group cobia stock ABC between the Gulf zone (64 percent) and FLEC zone (36 percent), based on average landings from 1998-2012 across both zones, with the ACL for each zone being set equal to the apportioned ABC. Recreational landings estimates during 1998-2012 were generated using MRIP-CHTS. In 2018, MRIP replaced the fishing effort estimates from the CHTS with those from the Fishing Effort Survey (FES). Total recreational fishing effort estimates generated from MRIP-FES are generally higher than MRIP-CHTS estimates, and those higher effort estimates necessarily increase the recreational landings estimates. This difference in the estimates is because MRIP-FES is designed to more accurately measure fishing activity. Had MRIP-FES data been available when the current Gulf grouper cobia OFL and ABC were established, the OFL would have been 4,870,000 lb (2,208,995 kg) and the ABC would have been 4,500,000 (2,041,166 kg).
In 2020, the SEDAR 28 Update indicated that Gulf group cobia was undergoing overfishing with the biomass at reduced levels, which puts the stock at risk of becoming overfished. The SEDAR 28 Update included updated recreational landings estimates based on MRIP FES. In July 2020, the Councils' SSCs reviewed the SEDAR 28 Update and recommended new OFLs and ABCs that would end overfishing of Gulf group cobia and allow harvest to increase over time. The SSCs' recommendation for OFL is 3,210,000 lb (1,456,032 kg) for 2022, and 3,310,000 lb (1,501,391 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years. The SSCs' recommendation for ABC is 2,600,000 lb (1,179,340 kg) for 2022, and 2,760,000 lb (1,251,915 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years. These recommendations represent a reduction in the allowable harvest when compared to the current OFL and ABC, as noted above.
The Gulf Council manages Gulf group cobia in the Gulf zone without sector allocations. The South Atlantic Council manages Gulf group cobia in the FLEC zone with sector allocations, allocating 8 percent of the ACL to the commercial sector and 92 percent of the ACL to the recreational sector. This allocation was originally established in 2012 in Amendment 18 to the CMP FMP, when two migratory groups of cobia were managed under the CMP FMP: Gulf group cobia and Atlantic migratory group cobia (Atlantic group cobia) (76 FR 82058; December 29, 2011). The boundary between these two migratory groups was set at the Councils' jurisdictional boundary west of the Dry
In Amendment 18, the Councils established annual catch targets (ACTs) for both Gulf group cobia and the recreational harvest of Atlantic group cobia. The Councils kept the same formulas for establishing these ACTs in Amendment 20B when the Gulf group cobia ABC was split between the Gulf zone and the FLEC zone. The current stock ACT in the Gulf zone is 10 percent below the Gulf zone ACL. The ACT was selected to provide a buffer to the ACL, but result in a catch level that was no less than historic total catch from 2000-2009. The current recreational ACT in the FLEC zone is 17 percent below the FLEC zone ACL and was calculated using the following formula: the ACL multiplied by 1 minus the proportional standard error (PSE) of the recreational landings estimates, or 0.5, whichever was greater.
The Councils established the current commercial and recreational possession limit for Gulf group cobia of two fish per person per day through Amendment 5 to the CMP FMP (55 FR 29370; July 19, 1990). This possession limit was extended to the FLEC zone when the Gulf group cobia boundary was changed. There currently is no commercial or recreational trip limit for Gulf group cobia in either zone.
The Councils first established a minimum size limit for cobia in the original CMP FMP (48 FR 5270; February 4, 1983) and that minimum size limit applied to both the Gulf zone and the FLEC zone when they were created in Amendment 20B. In 2020, the Gulf Council revised the Gulf group cobia minimum size limit in the Gulf zone to 36 inches (91.4 cm) fork length, through Framework Amendment 7 to the CMP FMP (85 FR 10328; February 24, 2020). The Gulf Council took this action based on concerns from constituents that an observed decrease in cobia landings may indicate an unknown issue with the stock. The Gulf Council decided to take a precautionary approach by increasing the commercial and recreational minimum size limits while the SEDAR 28 Update assessment (2020) was completed. The South Atlantic Council did not change the minimum size limit in the FLEC zone, deciding to review the SEDAR 28 Update assessment before making any further management changes.
For Gulf group cobia, Amendment 32 would revise the OFL, ABC, ABC apportionment, stock and sector ACLs, the Gulf zone stock ACT (quota), and the commercial possession limits; establish a commercial trip limit; recreational bag and vessel limits; and revise commercial and recreational size limits. Amendment 32 would also clarify the CMP sale and purchase provisions for federally permitted dealers.
As previously explained, the current OFL and ABC for Gulf group cobia of 2,660,000 lb (1,206,556 kg) and 2,600,000 lb (1,179,340 kg), are based on the Councils' SSCs' recommendations from SEDAR 28, which used recreational landings estimates from MRIP-CHTS. Amendment 32 would adopt the new increasing OFLs and ABCs based on the SSCs' recommendations from the results of the SEDAR 28 Update, which used MRIP-FES recreational landings estimates. The new OFLs would be 3,210,000 lb (1,456,032 kg) for 2022, and 3,310,000 lb (1,501,391 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years. The new ABCs would be 2,600,000 lb (1,179,340 kg) for 2022, and 2,760,000 lb (1,251,915 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years.
The current ABC apportionment for Gulf group cobia is 64 percent for the Gulf zone and 36 percent for the FLEC zone, respectively. Amendment 32 would revise the Gulf group cobia ABC apportionment between the Gulf and FLEC zones by using the average landings from 1998-2012 across both zones using MRIP-FES landings for this time series. This results in a new apportionment of the Gulf group cobia stock ABC of 63 percent for the Gulf zone and 37 percent for the FLEC zone. Using the same time series to calculate the apportionment, but updating it by using MRIP-FES, addresses the higher recreational landings that have occurred in the FLEC zone compared to the Gulf zone.
Amendment 32 would revise the Gulf zone apportioned ACL to 1,638,000 lb (742,984 kg) for 2022, and 1,738,000 lb (788,343 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years. The proposed revised FLEC zone apportioned ACL would be 962,000 lb (436,356 kg) for 2022, and 1,021,200 lb (463,209 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years.
The current stock ACL for Gulf group cobia is equal to the ABC of 2,600,000 lb (1,179,340 kg) and is based on the results of SEDAR 28, which used data from MRIP-CHTS. Amendment 32 would retain the stock ACL for Gulf group cobia of 2,600,000 lb (1,179,340 kg) for 2022, and increase the stock ACL to 2,760,000 lb (1,251,915 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years, which is also equal to the ABCs recommended by the Councils' SSCs. The SSCs' recommendations and the Councils' determinations are based on the results of the SEDAR 28 Update, which used data from MRIP-FES. Thus, the proposed ACLs using MRIP-FES data actually represent a decrease in the allowable harvest of Gulf group cobia, as discussed above. For example, had the current stock ACL been derived using MRIP-FES data, the current stock ACL would have been 4,500,000 lb (2,041,166 kg).
The current zone apportionment of the ABC (equal to the stock ACL) is 64 percent to the Gulf zone and 36 percent to the FLEC zone, which results in a Gulf zone ACL of 1,660,000 lb (752,963 kg) and a FLEC zone ACL of 930,000 lb (421,841 kg). Amendment 32 would revise the zone apportionment to 63 percent to the Gulf zone and 37 percent to the FLEC zone. This would result in a Gulf zone ACL of 1,638,000 lb (742,984 kg) for 2022, and 1,738,000 lb (788,343 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years. The proposed FLEC zone ACL would be 962,000 lb (436,356 kg) for 2022, and 1,021,200 lb (463,209 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years.
Amendment 32 would maintain the current commercial and recreational allocation in the FLEC zone as 8 percent and 92 percent, respectively. The current ACLs for Gulf group cobia in the FLEC zone are 70,000 lb (31,751 kg) for the commercial sector (expressed as a commercial quota), and 860,000 lb (390,089 kg) for the recreational sector. The proposed commercial ACLs (quotas) are 76,960 lb (34,908 kg) for
Amendment 32 would update the calculation for determining the ACTs using the Gulf Council's ACL/ACT Control Rule. Under this control rule, the calculated ACTs for the Gulf zone and for the recreational sector in the FLEC zone would be 10 percent less than the respective zone ACLs. To calculate the ACT, the control rule uses the PSEs for 4 years of landings data (2016-2019), the number of times the catch limit has been exceeded, the precision of recreational landings based on the PSE, the precision of commercial landings, inseason accountability measures in place, and the stock status.
The current stock ACT (quota) for Gulf group cobia in the Gulf zone is 1,500,000 lb (680,389 kg). Consistent with the Gulf Council's ACL/ACT Control Rule, Amendment 32 would revise the stock ACT in the Gulf zone to be 1,474,200 lb (668,686 kg) for 2022, and 1,564,920 lb (709,836 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years.
The current recreational ACT for Gulf group cobia in the FLEC zone is 710,000 lb (322,051 kg). Consistent with Gulf Council's ACL/ACT Control Rule, Amendment 32 would revise the recreational ACT in the FLEC zone to be 796,536 lb (361,303 kg) for 2022, and 845,554 lb (383,537 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years.
There is no commercial ACT for Gulf group cobia in the FLEC zone and the Councils did not establish a commercial ACT in Amendment 32. The Councils determined that a commercial ACT was not necessary because the commercial sector had not exceeded its ACL in the past and the projections in Amendment 32 indicated that commercial harvest would not exceed the proposed ACLs.
The current possession limit for Gulf group cobia of two fish per person per day applies to commercial and recreational harvest in both zones. In Amendment 32, the Councils decided to reduce the Gulf group cobia possession limit to one fish per person. The Councils also decided to establish a commercial trip limit of two fish and a recreational vessel limit of two fish per trip. These changes would apply to harvest from both the Gulf zone and FLEC zone.
Analysis in Amendment 32 indicates that the majority of the commercial and recreational trips already harvest one or less cobia per person and per trip. Therefore, reducing the possession limit from 2 fish to 1 fish per person and creating a commercial trip limit and recreational vessel limit would only reduce harvest in the Gulf zone by about 1.0 percent for the commercial sector and 10 percent for the recreational sector. The harvest reduction in the FLEC zone would be greater, with an approximate 23 percent for the commercial sector and 29 percent for the recreational sector. However, the Councils decided that these changes were appropriate because they would result in some reduction in fishing mortality and would also aid with compliance and enforcement because the harvest limits in Federal waters would be consistent with those established by the state of Florida for harvest of cobia in Gulf state waters, which is one fish per person or two per vessel, whichever is less. The possession and trip limits in Florida state waters adjacent to the FLEC zone are currently one per person or six fish per vessel, whichever is less, but effective July, 1, 2022, these state regulations change and will be consistent with the changes proposed in this rule. See
The analysis in Amendment 32 indicates that commercial landings will not exceed the proposed commercial harvest limits in the FLEC zone, and that the combined commercial and recreational harvest would not exceed the proposed 2022 and 2023 total ACLs in the Gulf zone, regardless of the proposed commercial trip limits. This analysis also indicates that even with the proposed changes to the possession limit, recreational harvest in the FLEC zone is projected to exceed the proposed FLEC zone 2022 and 2023 recreational ACLs, and when combined with expected commercial harvest, the total harvest in the FLEC zone is projected to exceed the total 2022 and 2023 FLEC zone ACLs. However, as discussed below, these proposed changes in combination with the proposed change to the minimum size limit is projected to reduce recreational landings enough to constrain harvest to the recreational ACL. As previously noted, NMFS expects the changes to the possession limit to reduce recreational harvest in the FLEC zone by approximately 29 percent.
Amendment 32 would increase the commercial and recreational minimum size limits for Gulf group cobia in the FLEC zone from 33 inches (83.8 cm) to 36 inches (91.4 cm), fork length. The current Gulf zone commercial and recreational minimum size limit is 36 inches (91.4 cm), fork length, and the Councils determined that having a consistent minimum size limit in both the FLEC and Gulf zones would reduce confusion about the regulations in Federal waters and decrease the burden on law enforcement, while also providing benefits to the stock.
Increasing the minimum size limit to 36 inches (91.4 cm), fork length, in the FLEC zone would reduce the harvest rate across both sectors and reduce the total harvest. The increase in the minimum size limit would also increase the likelihood that sexually mature cobia are able to spawn more than once before being harvested, resulting in additional recruitment to the spawning stock over time. As a result of this change to the minimum size limit, NMFS projects that harvest in the FLEC zone would be reduced by approximately 27 percent for the commercial sector, 23 percent for the recreational charter vessel/headboat component, and 34 percent for the recreational private angling component. An increase in the minimum size limit may increase regulatory discards in the FLEC zone in the near-term but the discard mortality rates were estimated in SEDAR 28 to be relatively low (5 percent) when using hook-and-line gear in the commercial sector and all gear types in the recreational sector. The analysis in Amendment 32 indicates that implementing both this increase in the minimum size limit and the changes to the possession limit would reduce landings in the FLEC zone enough to constrain landings to the recreational ACL.
Currently, the framework procedure limits the management measures that the South Atlantic Council may independently propose for Gulf group cobia in the FLEC zone to vessel trip limits, closed seasons or areas, or fishing gear restrictions.
Amendment 32 would revise the framework procedures to allow the South Atlantic Council to independently change vessel trip limits, closed seasons or areas, fishing gear restrictions, per person bag and possession limits, size limits, in-season and post-season accountability measures, and specification of ACTs or
Amendment 32 would also clarify language in the CMP FMP framework procedure by removing reference to Atlantic group cobia, which was removed from management by the Councils through Amendment 31 to the CMP FMP (84 FR 4733; February 19, 2019), and change the language referring to the ABC/ACL Control Rule because there is no ABC/ACL Control Rule. Instead, this language should refer to the ABC and ACL/ACT Control Rules.
A proposed rule to implement Amendment 32 has been drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating the proposed rule to determine whether it is consistent with the CMP FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws. If that determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the
The Gulf Council has submitted Amendment 32 for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. Comments on Amendment 32 must be received by September 6, 2022. Comments received during the respective comment periods, whether specifically directed to Amendment 32 or the proposed rule will be considered by NMFS in the decision to approve, disapprove, or partially approve Amendment 32. Comments received after the comment periods will not be considered by NMFS in this decision. All comments received by NMFS on the amendment or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the interstate movement of certain land tortoises.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before September 6, 2022.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the land tortoises program, contact Dr. Alexandra MacKenzie, Senior Veterinary Medical Officer, Live Animal Imports, Strategy & Policy, Veterinary Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-3411. For information on the information collection process, contact Mr. Joseph Moxey, APHIS' Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483;
Currently, 9 CFR part 74 restricts the interstate movement of three tortoises: The leopard tortoise (
Leopard, African spurred, and Bell's hingeback tortoises can be moved interstate for sale, health care, adoption, or export to another country only if they are accompanied by a health certificate or a certificate of veterinary inspection. The health certificate or certificate of veterinary inspection must be signed by a Federal or accredited veterinarian and must state that the tortoises have been examined by that veterinarian and found free of ticks within 30 days prior to movement. Animal owners may use one of several different types of health certificates that are issued at the State level. These documents request the same information, and any may be used and submitted to APHIS.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Port Freeport, grantee of FTZ 149, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) on behalf of Maxter Healthcare Inc., located in Brazoria County, Texas under FTZ 149. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on June 24, 2022.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials/components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's website—accessible via
The proposed finished products include seamless gloves, surgical gloves and, examination gloves (duty-free).
The proposed foreign-status materials and components include: aqueous carbon black dispersion; blue and violet color pigment dispersion; blue and violet color pigment dispersion containing carbazole violet 23; red color pigment dispersion; aqueous sulphur; aqueous zinc oxide; aqueous zinc di-n-butyldithiocarbamate; sodium dodecylbenzene sulphonate; aqueous titanium dioxide dispersion (60% titanium dioxide); petroleum wax; zinc dietyldithiocarbamate; potassium hydroxide; aqueous acrylic polymer; calcium stearate-based release agent; alkaline cleaner; calcium carbonate; alkoxylated wetting agent; white mineral oil based defoamer; calcium nitrate; nitric acid; sodium hydroxide; aqueous sodium hypochlorite; aqueous ammonia; carboxylated butadiene-acrylonitrile copolymer; aluminum sulphate; acrylamide and sodium acrylate coploymer; activated carbon; carbamide; and, sulphuric acid (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 6.5%). The request indicates that blue and violet color pigment dispersion containing carbazole violet 23 and activated carbon are subject to antidumping/countervailing duty (AD/CVD) orders if imported from certain countries. The Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.14(e)) require that merchandise subject to AD/CVD orders, or items which would be otherwise subject to suspension of liquidation under AD/CVD procedures if they entered U.S. customs territory, be admitted to the zone in privileged foreign (PF) status (19 CFR 146.41). The request also indicates that certain materials/components are subject to duties under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable Section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in PF status.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information System” section of the Board's website.
For further information, contact Christopher Wedderburn at
Almod Diamonds Ltd., Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facility in Miramar, Florida, within FTZ 241. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on June 28, 2022.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/component(s) and specific finished product(s) described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's website—accessible via
The proposed finished products include: jewelry (rings, earrings, bracelets, necklaces, pendants, broaches) of silver or precious metal other than silver (such as gold, platinum, or palladium), base metal clad with precious metal, or imitation; jewelry of precious or semi-precious stones (such as cubic zirconium); imitation jewelry (cuff links and studs); pearls (natural, cultured); non-industrial diamonds; rubies; sapphires; emeralds; precious stones or semi-precious stones (other than diamonds, rubies, sapphires, and emeralds), cut but not set and suitable for use in the manufacture of jewelry; and, scrap (gold, platinum, silver) (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 13.5%).
The proposed foreign-status materials and components include: jewelry (rings, earrings, bracelets, necklaces, pendants, broaches) of silver or precious metal other than silver (such as gold, platinum, or palladium), base metal clad with precious metal, or imitation; jewelry of precious or semi-precious stones (such as cubic zirconium); imitation jewelry (cuff links and studs); pearls (natural, cultured); non-industrial diamonds; rubies; sapphires; emeralds; and, precious stones or semi-precious stones (other than diamonds, rubies, sapphires, and emeralds), cut but not set and suitable for use in the manufacture of jewelry (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 13.5%). The request indicates that certain materials/components are subject to duties under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable Section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information System” section of the Board's website.
For further information, contact Juanita Chen at
On March 3, 2022, Sunlit Arizona LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ 75, in Phoenix, Arizona.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
The Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee (SITAC) will meet on July 26, 2022, at 1:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time, via teleconference. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to sensors and instrumentation equipment and technology.
1. Welcome and Introductions.
2. Remarks from the Bureau of Industry and Security Management.
3. Industry Presentations.
4. New Business.
5. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. App. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
The open session will be accessible via teleconference on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that the materials be forwarded before the meeting to Ms. Springer.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on January 25, 2022, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2 § 10(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and the U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. App. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information contact Yvette Springer via email.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In response to a request for a changed circumstances review (CCR), the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is initiating a CCR of the antidumping duty (AD) order on monosodium glutamate (MSG) from the Republic of Indonesia (Indonesia). We preliminarily determine that PT. Daesang Ingredients Indonesia (PT. Daesang) is the successor-in-interest to PT. Miwon Indonesia (PT. Miwon). Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable July 7, 2022.
Gene H. Calvert, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3586.
On November 26, 2014, Commerce published the AD order on MSG from Indonesia in the
On March 10, 2022, PT. Daesang requested that Commerce conduct an expedited CCR to find that PT. Daesang is the successor-in-interest to PT. Miwon due to a change in the company's name (
The merchandise covered by the
Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.216, Commerce will
The information submitted by PT. Daesang demonstrates that its request is based solely on a change in the name of the company from “PT. Miwon Indonesia” to “PT. Daesang Ingredients Indonesia,” effective November 2021.
When Commerce concludes that expedited action is warranted, it may publish the notice of initiation and preliminary results of a CCR concurrently.
In a CCR, Commerce generally consider a company to be the successor to another company for AD cash deposit purposes if the operations of the successor are not materially dissimilar from those of its predecessor.
In its CCR request, PT. Daesang provided evidence demonstrating that its operations are not materially dissimilar from those of PT. Miwon. Based on the record, we preliminarily determine that PT. Daesang is the successor-in-interest to PT. Miwon. For a complete discussion of the information that PT. Daesang provided, including business proprietary information and the complete successor-in-interest analysis,
Any interested party may request a hearing within 14 days of publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c).
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e), we will issue the final results of this CCR no later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated, or within 45 days of publication of these preliminary results in the
We are issuing and publishing this initiation and preliminary results notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.216, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that chlorinated isocyanurates (chlorinated isos) from the People's Republic of China (China) were sold in the United States at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) June 1, 2020, through May 31, 2021. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable July 7, 2022.
Sean Carey, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3964.
On August 3, 2021, Commerce initiated the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on chlorinated isos from China covering the period June 1, 2020, through May 31, 2021.
For details regarding the events that occurred subsequent to the initiation of this review,
The products covered by the order are chlorinated isos, which are derivatives of cyanuric acid, described as chlorinated s-triazine triones.
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Because China is a non-market economy within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, normal value has been calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
Commerce preliminarily determines that Heze Huayi and Kangtai have established their eligibility for a separate rate and that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period June 1, 2020, through May 31, 2021:
Upon issuance of the final results of the administrative review, Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
For each individually examined respondent in this review whose weighted-average dumping margin in the final results of review is not zero or
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for the exporters listed above that have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations for these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs.
Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of our analysis of all issues raised in the case briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1), unless otherwise extended.
This notice also serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213 and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of a partially closed federal advisory committee meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda for a partially closed meeting of the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee (CINTAC).
The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, August 4, 2022, from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). The deadline for members of the public to register to participate, including requests to make comments during the meeting and for auxiliary aids, or to submit written comments for dissemination prior to the meeting, is 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, July 29, 2022.
The meeting will be held virtually via Microsoft Teams. Requests to register to participate (including to speak or for auxiliary aids) and any written comments should be submitted via email to Mr. Jonathan Chesebro, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, International Trade Administration, at
Mr. Jonathan Chesebro, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, International Trade Administration (Phone: 202-482-1297; email:
The Department of Commerce renewed the CINTAC charter on August 5, 2020. This meeting is being convened under the seventh charter of the CINTAC.
Closed Session (10:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.)—Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. (10)(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The session will be closed to the public pursuant to Section 10(d) of FACA as amended by Section 5(c) of the Government in Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, and in accordance with Section 552b(c)(4) and Section 552b(c)(9)(B) of Title 5, United States Code, which authorize closure of meetings that are “likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential” and “likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action,” respectively. The part of the meeting that will be closed will address (1) nuclear cooperation agreements; (2) encouraging ratification of the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage; and (3) identification of specific trade barriers impacting the U.S. civil nuclear industry.
Public Session (1:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m.)—Discuss work of the subcommittees, review of deliberative recommendations, and opportunity to hear from members of the public. Members of the public wishing to attend the public session of the meeting must notify Mr. Chesebro at the contact information above by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, July 29, 2022 in order to pre-register to participate. Please specify any requests for reasonable accommodation at least five business days in advance of the meeting. Last minute requests will be accepted but may not be possible to fill. A limited amount of time will be available for brief oral comments from members of the public attending the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to two (2) minutes per person, with a total public comment period of 30 minutes. Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must contact Mr. Chesebro and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the comments and the name and address of the proposed participant by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, July 29, 2022. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, the International Trade Administration may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers.
Any member of the public may submit written comments concerning the CINTAC's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to Mr. Jonathan Chesebro at
Copies of CINTAC meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that the producers/exporters subject to this review made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) February 1, 2020, through January 31, 2021.
Applicable July 7, 2022.
Andre Gziryan, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2201.
On March 1, 2022, Commerce published the
The products covered by the
All issues raised in the parties' case and rebuttal briefs in this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum and are listed in the appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on a review of the record and the comments received from interested parties regarding our
Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period February 1, 2020, through January 31, 2021:
Normally, Commerce discloses to the parties in a proceeding the calculations performed in connection with the final results of review within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final results in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce intends to determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protections (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for Hyundai Steel, we calculated importer-specific
For all non-selected respondents subject to this review, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all entries of subject merchandise that entered the United States during the POR at the rates calculated for Hyundai Steel listed above.
For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Hyundai Steel for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company or companies involved in the transaction.
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of CTL plate from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the notice of final results of this administrative review in the
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers/exporters of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules (solar cells), from the People's Republic of China (China) during the period of review (POR) January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019. Commerce is also rescinding this review with respect to fifty-four companies that had no reviewable entries during the POR.
Applicable July 7, 2022.
Robert Copyak, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3642.
On January 6, 2022, Commerce published the
The products covered by the
All issues raised in the interested parties' briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of topics discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is provided in Appendix I to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
After evaluating the comments received from interested parties and record information, we made certain changes from the
Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each subsidy program found to be countervailable, Commerce finds that there is a subsidy,
It is Commerce's practice to rescind an administrative review of a countervailing duty order, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), when there are no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which liquidation is suspended.
We continue to find that fifty-four companies subject to this review did not have reviewable entries of subject merchandise for which liquidation is suspended. Because there is no evidence on the record to indicate that these companies had entries, exports, or sales of subject merchandise during the POR, we are rescinding this review with respect to these companies consistent with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).
The Act and Commerce's regulations do not directly address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(e)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 705(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for determining the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Section 777A(e)(2) of the Act provides that “the individual countervailable subsidy rates determined under subparagraph (A) shall be used to determine the all-others rate under section 705(c)(5) {of the Act}.” Under section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or
For these final results, we calculated above
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), Commerce calculated a countervailable subsidy rate for the two mandatory company respondents, Risen and JA Solar.
We determine that, for the period January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, the following net countervailable subsidy rates exist:
Commerce will disclose to the parties in this proceeding the calculations performed for these final results within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to sections 751(a)(1) and (a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
For the companies for which this review is rescinded, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated
In accordance with section 751(a)(1) and (a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown for the companies listed above on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the all-others rate or the most recent company-specific rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposits, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
Commerce is issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on glycine from India for the period of review (POR) January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020. Commerce preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of glycine from India. In addition, we are also rescinding this review with regard to seven companies for which the request for review was timely withdrawn by interested parties. The preliminary net subsidy rates are listed below in the section titled “Preliminary Results of Administrative Review.” Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable July 7, 2022.
George McMahon or Scarlet Jaldin AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1167 or (202) 482-4275, respectively.
On June 21, 2019, Commerce published in the
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The petitioner timely submitted a withdrawal of its request to review eight companies
The merchandise covered by the
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we
In January 4, 2022, the petitioner timely submitted new subsidy allegations regarding eight additional programs.
For the company not selected for individual review (
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4), we determine the following preliminary net countervailable subsidy rates for the period January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020:
Consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), upon issuance of the final results, Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, CVDs on all appropriate entries covered by this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
For the companies for which we have rescinded this administrative review,
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated CVDs at the rates shown above for each of the companies listed above with regard to the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, Commerce will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits of estimated CVDs at the all-others rate or the most recent company-specific rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
We will disclose to parties of this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of these preliminary results in the
Interested parties may submit written comments (case briefs) on the preliminary results no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
Parties are reminded that all briefs and hearing requests must be filed electronically using ACCESS and that electronically filed documents must be received successfully in their entirety by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the result of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h), unless this deadline is extended.
This administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that producers or exporters of finished carbon steel flanges (flanges) from Spain subject to this review made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) June 1, 2020, through May 31, 2021. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable July 7, 2022.
Carolyn Adie or Mark Flessner, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6250 or (202) 482-6312, respectively.
On August 3, 2021, based on timely requests for review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), Commerce initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on flanges from Spain.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this administrative review,
The scope of the
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results,
For the rate for non-selected respondents in an administrative review, generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy investigation. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated
We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period June 1, 2020, through May 31, 2021:
We intend to disclose the calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days after public announcement of the preliminary results in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results of review, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Upon issuance of the final results, Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), where an examined respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by ULMA for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
The following deposit requirements for estimated antidumping duties will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of this review for all shipments of flanges from Spain entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the companies under review will be the rate established in the final results of the review (except, if the rate is zero or
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance
Commerce is issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of this first expedited sunset review, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revoking the antidumping duty (AD) order on 1,1,1,2- Tetrafluoroethane (R-134a) from the People's Republic of China (China) would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the level indicated in the “Final Results of First Sunset Review” section of this notice.
Applicable July 7, 2022.
Katherine Sliney, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2437.
On March 1, 2022, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the first sunset review of the AD order on R-134a from China,
Commerce received a substantive response from the domestic interested party within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).
The merchandise covered by the order is 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane, R-134a, or its chemical equivalent, regardless of form, type, or purity level. The chemical formula for 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane is CF3-CH2 F, and the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry number is CAS 811-97-2.
Merchandise subject to the order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 2903.45.1000. Although the HTSUS subheading and CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
All issues raised in this sunset review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing the final results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that certain cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel (cold-drawn mechanical tubing) from India was sold in the United States at less than normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR) of June 1, 2020, through May 31, 2021.
Applicable July 7, 2022.
Alexis Cherry or Samantha Kinney, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0607 or (202) 482-2285, respectively.
On June 11, 2018, Commerce published the antidumping duty (AD) order on cold-drawn mechanical tubing from India.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), on February 14, 2022, Commerce determined that it was not practicable to complete the preliminary results of this review within 245 days and extended the deadline for the preliminary results of this review until June 30, 2022.
For a detailed description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The merchandise covered by the
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results,
We preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margin for the period June 1, 2020, through May 31, 2021:
On November 11, 2021, the petitioners, PTC Alliance Corp., Webco Industries, Inc., and Zekelman Industries, requested that Commerce conduct verification of TII's responses. Accordingly, as provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final results of the review.
We intend to disclose the calculations performed for these preliminary results of review to interested parties with an Administrative Protective Order within five days of the date of public announcement of the preliminary results in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to Commerce. A timeline for the submission of case briefs and written comments will be provided to interested parties at a later date. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than seven days after the date for filing case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically via ACCESS, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name,
An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the date that the document is due. Commerce has modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information until further notice.
Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any case or rebuttal briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless this deadline is extended.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce intends to determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise covered by this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review in the
If TII's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by TII for which it did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at the all-others rate in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for TII will be that established in the final results of this administrative review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and, therefore,
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of an open meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed topics for a meeting of the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee (CINTAC).
The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, July 14, 2022 from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). The deadline for members of the public to register to participate, including requests to make comments during the meeting and for auxiliary aids, or to submit written comments for dissemination prior to the meeting, is 5:00 p.m. EDT on Monday, July 11, 2022.
The meeting will be held virtually via Microsoft Teams. Requests to register to participate (including to speak or for auxiliary aids) and any written comments should be submitted via email to Mr. Jonathan Chesebro, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, International Trade Administration, at
Mr. Jonathan Chesebro, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, International Trade Administration (Phone: 202-482-1297; email:
The Department of Commerce renewed the CINTAC charter on August 5, 2020. This meeting is being convened under the seventh charter of the CINTAC.
On July 14, 2022 the CINTAC will hold the tenth meeting of its current charter term. The Committee, with officials from the U.S. Department of Commerce and other agencies, will discuss major issues affecting the competitiveness of the U.S. civil nuclear energy industry and discuss a proposed recommendation on civil nuclear financing. An agenda will be made available by July 11, 2022 upon request to Mr. Jonathan Chesebro.
Members of the public wishing to attend the public session of the meeting must notify Mr. Chesebro at the contact information above by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Monday, July 11, 2022 in order to pre-register to participate. Please specify any requests for reasonable accommodation at least five business days in advance of the meeting. Last minute requests will be accepted but may not be possible to fill. A limited amount of time will be available for brief oral comments from members of the public attending the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to two (2) minutes per person, with a total public comment period of 30 minutes. Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must contact Mr. Chesebro and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the comments and the name and address of the proposed participant by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Monday, July 11, 2022. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, the International Trade Administration may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers.
Any member of the public may submit written comments concerning the CINTAC's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to Mr. Jonathan Chesebro at
Copies of CINTAC meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of this expedited sunset review, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China (China) would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.
Effective July 7, 2022.
Frank Schmitt, Office VI, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4880.
On March 1, 2022, Commerce initiated the second sunset review of the
Commerce received an adequate substantive response from the petitioner within the 30-day deadline specified in
The merchandise covered by the
All issues raised in this review are addressed in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(b)(1) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these final results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) and 351.221(c)(5)(ii).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of this expedited sunset review, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) order on phosphor copper from the Republic of Korea (Korea) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at levels identified in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.
Applicable July 7, 2022.
Jolanta Lawska, AD/CVD Operations,
On April 24, 2017, Commerce published the AD order on phosphor copper from Korea.
On March 24, 2022, the domestic interested party filed a complete substantive response within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).
The merchandise covered by the
Merchandise covered by the
All issues raised in this sunset review are addressed in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that producers and/or exporters of certain frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from India made sales at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) February 1, 2020, through January 31, 2021.
Applicable July 7, 2022.
Terre Keaton Stefanova or Adam Simons, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1280 or (202) 482-6172, respectively.
This review covers 163 producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise. Commerce selected two mandatory respondents for individual examination: LNSK Green House Agro Products LLP (LNSK) and Royal Imports and Exports (Royal). The producers/exporters not selected for individual examination are listed in Appendix II.
On March 1, 2022, Commerce published the
The merchandise subject to the
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are listed in Appendix I to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Commerce was unable to conduct on-site verification of the information relied upon for the final results of this review. However, we took additional steps in lieu of an on-site verification to verify this information, in accordance with section 782(i) of the Act.
Based on the comments received from interested parties, we made no changes to our margin calculations in the
As a result of this review, we determine the following weighted-average dumping margins for the period February 1, 2020, through January 31, 2021:
The exporters or producers not selected for individual review are listed in Appendix II.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.
Persuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), because LNSK and Royal reported the entered value for their U.S. sales, we calculated importer-specific
Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by LNSK or Royal for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary (
For the companies that were not selected for individual review, we assigned an assessment rate based on the review-specific rate, calculated as noted in the “Final Results of the Review” section, above.
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent (
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of this expedited sunset review, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on stainless steel sheet and strip (SSSS) from the People's Republic of China (China) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.
Applicable July 7, 2022.
Daniel Alexander, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4313.
On April 3, 2017, Commerce published the CVD order on SSSS from China.
Commerce received a substantive response from the domestic interested parties
The products covered by the
All issues raised in this sunset review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of topics discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is included as the appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via the Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(b) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the CVD order on SSSS from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the following rates:
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing the final results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily finds that producers and/or exporters subject to this administrative review made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review June 1, 2020, through May 31, 2021. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable July 7, 2022.
Emily Bradshaw or Yang Jin Chun, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3896 or (202) 482-5760, respectively.
On June 21, 2019, Commerce published the antidumping duty order on glycine from India.
The merchandise subject to the
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Export price and constructed export price are calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results,
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. On November 1, 2021, GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. withdrew its requests for review with respect to GEM Corpochem Private Limited, Indiana Chem-Port, J.R. Corporation, Mulji Mehta Enterprises, Mulji Mehta Pharma, Rexisize Rasayan Industries, and Studio Disrupt.
Pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, Commerce is preliminarily relying upon facts otherwise available to determine a weighted-average dumping margin for Kumar Industries/Rudraa International (collectively Kumar)
The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for non-examined companies in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
In this review, we have preliminarily calculated a weighted-average dumping margin for the mandatory respondent Avid Organics Private Limited that is not zero,
We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period June 1, 2020, through May 31, 2021.
We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this administrative review within five days after public announcement of the preliminary results in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than seven days after the date for filing case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in case and rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. An electronically filed hearing request must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Upon completion of the administrative review, Commerce shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. For the companies for which we have rescinded this review, we intend to instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit rate of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period of review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP for the rescinded companies no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the preliminary results of this administrative review in the
If the weighted-average dumping margin for Avid Organics Private Limited or Kumar is not zero or
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication in the
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and sections 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2) and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of this expedited sunset review, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) order on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China (China) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping as indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.
Applicable July 7, 2022.
Carolyn Adie, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-6250.
On March 1, 2022, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the second sunset review of the AD order on aluminum extrusions from China,
Commerce received adequate substantive responses to the
The merchandise subject to the
All issues raised in this SUNSET review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of topics
Pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(c) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a). Timely written notification of the destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
Commerce is issuing and publishing these final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its Outreach and Education Technical Committee (Committee).
The meeting will convene on Monday, August 1, 2022, from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m., EDT.
The meeting will be held virtually. Please visit the Gulf Council website at
Emily Muehlstein, Public Information Officer, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council;
The meeting will begin with member and staff introductions, adoption of agenda, approval of November 15, 2021 meeting summary, and scope of work.
The Committee will hear a presentation on changes to shrimp effort data collection and provide recommendations on how to promote return of shrimp fleet effort data.
The Committee will receive an update on Return `Em Right, discuss any other business items and take Public Comment before the meeting adjourns.
The meeting will be broadcast via webinar only. You may register for the webinar by visiting
The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on
Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take-action to address the emergency.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (“ICR”) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”), of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burden.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 8, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of this notice's publication to OIRA, at
In addition to the submission of comments to
Or by either of the following methods:
•
•
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments submitted to the Commission should include only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.
Owen Kopon, Associate Director, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581; (202) 418-5360; email:
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
On September 17, 2020, the Commission adopted a rulemaking amending its part 43 regulations.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. On December 2, 2020, the Commission published in the
In the Proposal, the Commission omitted the aggregate reporting burden for proposed Sec. 43.3 (as well as Sec. 43.4) and instead provided PRA estimates for all of part 43. The Final Rule included the estimated aggregate reporting burden for Sec. 43.3 as follows:
Existing Sec. 43.3 requires reporting counterparties to send swap reports to swap data repositories (“SDRs”) as soon as technologically practicable after execution. The Commission did not include any burden estimates in the Proposal related to the modification or maintenance of systems in order to be in compliance with the proposed amendments to Sec. 43.3.
In the Final Rule, the Commission estimated the cost for a reporting entity, including designated contracts markets (“DCMs”), derivatives clearing organizations (“DCOs”), major swap participants (“MSPs”), swap dealers (“SDs”), non-SD/MSP/DCO counterparties, and swap execution facilities (“SEFs”), to modify their systems and maintain those modifications going forward to adopt the Final Rule could range from $24,000 to $74,000 per entity. There are an estimated 1,732 reporting entities, for a total estimated cost of $84,868,000.
In the Final Rule, the Commission further estimated that the cost for an SDR to modify their systems, including their data reporting, ingestion, and validation systems, and maintain those modifications going forward may range from $144,000 to $510,000 per SDR. There are three SDRs that would be required to modify their existing systems, for an estimated total cost of $981,000.
In the Final Rule, the Commission estimated that the amendments would reduce the number of mirror swaps SDRs would need to publicly disseminate by 100 reports per each SDR, for an aggregate burden hour reduction of 20.10 hours. In addition, the Commission estimated that the aggregate reporting burden total for Sec. 43.4, as adjusted for the reduction in reporting by SDRs of mirror swaps, is as follows:
The Commission did not include any burden estimates in the Proposal related to the modification or maintenance of systems in order to be in compliance with the proposed amendments to Sec. 43.4. To avoid double-counting, the Commission included the costs associated with updates to Sec. 43.4 in the estimates for Sec. 43.3 discussed above, as they would be captured in the costs of updating systems based on the list of swap data elements in part 43.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) requests the extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) approval of the existing information collection titled “Consumer Leasing Act (Regulation M),” approved under OMB Control Number 3170-0006.
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before August 8, 2022 to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Documentation prepared in support of
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) requests the extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) approval of the existing information collection titled “Mortgage Acts and Practices—Advertising (Regulation N)” approved under OMB Control Number 3170-0009.
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before August 8, 2022 to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) requests the extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) approval of the existing information collection titled “Mortgage Assistance Relief Services (Regulation O)” approved under OMB Control Number 3170-0007.
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before October 5, 2022 to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) requests the extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) approval of the existing information collection titled “Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (Regulations J, K, and L)” approved under OMB Control Number 3170-0012.
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before August 8, 2022 to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense (DoD).
Emergency 1-day information collection notice.
Consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and its implementing regulations, this document provides notice that DoD is submitting an Information Collection Request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to authorize the members of the Internal Review Team to collect information about racial disparities in the investigative and military justice systems of the DoD via focus groups with officers, noncommissioned officers, and enlisted personnel of each of the Military Services who are currently serving in military leadership positions (or who have served in such positions within the last 365 days). DoD requests emergency processing and OMB authorization to collect the information after publication of this notice for a period of six months.
Comments must be received by July 8, 2022.
The Department has requested emergency processing from OMB for this information collection request by 1 day after publication of this notice. Interested parties can access the supporting materials and collection instrument as well as submit comments and recommendations to OMB at
Angela Duncan, 571-372-7574, or
The Deputy Secretary of Defense directed the establishment of the Internal Review Team (IRT) on Racial Disparities in the Investigative and Military Justice Systems to identify and address the root causes of racial disparities in the DoD investigative and military justice systems. The review will provide actionable recommendations the Department can implement or establish to improve strategies, programs, policies, processes, and resources to address these disparities. The IRT comprises General Officers and members of the civilian Senior Executive Service who, with the support of subject matter experts, will focus their full-time efforts on this review. The IRT commenced its work on June 1, 2022, and is charged to provide its findings and recommendation to the DSD not later than August 24, 2022. Consideration of the role of military leaders in the Department's investigative and military justice process is a key component of the IRT's review. As a result of this information collection, the IRT will have access to a body of qualitative information provided by military leaders (including military officers, noncommissioned officers, and enlisted personnel) regarding their personal experiences in addressing Service member misconduct and performance matters. This information will assist the IRT in identifying themes, trends, and vignettes that illustrate how the actions and decisions of military leaders affect whether and how a subordinate Service member will become involved in the investigative or military justice systems and will inform IRT recommendations to address the root causes of racial disparities in those systems.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of DoD, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of DoD's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Grid Deployment Office, Department of Energy (DOE).
Request for Information (RFI).
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) invites public input for its Request for Information (RFI) number DE-FOA-0002762 regarding issues related to the development of hydroelectric incentive programs authorized under sections 243 and 247 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as amended by sections 40332 and 40333 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. DOE's Grid Deployment Office (GDO) welcomes written and verbal input from the public on the subjects identified in this RFI to support the development of future hydroelectric incentive programs.
Responses to the RFI must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, September 6, 2022.
Interested parties are to submit comments electronically to
DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Tuesday, August 9, 2022. For webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants, please visit
Questions may be addressed to Corey Vezina, email at
The purpose of this RFI is to solicit feedback from industry, tribes, government agencies, state and local coalitions, academia, research laboratories, labor unions, community-based organizations (CBOs), and other stakeholders on definitions, program structure, and selection related to the Department's authority to provide capital improvement incentives under Sections 243 and 247 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58) (EPAct 2005).
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on June 30, 2022, by Patricia Hoffman, Acting Director, Grid Deployment Office, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the GTN XPress Project (Project), proposed by Gas Transmission Northwest LLC (GTN) in the above-referenced docket. GTN proposes to modify existing compressor stations in Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. This Project would increase the capacity of GTN's existing natural gas transmission system by about 150 million standard cubic feet per day between Idaho and Oregon. According to GTN, the Project is necessary to serve the growing market demand its system is experiencing.
The draft EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of modifying and installing new facilities at the existing compressor stations in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed Project, with the mitigation measures recommended in the EIS, would result in some adverse environmental impacts, but none that are considered significant. Regarding climate change impacts, this EIS is not characterizing the Project's greenhouse gas emissions as significant or insignificant because the Commission is conducting a generic proceeding to determine whether and how the Commission will conduct significance determinations going forward.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is participating as cooperating agency in the preparation of the EIS. A cooperating agency has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and participates in the NEPA analysis.
The Commission mailed a copy of the
The draft EIS is not a decision document. It presents Commission staff's independent analysis of the environmental issues for the Commission to consider when addressing the merits of all issues in this proceeding. Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS may do so. Your comments should focus on the draft EIS' disclosure and discussion of
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP22-2-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR part 385.214). Motions to intervene are more fully described at
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. GRCO filed its request to use the TLP on May 2, 2022 and provided public notice of its request on the same day. In a letter dated July 1, 2022, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved GRCO's request to use the TLP.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating consultation with the New York State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. With this notice, we are designating GRCO as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. GRCO filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD), including a proposed process plan and schedule, with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD may be viewed on the Commission's website (
o. The applicant states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for a new license for Project No. 4684. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.20 each application for a subsequent license and any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All applications
p. Register online at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/22.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the availability of and seeking public comment on a draft revision to the risk determination for the trichloroethylene (TCE) risk evaluation issued under TSCA. The draft revision to the TCE risk determination reflects the announced policy changes to ensure the public is protected from unreasonable risks from chemicals in a way that is supported by science and the law. In this draft revision to the risk determination EPA finds that TCE, as a whole chemical substance, presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health when evaluated under its conditions of use. In addition, this revised risk determination does not reflect an assumption that all workers always appropriately wear personal protective equipment (PPE). EPA understands that there could be occupational safety protections in place at workplace locations; however, not assuming use of PPE reflects EPA's recognition that unreasonable risk may exist for subpopulations of workers that may be highly exposed because they are not covered by OSHA standards, or their employers are out of compliance with OSHA standards, or because many of OSHA's chemical-specific permissible exposure limits largely adopted in the 1970's are described by OSHA as being “outdated and inadequate for ensuring protection of worker health.” This revision, when final, would supersede the condition of use-specific no unreasonable risk determinations in the November 2020 TCE risk evaluation (and withdraw the associated order) and would make a revised determination of unreasonable risk for TCE as a whole chemical substance.
Comments must be received on or before August 8, 2022.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA—EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0737, through the
This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to those involved in the manufacture, processing, distribution, use, disposal, and/or the assessment of risks involving chemical substances and mixtures. You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture (defined under TSCA to include import), process (including recycling), distribute in commerce, use or dispose of TCE, including TCE in products. Since other entities may also be interested in this draft revision to the risk determination, EPA has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
TSCA section 6, 15 U.S.C. 2605, requires EPA to conduct risk evaluations to determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation (PESS) identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by the Administrator, under the conditions of use. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(A). TSCA sections 6(b)(4)(A) through (H) enumerate the deadlines and minimum requirements applicable to this process, including provisions that provide instruction on chemical substances that must undergo evaluation, the minimum components of a TSCA risk evaluation, and the timelines for public comment and completion of the risk evaluation. TSCA also requires that EPA operate in a manner that is consistent with the best available science, make decisions based on the weight of the scientific evidence, and consider reasonably available information. 15 U.S.C. 2625(h), (i), and (k).
The statute identifies the minimum components for all chemical substance risk evaluations. For each risk evaluation, EPA must publish a document that outlines the scope of the risk evaluation to be conducted, which includes the hazards, exposures, conditions of use, and the potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations that EPA expects to consider. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(D). The statute further provides that each risk evaluation must also: (1) integrate and assess available information on hazards and exposures for the conditions of use of the chemical substance, including information that is relevant to specific risks of injury to health or the environment and information on relevant potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations; (2) describe whether aggregate or sentinel exposures were considered and the basis for that consideration; (3) take into account, where relevant, the likely duration, intensity, frequency, and number of exposures under the conditions of use; and (4) describe the weight of the scientific evidence for the identified hazards and exposures. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)(i) through (ii) and (iv) through (v). Each risk evaluation must not consider costs or other non-risk factors. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)(iii).
EPA has inherent authority to reconsider previous decisions and to revise, replace, or repeal a decision to the extent permitted by law and supported by reasoned explanation.
EPA is announcing the availability of and seeking public comment on a draft revision to the risk determination for the risk evaluation for TCE under TSCA, which was initially published in November 2020 (Ref. 1). EPA is specifically seeking public comment on the draft revision to the risk determination for the risk evaluation where the agency intends to determine that TCE, as a whole chemical, presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health when evaluated under its conditions of use. The Agency's risk determination for TCE is better characterized as a whole chemical risk determination rather than condition-of-use-specific risk determinations. Accordingly, EPA would revise and replace section 5 of the risk evaluation for TCE where the findings of unreasonable risk to health were previously made for the individual conditions of use evaluated. EPA would also withdraw the order issued previously for 2 conditions of use previously determined not to present unreasonable risk.
This revision would be consistent with EPA's plans to revise specific aspects of the first ten TSCA chemical risk evaluations in order to ensure that the risk evaluations better align with TSCA's objective of protecting health and the environment. Under the draft revision, the same 52 conditions of use would continue to drive the unreasonable risk determination for TCE. Removing the assumptions that workers always and appropriately wear PPE (see Unit II.C.) when making the whole chemical risk determination for TCE would not alter the conditions of use that drive the unreasonable risk determination for TCE, though additional risks for acute non-cancer and cancer effects from inhalation and dermal exposures would also drive the unreasonable risk in many of those conditions of use (where previously those conditions of use were identified as presenting unreasonable risk for chronic non-cancer effects and cancer). Overall, 52 conditions of use out of 54 EPA evaluated would drive the TCE whole chemical unreasonable risk determination due to risks identified for human health. The full list of the conditions of use evaluated for the TCE TSCA risk evaluation is in Tables 4-59 and 4-60 of the risk evaluation (Ref. 2).
1.
2.
In 2016, as directed by TSCA section 6(b)(2)(A), EPA chose the first ten chemical substances to undergo risk evaluations under the amended TSCA. These chemical substances are asbestos, 1-bromopropane, carbon tetrachloride, C.I. Pigment Violet (PV 29), cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster (HBCD), 1,4-dioxane, methylene chloride, n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), perchloroethylene (PCE), and trichloroethylene (TCE).
From June 2020 to January 2021, EPA published risk evaluations on the first ten chemical substances, including for TCE in November 2020. The risk evaluations included individual unreasonable risk determinations for each condition of use evaluated. EPA issued determinations that particular conditions of use did not present an unreasonable risk by order under TSCA section 6(i)(1).
In accordance with Executive Order 13990 (Ref. 3) and other Administration priorities (Refs. 4, 5, and 6), EPA reviewed the risk evaluations for the first ten chemical substances, including TCE, to ensure that they meet the requirements of TSCA, including conducting decision making in a manner that is consistent with the best available science.
As a result of this review, EPA announced plans to revise specific aspects of the first ten risk evaluations in order to ensure that the risk evaluations appropriately identify unreasonable risks and thereby help ensure the protection of human health and the environment (Ref. 7). To that end, EPA is reconsidering two key aspects of the risk determinations for TCE published in November 2020. First, following a review of specific aspects of the November 2020 TCE risk evaluation, EPA proposes that making an unreasonable risk determination for TCE as a whole chemical substance, rather than making unreasonable risk determinations separately on each individual condition of use evaluated in the risk evaluation, is the most appropriate approach to TCE under the statute and implementing regulations. Second, EPA proposes that the risk determination should be explicit that it does not rely on assumptions regarding the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in making the unreasonable risk determination under TSCA section 6, even though some facilities might be using PPE as one means to reduce workers exposures; rather, the use of PPE would be considered during risk management as appropriate.
Separately, EPA is conducting a screening approach to assess potential risks from the air and water pathways for several of the first 10 chemicals, including this chemical. For TCE the exposure pathways that were or could be regulated under another EPA administered statute were excluded from the final risk evaluation (see section 1.4.2 of the November 2020 TCE risk evaluation). This resulted in the ambient air and ambient water pathways for TCE not being assessed. The goal of the recently-developed screening approach is to remedy this exclusion and to identify if there are risks that were unaccounted for in the TCE risk evaluation. While this analysis is underway, EPA is not incorporating the screening-level approach into this draft revised unreasonable risk determination. If the results suggest there is additional risk, EPA will determine if the risk management approaches being contemplated for TCE will protect against these risks or if the risk evaluation will need to be formally supplemented or revised.
This action pertains only to the risk determination for TCE. While EPA intends to consider and may take additional similar actions on other of the first ten chemicals, EPA is taking a chemical-specific approach to reviewing the risk evaluations and is incorporating new policy direction in a surgical manner, while being mindful of the Congressional direction on the need to complete risk evaluations and move toward any associated risk management activities in accordance with statutory deadlines.
TSCA section 6 repeatedly refers to determining whether a chemical
The proposed risk evaluation procedural rule was premised on the whole chemical approach to making an unreasonable risk determination (Ref. 8). In that proposed rule, EPA acknowledged a lack of specificity in statutory text that might lead to different views about whether the statute compelled EPA's risk evaluations to address all conditions of use of a chemical substance or whether EPA had discretion to evaluate some subset of conditions of use (
The proposed rule, however, was unambiguous on the point that an unreasonable risk determination would be for the chemical substance as a whole, even if based on a subset of uses. (See Ref. 8 at pgs. 7565-66: “TSCA section 6(b)(4)(A) specifies that a risk evaluation must determine whether `a chemical substance' presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment `under the conditions of use.' The evaluation is on the chemical substance—not individual conditions of use—and it must be based on `the conditions of use.' In this context, EPA believes the word `the' is best interpreted as calling for evaluation that considers all conditions of use.”). In the proposed regulatory text, EPA proposed to determine whether the chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under the conditions of use (Ref. 8 at pg. 7480).
The final risk evaluation procedural rule stated (82 FR 33726, July 20, 2017) (FRL-9964-38) (Ref. 9): “As part of the risk evaluation, EPA will determine whether the chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under each condition of uses [sic] within the scope of the risk evaluation, either in a single decision document or in multiple decision documents.” (See also 40 CFR 702.47). For the unreasonable risk determinations in the first ten risk evaluations, EPA applied this provision by making individual risk determinations for each condition of use evaluated in each risk evaluation (
In contrast to this portion of the preamble of the final risk evaluation procedural rule, the regulatory text itself and other statements in the preamble reference a risk determination
Therefore, notwithstanding EPA's choice to issue condition-of-use-specific risk determinations to date, EPA interprets its risk evaluation regulation to also allow the Agency to issue whole-chemical risk determinations. Either approach is permissible under the regulation. A panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also recognized the ambiguity of the regulation on this point.
EPA plans to consider the appropriate approach for each chemical substance risk evaluation on a case-by-case basis, taking into account considerations relevant to the specific chemical substance in light of the Agency's obligations under TSCA. The Agency expects that this case-by-case approach will provide greater flexibility in the Agency's ability to evaluate and manage unreasonable risk from individual chemical substances. EPA believes this is a reasonable approach under TSCA and the Agency's implementing regulations.
With regard to the specific circumstances of TCE, as further explained in this notice, EPA proposes that a whole chemical approach is appropriate for TCE in order to protect health and the environment. The whole chemical approach is appropriate for TCE because there are benchmark exceedances for multiple conditions of use (spanning across most aspects of the chemical lifecycle—from manufacturing (including import), processing, commercial and industrial use, consumer use, and disposal) for health of workers, occupational non-users, consumers, and bystanders associated with TCE exposures. Because these chemical-specific properties cut across the conditions of use within the scope of the risk evaluation, a substantial amount of the conditions of use drive the unreasonable risk; therefore, it is appropriate for the Agency to make a determination for TCE that the whole chemical presents an unreasonable risk.
As explained later in this document, the revisions to the unreasonable risk determination (section 5 of the risk evaluation) would be based on the existing risk characterization section of the risk evaluation (section 4 of the risk evaluation) and would not involve additional technical or scientific analysis. The discussion of the issues presented in this
EPA is announcing the availability of and seeking public comment on the draft superseding unreasonable risk determination for TCE, including a description of the risks driving the unreasonable risk determination under the conditions of use for the chemical substance as a whole. For purposes of TSCA section 6(i), EPA is making a draft risk determination on TCE as a whole chemical. Under the proposed revised approach, the “whole chemical” risk determination for TCE would supersede the no unreasonable risk determinations for TCE that were premised on a condition-of-use-specific approach to determining unreasonable risk. When finalized, EPA's revised unreasonable risk determination would also contain an order withdrawing the TSCA section 6(i)(1) order in section 5.4.1 of the November 2020 TCE risk evaluation.
In the risk evaluations for the first ten chemical substances, as part of the unreasonable risk determination, EPA assumed for several conditions of use that all workers were provided and always used PPE in a manner that achieves the stated assigned protection factor (APF) for respiratory protection, or used impervious gloves for dermal protection. In support of this assumption, EPA considered reasonably available information such as public comments indicating that some employers, particularly in the industrial setting, provide PPE to their employees and follow established worker protection standards (
For the November 2020 TCE risk evaluation, EPA assumed that workers used PPE for 21 occupational conditions of use. However, in the November 2020 TCE risk evaluation, EPA determined that there is unreasonable risk to
EPA is revising the assumption for TCE that workers always or properly use PPE, although it does not question the public comments received regarding the occupational safety practices often followed by industry respondents. When characterizing the risk to human health from occupational exposures during risk evaluation under TSCA, EPA believes it is appropriate to evaluate the levels of risk present in baseline scenarios where PPE is not assumed to be used by workers. This approach of not assuming PPE use by workers considers the risk to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations (workers and occupational non-users) who may not be covered by OSHA standards, such as self-employed individuals and public sector workers who are not covered by a State Plan. It should be noted that, in some cases, baseline conditions may reflect certain mitigation measures, such as engineering controls, in instances where exposure estimates are based on monitoring data at facilities that have engineering controls in place.
In addition, EPA believes it is appropriate to evaluate the levels of risk present in scenarios considering applicable OSHA requirements (
When undertaking unreasonable risk determinations as part of TSCA risk evaluations, however, EPA does not believe it is appropriate to assume as a general matter that an applicable OSHA requirement or industry practices related to PPE use is consistently and always properly applied. Mitigation scenarios included in the EPA risk evaluation (
Therefore, EPA proposes to make a determination of unreasonable risk for TCE from a baseline scenario that does not assume compliance with OSHA standards, including any applicable exposure limits or requirements for use of respiratory protection or other PPE. Making unreasonable risk determinations based on the baseline scenario should not be viewed as an indication that EPA believes there are no occupational safety protections in place at any location, or that there is widespread non-compliance with applicable OSHA standards. Rather, it reflects EPA's recognition that unreasonable risk may exist for subpopulations of workers that may be highly exposed because they are not covered by OSHA standards, such as self-employed individuals and public sector workers who are not covered by a State Plan, or because their employer is out of compliance with OSHA standards, or because many of OSHA's chemical-specific permissible exposure limits largely adopted in the 1970's are described by OSHA as being “outdated and inadequate for ensuring protection of worker health” (Ref. 11), or because EPA finds unreasonable risk for purposes of TSCA notwithstanding OSHA requirements.
In accordance with this approach, EPA is proposing the draft revision to the TCE risk determination without relying on assumptions regarding the occupational use of PPE in making the unreasonable risk determination under TSCA section 6; rather, information on the use of PPE as a means of mitigating risk (including information received from industry respondents about occupational safety practices in use) would be considered during the risk management phase as appropriate. This would represent a change from the approach taken in the 2020 risk evaluation for TCE and EPA invites comments on this draft change to the TCE risk determination. As a general matter, when undertaking risk management actions, EPA intends to strive for consistency with applicable OSHA requirements and industry best practices, including appropriate application of the hierarchy of controls, when those measures would address an identified unreasonable risk, including unreasonable risk to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations. Consistent with TSCA section 9(d), EPA will consult and coordinate TSCA activities with OSHA and other relevant Federal agencies for the purpose of achieving the maximum applicability of TSCA while avoiding the imposition of duplicative requirements. Informed by the mitigation scenarios and information gathered during the risk evaluation and risk management process, the Agency might propose rules that require risk management practices that may be already common practice in many or most facilities. Adopting clear, comprehensive regulatory standards will foster compliance across all facilities (ensuring a level playing field) and assure protections for all affected workers, especially in cases where current OSHA standards may not apply or be sufficient to address the unreasonable risk.
Removing the assumption that all workers always and appropriately wear PPE in making the whole chemical risk determination for TCE would not result in additional conditions of use to the original 52 conditions of use that drive the unreasonable risk, though EPA would identify additional risks for acute non-cancer and cancer effects from inhalation and dermal exposures as driving the unreasonable risk within many of those conditions of use (where previously those conditions of use were identified as presenting unreasonable risk only for chronic non-cancer effects and cancer due to assumed use of PPE). The draft revision to the risk determination would clarify that EPA does not rely on the assumed use of PPE when making the risk determination for the whole substance. EPA is requesting comment on this potential change.
TCE is a colorless liquid with a pleasant, sweet odor resembling that of chloroform. It is considered a volatile organic compound and has a wide range of uses in consumer and commercial products and in industry. An estimated 84% of TCE's annual production volume is used as an intermediate in the manufacture of the hydrofluorocarbon, HFC-134a, an alternative to the refrigerant chlorofluorocarbon, CFC-12. Another 15% of TCE production volume is used as a degreasing solvent, leaving approximately 2% for other uses. The total aggregate production volume
In the 2020 risk evaluation, EPA determined that TCE presents an unreasonable risk to health under the following conditions of use:
• Manufacturing: domestic manufacture;
• Manufacturing: import;
• Processing: processing as a reactant/intermediate;
• Processing: incorporation into a formulation, mixture or reaction product;
• Processing: incorporation into articles;
• Processing: repackaging;
• Processing: recycling;
• Industrial and commercial use as a solvent for open-top batch vapor degreasing;
• Industrial and commercial use as a solvent for closed-loop batch vapor degreasing;
• Industrial and commercial use as a solvent for in-line conveyorized vapor degreasing;
• Industrial and commercial use as a solvent for in-line web cleaner vapor degreasing;
• Industrial and commercial use as a solvent for cold cleaning;
• Industrial and commercial use as a solvent for aerosol spray degreaser/cleaner and mold release;
• Industrial and commercial use as a lubricant and grease in tap and die fluid;
• Industrial and commercial use as a lubricant and grease in penetrating lubricant;
• Industrial and commercial use as an adhesive and sealant in solvent-based adhesives and sealants; tire repair cement/sealer; mirror edge sealant;
• Industrial and commercial use as a functional fluid in heat exchange fluid;
• Industrial and commercial use in paints and coatings as a diluent in solvent-based paints and coatings;
• Industrial and commercial use in cleaning and furniture care products in carpet cleaner and wipe cleaning;
• Industrial and commercial use in laundry and dishwashing products in spot remover;
• Industrial and commercial use in arts, crafts, and hobby materials in fixatives and finishing spray coatings;
• Industrial and commercial use in corrosion inhibitors and anti-scaling agents;
• Industrial and commercial use in processing aids in process solvent used in battery manufacture; process solvent used in polymer fabric spinning, fluoroelastomer manufacture and Alcantara manufacture; extraction solvent used in caprolactam manufacture; precipitant used in beta-cyclodextrin manufacture;
• Industrial and commercial use as ink, toner and colorant products in toner aid;
• Industrial and commercial use in automotive care products in brake parts cleaner;
• Industrial and commercial use in apparel and footwear care products in shoe polish;
• Industrial and commercial use in hoof polish; gun scrubber; pepper spray; other miscellaneous industrial and commercial uses;
• Consumer use as a solvent in brake and parts cleaner;
• Consumer use as a solvent in aerosol electronic degreaser/cleaner;
• Consumer use as a solvent in liquid electronic degreaser/cleaner;
• Consumer use as a solvent in aerosol spray degreaser/cleaner;
• Consumer use as a solvent in liquid degreaser/cleaner;
• Consumer use as a solvent in aerosol gun scrubber;
• Consumer use as a solvent in liquid gun scrubber;
• Consumer use as a solvent in mold release;
• Consumer use as a solvent in aerosol tire cleaner;
• Consumer use as a solvent in liquid tire cleaner;
• Consumer use as a lubricant and grease in tap and die fluid;
• Consumer use as a lubricant and grease in penetrating lubricant;
• Consumer use as an adhesive and sealant in solvent-based adhesives and sealants;
• Consumer use as an adhesive and sealant in mirror edge sealant;
• Consumer use as an adhesive and sealant in tire repair cement/sealer;
• Consumer use as a cleaning and furniture care product in carpet cleaner;
• Consumer use as a cleaning and furniture care product in aerosol spot remover;
• Consumer use as a cleaning and furniture case product in liquid spot remover;
• Consumer use in arts, crafts, and hobby materials in fixative and finishing spray coatings;
• Consumer use in apparel and footwear products in shoe polish;
• Consumer use in fabric spray;
• Consumer use in film cleaner;
• Consumer use in hoof polish;
• Consumer use in toner aid; and
• Disposal.
Under the proposed whole chemical approach to the TCE risk determination, the unreasonable risk from TCE would continue to be driven by risk from those same conditions of use. In addition, by removing the assumption of PPE use in making the whole chemical risk determination for TCE, there are no additional conditions of use that would drive the draft unreasonable risk determination. The same 52 COUs out of the 54 EPA evaluated would continue to drive EPA's unreasonable risk determination, though additional risks for acute non-cancer and cancer effects from inhalation and dermal exposures would drive the unreasonable risk within many of those conditions of use (where previously those conditions of use were identified as presenting unreasonable risk only for chronic non-cancer effects and cancer due to assumed use of PPE). Overall, 52 conditions of use out of the 54 EPA evaluated would drive the TCE whole chemical unreasonable risk determination.
EPA is proposing to revise the risk determination for the TCE risk evaluation pursuant to TSCA section 6(b) and consistent with Executive Order 13990, (“Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis”) and other Administration priorities (Refs. 3, 4, and 6). EPA is revising specific aspects of the first ten TSCA existing chemical risk evaluations in order to ensure that the risk evaluations better align with TSCA's objective of protecting health and the environment. For the TCE risk evaluation, this includes the draft revision: (1) making the risk determination in this instance based on the whole chemical substance instead of by individual conditions of use, and (2) emphasizing that EPA does not rely on the assumed use of PPE when making the risk determination.
EPA is releasing a draft revision of the risk determination for the TCE risk evaluation pursuant to TSCA section 6(b). Under the revised determination, EPA preliminarily concludes that TCE, as evaluated in the risk evaluation as a whole, presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health under its conditions of use. This revision would replace the
These draft revisions do not alter any of the underlying technical or scientific information that informs the risk characterization, and as such the hazard, exposure, and risk characterization sections are not changed except to the extent that statements about PPE assumptions in sections 2.3.1.2.5 (Dermal Exposure Modeling) and section 4.2.2 (Risk Estimation for Occupational Exposures), Table 4-9 (Inhalation Exposure Data Summary and PPE Use Determination), of the TCE risk evaluation would be superseded. The discussion of the issues in this notice and in the accompanying draft revision to the risk determination would supersede any conflicting statements in the prior executive summary and sections 2.3.1.2.5 and 4.2.2 from the TCE risk evaluation and the response to comments document (Refs. 2 and 10). Additional policy changes to other chemical risk evaluations, including any consideration of potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations and/or inclusion of additional exposure pathways, are not necessarily reflected in these draft revisions to the risk determination.
The risk determination (section 5 in the November 2020 risk evaluation) was not part of the scope of the peer reviews of the TCE risk evaluation by the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC). Thus, consistent with that approach, EPA does not intend to conduct peer review of the draft revised unreasonable risk determination for the TCE risk evaluation because no technical or scientific changes will be made to the hazard or exposure assessments or the risk characterization.
EPA will review and consider public comment received on the draft revised risk determination for the TCE risk evaluation and, after considering those public comments, issue the revised final TCE risk determination. If finalized as drafted, EPA would also issue a new order to withdraw the TSCA section 6(i)(1) no unreasonable risk order issued in Section 5.4.1 of the 2020 TCE risk evaluation. This final revised risk determination would supersede the November 2020 risk determinations of no unreasonable risk. Consistent with the statutory requirements of TSCA section 6(a), the Agency would then propose risk management actions to address the unreasonable risk determined in the TCE risk evaluation.
The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the person listed under
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Oil Pollution Act Facility Response Plans (EPA ICR Number 1630.14, OMB Control Number 2050-0135) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through July 31, 2022. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 8, 2022.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0105, to EPA online using
Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
J. Troy Swackhammer, Office of Emergency Management, Mail Code 5104A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-1966; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR) for the Microbial Rules (EPA ICR Number 1895.11, OMB Control Number 2040-0205) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through July 31, 2022. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 8, 2022.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0442, online using
Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Kevin Roland, Drinking Water Protection Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, (4606M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-4588: fax number: 202-564-3755; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that EPA will be collecting, are available in the public
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production (EPA ICR Number 1964.10, OMB Control Number 2060-0496), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through September 30, 2022. Public comments were previously requested, via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 8, 2022.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0099, online using
Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Muntasir Ali, Sector Policies and Program Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0833; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Request for nominations to the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites nominations from a range of qualified candidates for consideration for appointment to its Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC). EPA anticipates filling vacancies by March 1, 2023. EPA may use additional sources to solicit nominees.
The EPA Administrator appoints members for three-year terms with a cap on service at six years. The Committee meets 2-3 times annually and the average workload is approximately 10 to 15 hours per month. EPA provides reimbursement for travel and other incidental expenses associated with official government business, but members must be able to cover expenses prior to reimbursement.
The CHPAC is looking for representatives from industry; tribal, state, county and local government; school systems; academia; health care providers (including pediatricians, obstetric professionals, occupational medicine practitioners and community nurses); and non-governmental organizations.
The types of experience necessary includes: children's environmental health and development; epidemiology and toxicology; role of environmental chemicals in childhood diseases such as asthma, obesity and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); prenatal environmental exposures and adverse health outcomes; specific environmental exposures to chemicals such as lead, mercury and other heavy metals that adversely impact children's health; tribal children's environmental health; children's environmental health disparities; research; air quality (indoor and outdoor); water quality; EPA regulation development; risk assessment; exposure assessment; science policy; public health information tracking; and outreach and risk communication.
EPA is looking for background and experience that would contribute to the diversity of perspectives on the committee (
Nominees must have the ability to volunteer time to attend meetings 2-3 times a year in Washington, DC, participate in teleconference meetings, develop recommendations to the EPA Administrator, and prepare reports and advice letters.
In accordance with Executive Order 14035 (June 25, 2021), EPA values and welcomes opportunities to increase diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility on its federal advisory committees. EPA's federal advisory committees have a workforce that reflects the diversity of the American people.
Nominations must include the following information:
• Brief statement describing the nominee's interest in serving on the CHPAC.
• Short biography (no more than one page) describing the professional and educational qualifications, including a list of relevant activities, and any current or previous service on federal advisory committees.
• Statement about the perspective the nominee brings to the committee.
• Current contact information for the nominee, including name, organization (and position within that organization), business address, email address, and telephone number.
• Candidates may self-nominate; one letter of support is welcome.
Submit nominations by August 15, 2022 by email to
Amelia Nguyen, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. EPA; telephone (202) 564-4268 or
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notification for a public meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hereby provides notice that the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council (WHEJAC) will meet on the dates and times described below. The meeting is open to the public. Members of the public are encouraged to provide comments relevant to federal disaster preparedness and relief and community resilience. For additional information about registering to attend the meetings or to provide public comment, please see “REGISTRATION” under
The WHEJAC will hold a virtual public meeting on Wednesday, August 3, 2022, and Thursday, August 4, 2022, from approximately 3:00 p.m.-7:30 p.m., Eastern Time, each day. A public comment period relevant to the development of an annual public performance scorecard and the types of indicators or data that would be useful in a scorecard will be considered by the WHEJAC during the meeting on August 3, 2022. (see
Victoria Robinson, WHEJAC Designated Federal Officer, U.S. EPA; email:
The meeting discussion will focus on draft recommendations related to climate resilience, the beta version of the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool, and the implementation of the Justice40 Initiative.
The Charter of the WHEJAC states that the advisory committee will provide independent advice and recommendations to the Chair of the CEQ and to the White House Environmental Justice Interagency Council (IAC). The WHEJAC will provide advice and recommendations about broad cross-cutting issues, related but not limited to, issues of environmental justice and pollution reduction, energy, climate change mitigation and resiliency, environmental health, and racial inequity. The WHEJAC's efforts will include a broad range of strategic, scientific, technological, regulatory, community engagement, and economic issues related to environmental justice.
The WHEJAC is interested in receiving public comments specific to the development of an annual public performance scorecard and the types of indicators or data that would be useful in a scorecard. This scorecard will provide a method for evaluation and accountability to assess the Federal Government's progress in addressing current and historic environmental injustice. Every effort will be made to hear from as many registered public commenters during the time specified on the agenda. Individuals or groups making remarks during the public comment period will be limited to three (3) minutes. Please be prepared to briefly describe your issue and what you want the WHEJAC to advise CEQ and IAC to do. Submitting written comments for the record are strongly encouraged. You can submit your written comments in three different ways, (1.) by creating comments in the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2022-0050 at
For information about access or services for individuals requiring assistance, please contact Victoria Robinson via email at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating at Area Sources (EPA ICR Number 2268.06, OMB Control Number 2060-0607), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through June 30, 2022. Public comments were previously requested, via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 8, 2022.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0115, online using
Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Muntasir Ali, Sector Policies and Program Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0833; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
The prior ICR also assumed that no government-owned miscellaneous surface coating operations at area sources would need to update records of painter certification or records of filter efficiency each year. We have revised this assumption and estimate that the proportions of government-owned surface coating sources and commercial surface coating sources that must record this information each year will be the same. Therefore, in line with our assumptions for commercial surface coating sources, we have assumed that 20 percent of painters at government-owned surface coating sources will need to have their records updated each year, and that one percent of government-owned surface coating sources will opt to use filters which will require them to test and record the filter efficiency. This adjustment in the burden estimate for government-owned surface coating sources results in an increase in recordkeeping burden for those sources. However, the overall burden estimate for all types of sources, including government-owned surface coating sources, has still decreased due to our corrected assumption regarding annual notification of changes reports. Therefore, the number of sources predicted by this ICR to submit reports has been greatly reduced, and the associated labor and operation and maintenance costs have seen a corresponding reduction. However, the individual cost per respondent of submitting a notification or report has not changed.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is submitting an information collection request (ICR), Risk Management Program Requirements and Petitions to Modify the List of Regulated Substances under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (EPA ICR Number 1656.18, OMB Control Number 2050-0144) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through November 30, 2022. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 8, 2022.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725, online using
Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function.
Wendy Hoffman, Office of Emergency Management, Mail Code 5104A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-8794; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
This request for comments relates to the renewal of OMB Control Number 2050-0144, which covers the Risk Management Program and is being consolidated with EPA ICR Number OMB Control Number 2050-0216, which represents the Risk Management Program information collection requirements impacted by the Final Risk Management Program Reconsideration Rule (Reconsideration Rule), published on December 19, 2019 (84 FR 69834). The Reconsideration Rule modified changes made to the Risk Management Program by the Final Risk Management Program Amendments Rule (Amendments Rule), published on January 13, 2017 (82 FR 4594). The consolidation covers information collection requirements from the Amendments Rule that were retained or retained with modification in the Reconsideration Rule. Once this renewal ICR is approved, OMB Control Number 2050-0216 will be discontinued.
EPA received no comments on the ICR. The final ICR package is being submitted to OMB for review and approval for a 30-day review period.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for each of the following insured depository institutions, was charged with the duty of winding up the affairs of the former institutions and liquidating all related assets. The Receiver has fulfilled its obligations and made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary, including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements,
The Commission hereby gives notice of filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the agreements to the Secretary by email at
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20551-0001, not later than August 8, 2022.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by September 6, 2022.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at website address at
William N. Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
Collection of this information is mandated in Part D of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) in Subpart 3. The application requirements are codified in Subpart K of 42 CFR 423 entitled “
The information will be collected under the solicitation of proposals from PDP, MA-PD, Cost Plan, Program of All Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE), and EGWP applicants. The collected information will be used by CMS to: (1) ensure that applicants meet CMS requirements for offering Part D plans (including network adequacy, contracting requirements, and compliance program requirements, as described in the application), (2) support the determination of contract awards.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for XEGLYZE and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of applications to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug or biologic product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: a testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product, XEGLYZE (abametapir). XEGLYZE is indicated for the topical treatment of head lice infestation in patients 6 months of age and older. XEGLYZE should be used in the context of an overall lice management program. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received patent term restoration applications for XEGLYZE (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,812,163; 8,212,038) from Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, S.A., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated April 5, 2021, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of XEGLYZE represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for XEGLYZE is 4,573 days. Of this time, 2,797 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 1,776 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,826 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for RINVOQ and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of applications to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of patents which claims that human drug product.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before September 6, 2022. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration,
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: a testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product, RINVOQ (upadacitinib) indicated for the treatment of adults with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to methotrexate. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for RINVOQ (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,962,629; RE47221) from AbbVie and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated April 5, 2021, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of RINVOQ represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for RINVOQ is 2,604 days. Of this time, 2,365 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 239 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 939 days or 989 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by September 6, 2022.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before September 6, 2022. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Section 742 (b) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 379l) allows FDA to conduct and support intramural training programs through fellowship and traineeship programs. Prospective participants in these programs must complete financial disclosure forms to determine if there is a conflict of interest that would preclude participation. These new forms provide the FDA with information about financial investments and relationships from non-employee scientists who participate in FDA fellowship and traineeship programs. Participants in FDA fellowship and traineeship programs will be asked for certain information about financial interests and current relationships: (1) description of the financial interest; (2) the type of financial interest (
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Based on a review of the information collection since our last request for OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden estimate.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing an order under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) debarring Jhanna Novikov for a period of 5 years from importing or offering for import any drug into the United States. FDA bases this order on a finding that Ms. Novikov was convicted of one felony count under Federal law for smuggling goods into the United States. The factual basis supporting Ms. Novikov's conviction, as described below, is conduct relating to the importation into the United States of a drug or controlled substance. Ms. Novikov was given notice of the proposed debarment and was given an opportunity to request a hearing to show why she should not be debarred. As of April 8, 2022 (30 days after receipt of the notice), Ms. Novikov had not responded. Ms. Novikov's failure to respond and request a hearing within the prescribed timeframe constitutes a waiver of her right to a hearing concerning this matter.
This order is applicable July 7, 2022.
Submit applications for termination of debarment to the Dockets Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-402-7500, or at
Jaime Espinosa, Division of Enforcement (ELEM-4029), Office of Strategic Planning and Operational Policy, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Rockville, MD 20857, 240-402-8743, or at
Section 306(b)(1)(D) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(b)(1)(D)) permits debarment of an individual from importing or offering for import any drug into the United States if the FDA finds, as required by section 306(b)(3)(C) of the FD&C Act, that the individual has been convicted of a felony for conduct relating to the importation into the United States of any drug or controlled substance.
On December 9, 2021, Ms. Novikov was convicted, as defined in section 306(l)(1) of FD&C Act, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida-West Palm Beach Division, when the court accepted her guilty plea and entered judgment against her for the offense of smuggling goods into the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 545. FDA's finding that debarment is appropriate is based on the felony conviction referenced herein. The factual basis for this conviction is as follows: As contained in the indictment, filed on July 28, 2021, and the plea agreement, filed on September 30, 2021, both from Ms. Novikov's case, on July 25, 2018, Ms. Novikov agreed to treat the facial wrinkles of an individual who was an undercover investigator with the Florida Department of Health with “fillers” for $600 and “BOTOX” for $300. BOTOX, or botulinum neurotoxin Type A, is the most well-known neurotoxin approved by FDA to treat facial wrinkles. On August 10, 2018, the investigator returned to Ms. Novikov's residence for her “BOTOX” treatment, and as Ms. Novikov made preparations and drew a liquid into a syringe, agents from FDA's Office of Criminal Investigations (OCI) entered and took control of her residence. After obtaining a warrant, OCI agents searched Ms. Novikov's home. Agents seized various vials of white powder from Ms. Novikov's residence, including two labeled “NEUROXIN Botulinum Toxin Type A,” 14 labeled “CASPIS,” and one with no label. Analysis by the FDA Forensic Chemistry Center determined that the two Neuroxin vials, a sample of four of the Caspis vials, and the unlabeled vial all contained botulinum toxin, the active ingredient in BOTOX; however, a search of FDA records revealed that these drugs had not been approved by FDA and were unapproved new drugs as well as misbranded drugs. Agents did not find any BOTOX or other FDA-approved drugs containing botulinum toxin in Ms. Novikov's home. A subsequent forensic examination of Ms. Novikov's cell phone, which had been seized by OCI agents, revealed that she had imported these unapproved new drugs from Mexico, in violation of the FD&C Act, and Ms. Novikov had been importing such drugs since 2016.
As a result of this conviction, FDA sent Ms. Novikov, by certified mail, on March 1, 2022, a notice proposing to debar her for a 5-year period from importing or offering for import any drug into the United States. The proposal was based on a finding under section 306(b)(3)(C) of the FD&C Act that Ms. Novikov's felony conviction under Federal law for smuggling goods into the United States, in violation of 18
The proposal informed Ms. Novikov of the proposed debarment, offered her an opportunity to request a hearing, providing her 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter in which to file the request, and advised her that failure to request a hearing constituted a waiver of the opportunity for a hearing and of any contentions concerning this action. Ms. Novikov received the proposal and notice of opportunity for a hearing at her residence on March 9, 2022. Ms. Novikov failed to request a hearing within the timeframe prescribed by regulation and has, therefore, waived her opportunity for a hearing and waived any contentions concerning her debarment (21 CFR part 12).
Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, Office of Human and Animal Food Operations, under section 306(b)(3)(C) of the FD&C Act, under authority delegated to the Assistant Commissioner, finds that Ms. Jhanna Novikov has been convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the importation into the United States of any drug or controlled substance. FDA finds that the offense should be accorded a debarment period of 5 years as provided by section 306(c)(2)(A)(iii) of the FD&C Act.
As a result of the foregoing finding, Ms. Novikov is debarred for a period of 5 years from importing or offering for import any drug into the United States, effective (see
Any application by Ms. Novikov for termination of debarment under section 306(d)(1) of the FD&C Act should be identified with Docket No. FDA-2021-N-1358 and sent to the Dockets Management Staff (see
Publicly available submissions will be placed in the docket and will be viewable at
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
This notice informs the public of the availability of the complete lists of all geographic areas, population groups, and facilities designated as primary medical care, dental health, and mental health professional shortage areas (HPSAs) in a designated status as of April 29, 2022. The lists are available on the shortage area topic page on HRSA's
Complete lists of HPSAs designated as of April 29, 2022, and updated information on HPSAs are available on the website at
For further information on the HPSA designations listed on the website or to request additional designation, withdrawal, or reapplication for designation, please contact Janelle D. McCutchen, DHEd, MPH, CHES, Chief, Shortage Designation Branch, Division of Policy and Shortage Designation, Bureau of Health Workforce (BHW), HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 11W14, Rockville, Maryland 20857,
Section 332 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, 42 U.S.C. 254e, provides that the Secretary shall designate HPSAs based on criteria established by regulation. HPSAs are defined in section 332 to include (1) urban and rural geographic areas with shortages of health professionals, (2) population groups with such shortages, and (3) facilities with such shortages. Section 332 further requires that the Secretary annually publish lists of the designated geographic areas, population groups, and facilities. The lists of HPSAs are to be reviewed at least annually and revised as necessary.
Final regulations (42 CFR part 5) were published in 1980 that include the criteria for designating HPSAs. Criteria were defined for seven health professional types: primary medical care, dental, psychiatric, vision care, podiatric, pharmacy, and veterinary care. The criteria for correctional facility HPSAs were revised and published on March 2, 1989 (54 FR 8735). The criteria for psychiatric HPSAs were expanded to mental health HPSAs on January 22, 1992 (57 FR 2473). Currently funded PHS Act programs use only the primary medical care, mental health, or dental HPSA designations.
HPSA designation offers access to potential federal assistance. Public or private nonprofit entities are eligible to apply for assignment of National Health Service Corps personnel to provide primary medical care, mental health, or dental health services in or to these HPSAs. National Health Service Corps health professionals enter into service agreements to serve in federally designated HPSAs. Entities with clinical training sites located in HPSAs are eligible to receive priority for certain residency training program grants administered by HRSA's Bureau of Health Workforce (BHW). Other federal programs also utilize HPSA designations. For example, under authorities administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, certain qualified providers in geographic area HPSAs are eligible for
The three lists of designated HPSAs are available on the HRSA Data Warehouse shortage area topic web page and include a snapshot of all geographic areas, population groups, and facilities that were designated HPSAs as of April 29, 2022. This notice incorporates the most recent annual reviews of designated HPSAs and supersedes the HPSA lists published in the
In addition, all Indian Tribes that meet the definition of such Tribes in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976, 25 U.S.C. 1603, are automatically designated as population groups with primary medical care and dental health professional shortages. Further, the Health Care Safety Net Amendments of 2002 provides eligibility for automatic facility HPSA designations for all federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and rural health clinics that offer services regardless of ability to pay. Specifically, these entities include FQHCs funded under section 330 of the PHS Act, FQHC Look-Alikes, and Tribal and urban Indian clinics operating under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 450) or the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. Many, but not all, of these entities are included on this listing. Absence from this list does not exclude them from HPSA designation; facilities eligible for automatic designation are included in the database when they are identified.
Each list of designated HPSAs is arranged by state. Within each state, the list is presented by county. If only a portion (or portions) of a county is (are) designated, a county is part of a larger designated service area, or a population group residing in a county or a facility located in the county has been designated, the name of the service area, population group, or facility involved is listed under the county name. A county that has a whole county geographic or population group HPSA is indicated by the phrase “County” following the county name.
Requests for designation or withdrawal of a particular geographic area, population group, or facility as a HPSA are received continuously by BHW. Under a Cooperative Agreement between HRSA and the 54 state and territorial Primary Care Offices (PCOs), PCOs conduct needs assessments and submit applications to HRSA to designate areas as HPSAs. BHW refers requests that come from other sources to PCOs for review. In addition, interested parties, including Governors, State Primary Care Associations, and state professional associations, are notified of requests so that they may submit their comments and recommendations.
BHW reviews each recommendation for possible addition, continuation, revision, or withdrawal. Following review, BHW notifies the appropriate agency, individuals, and interested organizations of each designation of a HPSA, rejection of recommendation for HPSA designation, revision of a HPSA designation, and/or advance notice of pending withdrawals from the HPSA list via the Shortage Designation Management System. Designations (or revisions of designations) are effective as of the date on the notification from BHW and are updated daily on the HRSA Data Warehouse website. While this list is a snapshot of HPSAs at a point in time, HPSA designations are regularly being updated so the best source of current designation status is the HRSA Data Warehouse website at (
Designations proposed for withdrawal will remain in that status and not be withdrawn unless they do not meet the HPSA designation criteria at the time the Fiscal Year 2023 HPSA
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The
This virtual public meeting will take place on August 8 from 10:00-11:00 a.m. ET. Members of the public are welcome to attend and do not need to RSVP.
The meeting will take place at via webinar at
Ms. Jessica Wu, Chief of the Management Analysis and Workforce Branch,
In accordance with the NIH Reform Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. Sec.281 (d)(4)), NICHD will have a public meeting to discuss the proposed reorganization plans. NICHD proposal would simplify the organizational structure of the NICHD, create new organizational components to reduce `siloing', increase administrative efficiencies, facilitate transdisciplinary research and idea exchange, and benefit the institute's internal and external communities. The proposal seeks to capitalize on emerging scientific opportunities, while reducing barriers to scientific and interdisciplinary collaboration.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Regents of the National Library of Medicine.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with thegrant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any member of the public may submit written comments no later than 15 days in advance of the meeting. Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The purpose of this meeting is to evaluate requests for preclinical development resources for potential new therapeutics for the treatment of cancer. The outcome of the evaluation will provide information to internal NCI committees that will decide whether NCI should support requests and make available contract resources for development of the potential therapeutic to improve the treatment of various forms of cancer. The research proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposed research projects, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Toby Hecht, Ph.D., Executive Secretary, Development Experimental Therapeutics Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 3W110, Rockville, Maryland 20850, 240-276-5683,
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of issuance of a certificate of alternative compliance.
The Coast Guard announces that the Chief of Prevention Division, Seventh District has issued certificates of alternative compliance from the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), for the M/V ST. JOHNS (O.N. 1063615). We are issuing this notice because its publication is required by statute. Due to the construction and placement of the masthead lights, stern light, and sidelights the M/V ST. JOHNS cannot fully comply with the light, shape, or sound signal provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with the vessel's design and construction (towing operations). This notification of issuance of certificates of alternative compliance promotes the Coast Guard's marine safety mission.
The Certificate of Alternative Compliance for the M/V ST. JOHNS was issued on May 12, 2022.
For information or questions about this notice call or email LT Eugenia Leonard, D7 dpi, U.S. Coast Guard, 305-415-7149,
The United States is signatory to the International Maritime Organization's International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), as amended. The special construction or purpose of some vessels makes them unable to comply with the light, shape, or sound signal provisions of the 72 COLREGS. Under statutory law, however, specified 72 COLREGS provisions are not applicable to a vessel of special construction or purpose if the Coast Guard determines that the vessel cannot comply fully with those requirements without interfering with the special function of the vessel.
The owner, builder, operator, or agent of a special construction or purpose vessel may apply to the Coast Guard District Office in which the vessel is being built or operated for a determination that compliance with alternative requirements is justified,
The Chief of Prevention Division, Seventh District, U.S. Coast Guard, certifies that the M/V ST. JOHNS is a vessel of special construction or purpose, and that with respect to the positions of the masthead lights, stern lights, and sidelights it is not possible to fully comply with the requirements of the provisions enumerated in the 72 COLREGS, without interfering with the normal operation, construction, or design of the vessel while engaging in towing operations. The Chief of Prevention Division, Seventh District, U.S. Coast Guard, further finds and certifies that the lights are configured in the closest possible compliance with the applicable provisions of the 72 COLREGS.
This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.18.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Request for applicants for appointment to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Technical Mapping Advisory Council.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is requesting qualified individuals interested in serving on the Technical Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC) apply for appointment. As established in the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, the TMAC makes recommendations to the FEMA Administrator on how to improve, in a cost-effective manner, the accuracy, general quality, ease of use, and distribution and dissemination of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and risk data; and to define performance metrics and milestones required to effectively and efficiently map flood risk areas in the United States. The appointments are for 3 years each and applicants will be considered for four vacancies on the TMAC.
Applications will be accepted until 11:59 p.m. ET on August 8, 2022.
Applications for membership should be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
Brian Koper, Designated Federal Officer for the TMAC, FEMA, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Risk Management Directorate, 400 C Street SW, Suite 6NW-1412, Washington, DC 20472-3020, (202) 733-7859,
The TMAC is an advisory committee established by the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, 42 U.S.C. 4101a, in accordance with provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463). The TMAC makes recommendations to FEMA on mapping-related issues and activities, including mapping standards and guidelines, performance metrics and milestones, map maintenance, interagency and intergovernmental coordination, map accuracy, and funding strategies. In addition, the TMAC submits an annual report to the FEMA Administrator that contains: (1) a description of the activities of the Council; (2) an evaluation of the status and performance of FIRMs and mapping activities to revise and update FIRMs; and (3) a summary of recommendations made by the Council to the FEMA Administrator.
Members of the TMAC will be appointed based on their demonstrated knowledge and competence in areas such as surveying, cartography, remote sensing, geospatial information systems, or the technical aspects of preparing and using FIRMs. In order for FEMA to maximize the impact of the Council and the guidance it provides, the Council must be diverse with regard to professional and technical expertise. FEMA is committed to pursuing
FEMA is requesting qualified individuals who are interested in serving on the TMAC to apply for appointment. Applicants will be considered for appointment for four vacancies on the TMAC, the terms of which start in summer/fall 2022. Certain members of the TMAC, as described below, will be appointed to serve as Special Government Employees (SGE) as defined in title 18 U.S.C. 202(a), while other members of the TMAC will be appointed to serve as representative members. Representative members are appointed to provide the perspective of the organization that they represent. Candidates selected for appointment will be subject to the Federal conflict of interest laws and standard of conduct regulations and required to file a New Entrant Confidential Disclosure Report (OGE 450). This form can be obtained by visiting the website of the Office of Government Ethics (
(a) One representative of a state government agency that has entered into a cooperating technical partnership with FEMA and has demonstrated the capability to produce FIRMs;
(b) One representative of a local government agency that has entered into cooperating technical partnerships with FEMA and has demonstrated the capability to produce FIRMs;
(c) One member (SGE) of a recognized regional flood and storm water management organization; and,
(d) One member (SGE) of a recognized risk management association or organization;
Members of the TMAC serve terms of three years. There is no application form. However, applications must include the following information:
• Applicant's full name;
• Home and business phone numbers;
• Preferred email address;
• Home and business mailing addresses;
• Current position title and organization;
• Resume or curriculum vitae; and
• The membership category of interest (
The TMAC meets as often as needed to fulfill its mission, but not less than twice a year. Members may be reimbursed for travel and per diem incurred in the performance of their duties as members of the TMAC. All travel for TMAC business must be approved in advance by the Designated Federal Officer.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not discriminate in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disability and genetic information, age, membership in an employee organization, or other non-merit factor. DHS strives to achieve a widely diverse candidate pool for all its recruitment actions. Current DHS and FEMA employees will not be considered for membership. Federally registered lobbyists will not be considered for SGE appointments.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice of new collection and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on a new information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning a survey following the upcoming national test of the Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) system.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 6, 2022.
Please submit comments at
All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Ward D. Hagood, IPAWS DS2 T&E Manager, FEMA HQ/PNP-NCP-CCD-IPAWS, phone: (202) 212-1478, email:
Public Law 114-143, the
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Office of Policy Development and Research, Chief Data Officer, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, REE, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email her at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A. The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) If the information will be processed and used in a timely manner;
(3) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(4) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(5) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Sierra Front-Northern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as follows.
The RAC will hold an in-person meeting with a virtual participation option on Thursday, August 11, 2022. The RAC will also host a field tour on Friday, August 12. The meeting will be held from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and may end earlier or later depending on the needs of group members. The field tour will begin at 7 a.m. and conclude at 2 p.m.
The meeting will be held at Dalling Hall, 600 Commercial Street, Elko, Nevada 89801. Individuals who prefer to participate in the August 11 meeting virtually must register by visiting the RAC's web page no later than 1 week before the meeting at
The field tour will commence at the Elko District Office, 3900 Idaho St., Elko, Nevada 89801. Participants will travel to the Big Ledge Mine.
Written comments can be mailed to: BLM Carson City District Office, Attn: RAC Coordinator; 5665 Morgan Mill Road, Carson City, NV 89701. Comments can also be submitted by email to Lisa Ross at
Lisa Ross, RAC Coordinator, telephone: (775) 885-6107, email:
The 15-member BLM Sierra Front-Northern Great Basin RAC serves in an advisory capacity concerning issues relating to land use planning and the management of the public land resources located within the BLM's Elko, Winnemucca, and Carson City Districts. Meetings are open to the public in their entirety and a public comment period will be held near the end of the meeting.
Agenda items for the August 11 meeting include District updates; a presentation on the Big Ledge Mine Closure; an overview of the Fire/Fuels Vegetation Program and Ranchers' Liaison Program; a review of the proposed BLM recreation fee plan; a briefing on recent efforts and proposed land sales; and a discussion on Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act projects. The August 12 field tour is to the Big Ledge Mine in the northern Snake Mountain Range approximately 60 miles north of Wells, Nevada, in Elko County. The Big Ledge Mine began operations in 2007 and is now permanently closing. The field tour will offer participants the opportunity to see the on-the-ground remediation efforts that include backfilling the barium mining pit and eliminating the mining pit lake. Members of the public are welcome on field tours but must provide their own transportation and
Please make requests in advance for sign language interpreter services, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodations. We ask that you contact the person listed in the (see
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, blind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
Interested persons may make oral presentations to the RAC during the meetings or file written statements. Such requests should be made to RAC Coordinator Ms. Ross prior to the public comment period. Depending on the number of people who wish to speak, the time for individual comments may be limited.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, please be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the National Park Service (NPS) are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 6, 2022.
Please provide a copy of your comments to the NPS Information Collection Clearance Officer (ADIR-ICCO), 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, (MS-242) Reston, VA 20191 (mail); or
To request additional information about this ICR by mail, contact Bill Commins, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility.
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
As required by these regulations, a permitting system is managed for scientific research and collecting. NPS forms 10-741A, “Application for a Scientific Research and Collecting Permit” and 10-741B, “Application for a Science Education Permit,” are used to collect information from persons
The NPS forms 10-741C “Permittee Field Check-In Report” and 10-741D “Permittee Field Check-Out Report” information requested will give parks real-time knowledge of what activities are taking place and where ensuring fieldwork conducted conforms with the permitted activity.
The information in this collection is used to manage the use and preservation of park resources, and to report on the status of permitted research and collecting activities. We encourage respondents to use RPRS to complete and submit applications and reports. Additional information about existing applications, reporting forms, guidance, and explanatory material can be found on the RPRS website (
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review a final initial determination (“Final ID”) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) finding a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, with respect to U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 4,811,656 (“the '656 mark”) and 4,811,749 (“the '749 mark”) by defaulting respondent Zhejiang Quingyou Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. (“Zhejiang Quingyou”) and with respect to the '749 mark by defaulting respondent Shenzhen Mediatek Tong Technology Co., Ltd. (“Mediatek”). The Commission has further determined to review in part and, on review, affirm a finding of no violation with respect to U.S. Patent No. 10,604,024 (“the '024 patent”) based on the complainant's failure to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement. The Commission requests briefing from the parties, interested government agencies, and interested persons on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding based on the schedule set forth below.
Robert Needham, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5468. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
On March 23, 2021, the Commission instituted this investigation based on a complaint filed on behalf of The NOCO Company of Glenwillow, Ohio (“NOCO”). 86 FR 15496-98 (Mar. 23, 2021). The complaint, as supplemented and amended, alleges a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain portable battery jump starters and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 4, 11, 14, 18, 19, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 9,007,015 (“the '015 patent”) and claims 1, 4-6, 16, 19, 23, 24, 26, 29, and 30 of the '024 patent, and infringement of the '656 and '749 marks.
The notice of investigation named the following respondents: (1) Advance Auto Parts, Inc. of Raleigh, North Carolina; (2) Anker Technology (UK) Ltd. of Birmingham, United Kingdom; (3) Antigravity Batteries LLC of Gardena, California; (4) Arteck Electronic Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen, China; (5) AutoZone, Inc. of Memphis, Tennessee; (6) Best Buy Co., Inc. of South Richfield, Minnesota; (7) Best Parts, Inc. of Memphis, Tennessee; (8) Clore Automotive, LLC of Lenexa, Kansas; (9) Deltran USA, LLC of DeLand, Florida; (10) Energen, Inc. of City of Industry, California; (11) FlyLink Tech Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen, China; (12) Gooloo Technologies LLC and Shenzhen Gooloo E-Commerce Co., Ltd of Shenzhen, China; (13) Great Neck Saw Manufacturers, Inc. of Mineola, New York; (14) Guangdong Boltpower Energy Co., Ltd of Shenzhen City, China; (15) Halo2Cloud, LLC of Hartford, Connecticut; (16) Horizon Tool, Inc. of Greensboro, North Carolina; (17) K-Tool International of Plymouth, Michigan; (18) Lowe's Companies, Inc. of Mooresville, North Carolina; (19) Matco Tools Corporation of Stow, Ohio; (20) MonoPrice, Inc. of Brea, California; (21) National Automotive Parts Association, LLC (d/b/a NAPA) of Atlanta, Georgia; (22) Nekteck, Inc. of Anaheim, California; (23) O'Reilly Automotive, Inc. of Springfield, Missouri; (24) Paris Corporation of Westampton, New Jersey; (25) PowerMax Battery (U.S.A.), Inc. of Ontario, California; (26) Prime Global Products, Inc. of Ball Ground, Georgia; (27) QVC, Inc. of West Chester, Pennsylvania; (28) Schumacher Power Technology Ltd. of Yancheng, China; (29) Schumacher Electric Corp. of Mount Prospect, Illinois; (30) Shenzhen Carku Technology Co., Ltd. of
The Commission permitted NOCO to amend the amended complaint and notice of investigation to make the following changes: (1) to substitute Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, for Lowe's Companies, Inc.; (2) to substitute O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc., O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, and Ozark Purchasing, LLC, for O'Reilly Automotive, Inc.; (3) to substitute Anker Innovations Ltd. (HK) for Anker Technology (UK) Ltd.; (4) to substitute ZAGG Inc. for Zagg Co. Rrd; (5) to substitute Shenzhen Dingjiang Technology Co., Ltd. (d/b/a Shenzhen Topdon Technology Co., Ltd. and Topdon Technology Co., Ltd.) for Shenzhen Dingjiang Technology Co., Ltd., and Shenzhen Topdon Technology Co., Ltd.; and (6) to add additional respondents related to Winplus North America, Inc.—ADC Solutions Auto, LLC d/b/a/Type-S and Winplus NA, LLC. Order No. 13 (Apr. 23, 2021),
The Commission subsequently terminated the investigation with respect to National Automotive Parts Association, LLC (d/b/a NAPA), Shenzhen Jieruijia Technology Co., Ltd., and Shenzhen Take Tools Co., Ltd. based on a voluntary withdrawal of the complaint. Order No. 9 (Apr. 13, 2021),
The Commission found several respondents in default for failing to respond to the complaint, notice of investigation, and order to show cause why they should not be found in default. The defaulting respondents include the following: Energen, Inc.; FlyLink Tech Co., Ltd.; K-Tool International; MonoPrice, Inc.; Prime Global Products, Inc.; Mediatek; Shenzhen Valuelink E-Commerce Co., Ltd.; ThiEYE Technologies Co., Ltd; Tii Trading Inc.; Zhejiang Quingyou; and Arteck Electronics Co., Ltd. Order No. 23 (Jul. 13, 2021),
Accordingly, at the time of the evidentiary hearing, the following respondents remained active in the investigation: Antigravity Batteries LLC, Gooloo Technology LLC and Shenzhen Gooloo E-Commerce Co., Ltd., Horizon Tool, Inc., Nekteck, Inc., PowerMax Battery (U.S.A.), Inc., Shenzhen Carku Technology Co., Ltd., 70mai Co., Ltd., Matco Tools Corporation, Paris Corporation, and Great Neck Saw Manufacturers, Inc. (collectively, the “Carku respondents”); Guangdong Boltpower Energy Co., Ltd. and Best Buy Co., Inc. (collectively, the “Boltpower respondents”); and Winplus North America, Inc., Winplus NA, LLC, and ADC Solutions Auto, LLC d/b/a Type S (collectively, the “Winplus respondents”).
The Commission also subsequently terminated the investigation with respect to claims 4, 14, 18, and 21 of the '015 patent and claims 4, 5, 6, 19, 23, and 26 of the '024 patent based on NOCO's partial withdrawal of the complaint. Order No. 27 (Aug. 6, 2021),
Accordingly, at the time of the evidentiary hearing, the '656 mark, the '749 mark, and claims 1, 16, 24, 29, and 30 of the '024 patent remained asserted in the investigation. Specifically, NOCO asserted the following: claims 1, 16, 24, 29, and 30 of the '024 patent against the Carku respondents; claims 1, 16, 24, 29, and 30 against the Boltpower respondents; claims 1, 16, 29, and 30 against the Winplus respondents; and claims 1, 29, and 30 against ten of the twelve defaulting respondents. Final ID at 8-9. NOCO also accused defaulting respondent Mediatek of infringing the '749 mark and defaulting respondent Zhejiang Quingyou of infringing the '749 mark and the '656 mark.
The ALJ issued a
On April 29, 2022, the ALJ issued the Final ID finding a violation with respect to the '749 mark by defaulting respondent Mediatek and with respect to the '656 and '749 marks by defaulting respondent Zhejiang Quingyou, and finding no violation with respect to the '024 patent. Specifically, with respect to the '024 patent, the ID finds that NOCO showed that the products of the Boltpower respondents and the ten defaulting respondents infringe the asserted claims of the '024 patent, but that NOCO failed to show that the products of the Carku respondents and Winplus respondents infringe the asserted claims. The ID further finds that no asserted claim of the '024 patent was shown to be invalid or unenforceable. Additionally, the ID finds that NOCO satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement but failed to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement as to the '024 patent.
The ALJ's recommended determination on remedy and bonding recommended that if the Commission finds a violation of section 337 with respect to the '024 patent, then the Commission should issue a GEO with respect to the '024 patent and CDOs against all respondents shown to maintain commercially significant amounts of domestic inventory—Winplus, Carku, Antigravity, the Gooloo respondents, Great Neck, Matco Tools, Nekteck, PowerMax, 70Mai, Horizon Tool, Paris Corporation, Boltpower, and BestBuy. The ALJ also recommends that the Commission issue an LEO against Mediatek regarding the '749 mark, and against Zhejiang Quingyou regarding the '749 mark and the '656 mark. The ALJ finally recommends that the Commission set the bond rate at 100 percent of entered value based on the difficulty of setting the bond based on a price differential due to the large number of respondents and the lack of evidence of a reasonably royalty rate.
The Commission did not receive any submissions regarding the ALJ's recommended determination pursuant to the Commission's post RD-notice (87 FR 29177-78 (May 12, 2022)) or Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4) (19 CFR 210.50(a)(4)).
On May 13, 2022, NOCO filed a petition with respect to the '024 patent, seeking review of certain of the Final ID's findings on the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement and infringement and seeking contingent review of certain of the Final ID's findings on invalidity. That same day, Boltpower filed a petition seeking review of certain of the ALJ's and ID's findings on claim construction and infringement with respect to the '024 patent. Also on May 13, 2022, the Carku and Winplus respondents filed a joint contingent petition with respect to the '024 patent, seeking review of the Final ID on numerous issues related to infringement, invalidity, the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement, and the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. No petitions were filed concerning the Final ID's findings with respect to the asserted trademarks. On May 23, 2022, the parties and OUII filed responses to each other's petitions.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ's Final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission determined not to review the Final ID's finding of a violation of section 337 respect to the '656 mark and the '749 mark by defaulting respondent Zhejiang Quingyou and with respect to the '749 mark by defaulting respondent Mediatek. The Commission presumes that the allegations in the second amended complaint against Zhejiang Quingyou and Mediatek are true with respect to the '656 and '749 marks based on those respondents' defaults, including the allegations regarding the satisfaction of the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement against those respondents. 19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1).
The Commission has determined to review in part the Final ID's finding of no violation of section 337 with respect to the '024 patent and, on review to affirm the Final ID's finding of no violation due to NOCO's failure to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement. The Commission further has determined to take no position on the Final ID's findings that: (1) the accused Boltpower Schumacher SL1315 satisfies the limitation “the reverse polarity sensor configured . . . to provide an output signal indicating that the positive and negative polarity terminals of the vehicle battery are properly connected to the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery connectors” recited in the asserted claims of the '024 patent; (2) any accused product or domestic industry product satisfies the limitation “a power switch connected between the power supply and the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connectors” recited in the asserted claims of the '024 patent; (3) the Winplus products satisfy the “turn off” limitation recited in the asserted claims of the '024 patent; (4) claims 1 and 29 of the '024 patent are not invalid for a lack of written description; (5) claims 1, 24, 29, and 30 of the '024 patent are not rendered invalid as obvious by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2013-0154543 (“Richardson”) (RX-0049); (6) claim 16 of the '024 patent is not rendered obvious by Richardson in view of Chinese Pat. App. No. TW M417714U1 (“Luo”) (RX-0048); (7) claim 16 of the '024 patent is not rendered obvious by Richardson in view of the asserted prior art E-Power 10 device (RPX-0047); (8) U.S. Patent No. 7,345,450 (“Krieger”) (RX-0047) does not anticipate claims 1, 29, and 30 of the '024 patent; does not render obvious claim 16; (9) claim 16 of the '024 patent is not rendered obvious by Krieger in view of Luo or the E-power 10 device; (10) claim 16 of the '024 patent is not rendered obvious by Krieger in view of Richardson; (11) the asserted domestic industry products satisfy the “power switch” limitation recited in the asserted claims of the '024 patent; and (12) NOCO has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the statute authorizes issuance of,
The statute requires the Commission to consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The public interest factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order would have on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve, disapprove, or take no action on the Commission's determination.
The Commission further requests that NOCO submit proposed remedial orders, provide the HTSUS numbers under which the subject articles are imported, and supply a list of known importers of the subject article with its initial written submission. The written submissions, exclusive of any exhibits, must not exceed 10 pages, and must be filed no later than close of business on July 14, 2022. Reply submissions must not exceed 10 pages and must be filed no later than the close of business on July 21, 2021. No further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. The Commission's paper filing requirements in 19 CFR 210.4(f) are currently waived. 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 2020). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (Inv. No. 337-TA-1256) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment by marking each document with a header indicating that the document contains confidential information. This marking will be deemed to satisfy the request procedure set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b) & 210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. A redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed simultaneously with any confidential filing. All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) by the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes. All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection on EDIS.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on June 30, 2022.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice, is submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The Department of Justice encourages public comment and will accept input until August 8, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Robert Houser, Assistant Director, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until August 8, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Robert Houser, Assistant Director, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance is submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The Department of Justice encourages public comment and will accept input until August 8, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
An NMVTIS Reporting Entity includes any individual or entity that meets the federal definition, found in the NMVTIS regulations at 28 CFR 25.52, for a “junk yard” or “salvage yard.” According to those regulations, a junk yard is defined as “an individual or entity engaged in the business of acquiring or owning junk automobiles for—(1) Resale in their entirety or as spare parts; or (2) Rebuilding, restoration, or crushing.” The regulations define a salvage yard as “an individual or entity engaged in the business of acquiring or owning salvage automobiles for—(1) Resale in their entirety or as spare parts; or (2) Rebuilding, restoration, or crushing.” These definitions include vehicle remarketers and vehicle recyclers, including scrap vehicle shredders and scrap metal processors as well as “pull- or pick-apart yards,” salvage pools, salvage auctions, used automobile dealers, and other types of auctions handling salvage or junk vehicles (including vehicles declared by any insurance company to be a “total loss” regardless of any damage assessment). Businesses that operate on behalf of these entities or individual domestic or international salvage vehicle buyers, sometimes known as “brokers” may also meet these regulatory definitions of salvage and junk yards. It is important to note that industries not specifically listed in the junk yard or salvage yard definition may still meet one of the definitions and, therefore, be subject to the NMVTIS reporting requirements.
An individual or entity meeting the junk yard or salvage yard definition is subject to the NMVTIS reporting requirements if that individual or entity handles 5 or more junk or salvage motor vehicles per year and is engaged in the business of acquiring or owning a junk automobile or a salvage automobile for—“(1) Resale in their entirety or as spare parts; or (2) Rebuilding, restoration, or crushing.” Reporting entities can determine whether a vehicle is junk or salvage by referring to the definitions provided in the NMVTIS regulations at 28 CFR 25.52. An NMVTIS Reporting Entity is required to report specific information to NMVTIS within one month of receiving such a vehicle, and failure to report may result in assessment of a civil penalty of $1,000 per violation.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Robert Houser, Assistant Director, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice is submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The Department of Justice encourages public comment and will accept input until August 8, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Robert Houser, Assistant Director, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice is submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The Department of Justice encourages public comment and will accept input until September 6, 2022.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Joseph Husted, State Policy Advisor, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, 810 7th Street NW, Washington, DC 20531 by email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Robert Houser, Assistant Director, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
National Endowment for the Arts; National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice.
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to ensure that requested data is provided in the desired format; reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized; collection instruments are clearly understood; and the impact of collection requirements on respondents is properly assessed. Currently, the NEA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection through the Participant Outcomes Survey for individuals who participate in community arts programs funded by the Creative Forces®: NEA Military Healing Arts Network Community Arts Engagement Subgranting Program. Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by visiting
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the address section below within 30 days from the date of this publication in the
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be sent within 30 days of publication of this Notice to
The NEA is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The Creative Forces®: NEA Military Healing Arts Network seeks to improve the health, well-being, and quality of life for military and veteran populations exposed to trauma, and for their families and caregivers through clinical and non-clinical programs (
According to the National Endowment for the Arts 2018-2022 Strategic Plan (page 20), evidence building for Strategic Objective 2.4, Support Access to Creative Arts Therapies and Evidence-Based Programs in the Arts and Health, involves “the development of a community engagement research agenda and framework for defining indicators and developing metrics for measuring the impact and benefits from participation in therapeutic arts interventions and community-based arts engagement programs aligned with, or complementary to, Creative Forces clinical program outcomes.”
Beginning in 2022, Creative Forces will award Community Engagement Grants to support non-clinical arts engagement programming for military-connected populations through matching grants of $10,000 to $50,000 for emerging (“Emerging”) and established (“Advanced”) community-based arts engagement projects to serve military-connected populations. The NEA anticipates awarding approximately 30 awards annually, with the first round of grant-funded projects taking place after July 1, 2022. The grant program will support a range of program models (
During development of the Community Engagement Grant program, the NEA (1) documented the needs of military and veteran populations exposed to trauma, and of their families and caregivers, (2) identified goals for community arts engagement programming and four outcomes for participants, (3) produced logic models and measurement frameworks for the grantee and national program levels, (4) contributed to grant guidelines, and (5) evaluated methodologies and instruments for data collection. The Participant Outcomes Survey assesses four participant outcome areas identified during development of the grant program: Creative Expression, Social Connectedness, Resilience, and Independence and Successful Adaptation to Civilian Life. Participants of the programs supported by a Creative Forces Community Engagement grant will complete the survey at the beginning (pre) and end (post) of participation in the program. Program participants will be asked to complete an enrollment form. Project directors will be asked to participate in an interview following the end of the survey administration period.
The purpose of the Participant Outcomes Survey is to determine the impact of the Community Engagement Grant Program by measuring the extent of change over time (pre-to-post) in the four participant outcomes and to inform ongoing program improvement. Through this pilot test of the survey, the NEA will evaluate the effectiveness of the survey instrument and the administration process during the first cycle of the grant program. The data collection activities are planned for January through June 2023. A regular PRA clearance package will be submitted in FY 2023 for a Creative Forces Community Engagement Grant Program evaluation study that utilizes this survey instrument.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-72 and NPF-77, issued to Constellation Energy Generation, LLC, for operation of the Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. The proposed amendments would change Technical Specifications (TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.7.9.2 to allow an ultimate heat sink (UHS) temperature of ≤ 102.8 °F (degree Fahrenheit) through September 30, 2022.
Submit comments by August 8, 2022. Requests for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by September 6, 2022.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Joel S. Wiebe, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-6606, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2022-0134 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The NRC is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating Licenses No. NPF-72 and NPF-77, issued to Constellation Energy Generation, LLC, for operation of the Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, located in Will County, Illinois.
The proposed amendments would change TS SR 3.7.9.2 to allow a UHS temperature of less than or equal to 102.8 °F through September 30, 2022.
Before any issuance of the proposed license amendment, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and NRC's regulations.
The NRC has made a proposed determination that the LAR involves no significant hazards consideration (NSHC). Under the NRC's regulations in § 50.92 of title 10 of the
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The likelihood of a malfunction of any systems, structures, or components (SSCs) supported by the Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS) is not significantly increased by increasing the allowable UHS temperature from ≤102°F to ≤102.8°F. The UHS provides a heat sink for process and operating heat from safety related components during a transient or accident, as well as during normal operation. The proposed change
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed change does not introduce any new modes of plant operation, change the design function of any SSC, or change the mode of operation of any SSC. There are no new equipment failure modes or malfunctions created as affected SSCs continue to operate in the same manner as previously evaluated and have been evaluated to perform as designed at the increased UHS temperature and as assumed in the accident analysis. Additionally, accident initiators remain as described in the UFSAR and no new accident initiators are postulated as a result of the increase in UHS temperature. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change continues to ensure that the maximum temperature of the cooling water supplied to the plant SSCs during a UHS design basis event remains within the evaluated equipment limits and capabilities assumed in the accident analysis. The proposed change does not result in any changes to plant equipment function, including setpoints and actuations. All equipment will function as designed in the plant safety analysis without any physical modifications. The proposed change does not alter a limiting condition for operation, limiting safety system setting, or safety limit specified in the Technical Specifications. The proposed change does not adversely impact the UHS inventory required to be available for the UFSAR described design basis accident involving the worst case 30-day period including losses for evaporation and seepage to support safe shutdown and cooldown of both Braidwood Station units. Additionally, the structural integrity of the UHS is not impacted and remains acceptable following the change, thereby ensuring that the assumptions for both UHS temperature and inventory remain valid. Therefore, since there is no adverse impact of this proposed change on the Braidwood Station safety analysis, there is no reduction in the margin of safety of the plant.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the license amendment request involves a NSHC.
The NRC is seeking public comments on this proposed determination that the license amendment request involves a NSHC. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of the 60-day notice period. However, if circumstances change during the notice period, such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves NSHC. The final determination will consider all public and State comments received. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult 10 CFR 2.309. If a petition is filed, the presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii).
If a hearing is requested and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of NSHC, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h) no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
For information about filing a petition and about participation by a person not a party under 10 CFR 2.315, see ADAMS ML20340A053 and on the NRC's public website at
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings including documents filed by an interested State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof that requests to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302. The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases, to mail copies on electronic storage media, unless an exemption permitting an alternative filing method, as further discussed, is granted. Detailed guidance on electronic submissions is located in the “Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC” (ADAMS Accession No. ML13031A056) and on the NRC's public website at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(b)-(d). Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving their documents on all other participants. Participants granted an exemption under 10 CFR 2.302(g)(2) must still meet the electronic formatting requirement in 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1), unless the participant also seeks and is granted an exemption from 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1).
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is publicly available at
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for license amendment dated June 3, 2022 (ADAMS ML22154A203).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 1, 2022, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 3103, Continuing Education Requirements. The proposed rule change also makes conforming amendments to Exchange Rule 3100, Registration Requirements. Among other changes, the proposed rule change requires that the Regulatory Element of continuing education be completed annually rather than every three years and provide a path through continuing education for individuals to maintain their qualification following the termination of a registration. The Exchange also proposes to amend its manual signature requirements in Exchange Rule 3104, Electronic Filing Requirements for Uniform Forms.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rules 3100 and 3103. This proposed rule change is based on a filing recently submitted by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”)
The proposed changes are based on the changes filed with the Commission in SR-FINRA-2021-003 and SR-FINRA-2021-015.
The continuing education program for registered persons of broker-dealers (“CE Program”) currently requires registered persons to complete continuing education consisting of a Regulatory Element and a Firm Element. The Regulatory Element, which is administered by FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, focuses on regulatory requirements and industry standards, while the Firm Element is provided by each firm and focuses on securities products, services, and strategies the firm offers, firm policies, and industry trends. The CE Program is codified under the rules of the self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”). The CE Program for registered persons of Exchange Members is codified under Exchange Rules 3100 and 3103.
Exchange Rule 3103(a), Regulatory Element, currently requires a registered person to complete the applicable Regulatory Element initially within 120 days after the person's second registration anniversary date, and thereafter, within 120 days after every third registration anniversary date.
The Regulatory Element consists of a subprogram for registered persons generally, and a subprogram for principals and supervisors.
The Regulatory Element was originally designed at a time when most individuals had to complete the Regulatory Element at a test center, and its design was shaped by the limitations of the test center-based delivery model. In 2015, FINRA transitioned the delivery of the Regulatory Element to an online platform (“CE Online”), which allows individuals to complete the content online at a location of their choosing, including their private residence. This online delivery provides FINRA with much greater flexibility in updating content in a timelier fashion, developing content tailored to each registration category and presenting the material in an optimal learning format.
Exchange Rule 3103(b), Firm Element, currently requires each firm to develop and administer an annual Firm Element training program for covered registered persons.
A firm, consistent with its needs analysis, may determine to apply toward the Firm Element other required training. The current rule does not expressly recognize other required training, such as training relating to the anti-money laundering (“AML”) compliance program,
Currently, individuals whose registrations as representatives or principals have been terminated for two or more years may reregister as representatives or principals only if they requalify by retaking and passing the applicable representative- or principal-level examination or if they obtain a waiver of such examination(s) (the “two-year qualification period”).
After extensive work with the Securities Industry/Regulatory Council on Continuing Education (“CE Council”) and discussions with stakeholders, including industry participants and the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”), FINRA adopted the following changes to the CE Program under its rules.
As noted above, currently, the Regulatory Element generally must be completed every three years, and the content is broad in nature. Based on changes in technology and learning theory, the Regulatory Element content can be updated and delivered in a timelier fashion and tailored to each
Under the proposed rule change, firms would have the flexibility to require their registered persons to complete the Regulatory Element sooner than December 31, which would allow firms to coordinate the timing of the Regulatory Element with other training requirements, including the Firm Element.
Individuals who would be registering as a representative or principal for the first time on or after the implementation date of the proposed rule change would be required to complete their initial Regulatory Element for that registration category in the next calendar year following their registration.
Consistent with current requirements, individuals who fail to complete their Regulatory Element within the prescribed period would be automatically designated as CE inactive.
The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 3103(a) to clarify that: (1) individuals who are designated as CE inactive would be required to complete all of their pending and upcoming annual Regulatory Element, including any annual Regulatory Element that becomes due during their CE inactive period, to return to active status;
Under the proposed rule change, the amount of content that registered persons would be required to complete in a three-year, annual cycle for a particular registration category is expected to be comparable to what most registered persons are currently completing every three years. In some years, there may be more required content for some registration categories depending on the volume of rule changes and regulatory issues. In addition, an individual who holds multiple registrations may be required to complete additional content compared to an individual who holds a single registration because, as noted above, individuals would be required to complete content specific to each registration category that they hold.
To better align the Exchange's Rulebook with FINRA's Rulebook, and, in addition, to better align the Firm Element requirement with other required training, the Exchange proposes amending Rule 3103(b) to expressly allow firms to consider training relating to the AML compliance program and the annual compliance meeting toward satisfying an individual's annual Firm Element requirement.
The Exchange proposes adopting paragraph (c) under Exchange Rule 3103 and Interpretation and Policies .01 and .02 to Exchange Rule 3103 to provide eligible individuals who terminate any of their representative or principal registrations the option of maintaining their qualification for any of the terminated registrations by completing continuing education.
The proposed rule change would impose the following conditions and limitations:
• Individuals would be required to be registered in the terminated registration category for at least one year immediately prior to the termination of that category;
• Individuals could elect to participate when they terminate a registration or within two years from the termination of a registration;
• Individuals would be required to complete annually all prescribed continuing education;
• Individuals would have a maximum of five years in which to reregister;
• Individuals who have been CE inactive for two consecutive years, or who become CE inactive for two consecutive years during their participation, would not be eligible to participate or continue;
• Individuals who are subject to a statutory disqualification, or who become subject to a statutory disqualification following the termination of their registration or during their participation, would not be eligible to participate or continue.
The proposed rule change also includes a look-back provision that would, subject to specified conditions, extend the proposed option to individuals who have been registered as a representative or principal within two years immediately prior to the implementation date of the proposed rule change and individuals who have been FSAWP participants immediately prior to the implementation date of the proposed rule change.
In addition, the proposed rule change includes a re-eligibility provision that would allow individuals to regain eligibility to participate each time they reregister with a firm for a period of at least one year and subsequently terminate their registration, provided that they satisfy the other participation conditions and limitations.
The proposed rule change will have several important benefits. It will provide individuals with flexibility to address life and career events and necessary absences from registered functions without having to requalify each time. It will also incentivize them to stay current on their respective securities industry knowledge following the termination of any of their registrations. The continuing education under the proposed option will be as rigorous as the continuing education of registered persons, which promotes investor protection. Further, the proposed rule change will enhance diversity and inclusion in the securities industry by attracting and retaining a broader and diverse group of professionals.
Significantly, the proposed rule change will be of particular value to women, who continue to be the primary caregivers for children and aging family members and, as a result, are likely to be absent from the industry for longer periods.
As stated in the FINRA Rule Change, FINRA and the CE Council also plan to enhance the CE Program in other ways, and these additional enhancements do not require any changes to the FINRA rules.
Exchange Rule 3104(c) currently provides that every initial and transfer electronic Form U4 filing and any amendments to the disclosure information on Form U4 must be based on a manually signed Form U4 provided to the Member or applicant for membership by the person on whose behalf the Form U4 is being filed, consistent with FINRA Rule 1010(c). Similarly, Exchange Rule 3104, Interpretation and Policy .03, currently provides that in the event a Member is not able to obtain an associated person's manual signature or written acknowledgement of amended disclosure information on that person's Form U4 prior to filing on such amendment reflecting the information pursuant to proposed Exchange Rule 3103(c)(3), the Member must enter “Representative Refused to Sign/Acknowledge” or “Representative Not Available” or a substantially similar entry in the electronic Form U4 field for the associated person's signature. However, FINRA has since amended their Rule 1010(c) to permit firms to choose to rely on electronic signatures to satisfy the signature requirements when filing Form U4.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 3104(c) and Interpretation and Policy .03 to similarly allow firms to rely on electronic signatures when filing Form U4, consistent with FINRA Rule 1010(c). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to remove the term “manual” from “manual signature” and the term “manually” from “manually signed.” The proposed rule change provides Members, and applicants for membership, with an opportunity to better manage operational challenges. Particularly, the COVID-19 pandemic amplified the need to better manage operational challenges like those that arose during the pandemic and that may continue to arise in the future. Additionally, the proposed rule change would not require the use of a particular type of technology to obtain a valid electronic signature from the associated person. The Exchange believes that some firms may be unable to obtain the manual signature of applicants for registration resulting in a significant operational backlog. By permitting these firms to rely on electronic signatures to satisfy the signature requirements of Exchange Rule 3104(c) and Interpretation and Policy .03, the proposed rule change may reduce or eliminate this backlog. For purposes of the proposed rule change, a valid electronic signature would be any electronic mark that clearly identifies the signatory and is otherwise in compliance with the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (“E-Sign Act”) and the guidance issued by the Commission relating to the E-Sign Act.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
As noted above, the proposed rule changes seek to align the Exchange Rules with recent changes to FINRA rules.
The Exchange believes the proposed changes to the Regulatory Element will ensure that all Registered Representatives receive timely and relevant training, which will, in turn, enhance compliance and investor protection. The Exchange believes that establishing a path for individuals to maintain their qualification following the termination of a registration will reduce unnecessary impediments to requalification and promote greater diversity and inclusion in the securities industry without diminishing investor protection.
As it relates to the proposed changes to Exchange Rule 3104(c), the Exchange believes the proposed rule change provides firms with the flexibility to rely on electronic signatures to satisfy the signature requirements of Exchange Rule 3104(c). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 3104(c) and Interpretation and Policy .03, similar to the amendments made by FINRA, to provide the option of filing an initial or a transfer Form U4 based on a manually or an electronically signed copy of the form provided to the Member, or applicant for membership, by the individual on whose behalf the form is being filed. Considering the technological advancements that provide for enhanced authentication and security of electronic signatures, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to amend Exchange Rule 3104(c) and Interpretation and Policy .03 to provide such flexibility. The proposed rule change also addresses the ongoing public health risks stemming from the outbreak of COVID-19 and the operational challenges that firms continue to face as a result of pandemic repercussions. By permitting these firms to rely on electronic signatures to satisfy the signature requirements of Exchange Rule 3104(c) and Interpretation and Policy .03, the proposed rule change may reduce or eliminate an operational backlog due to the difficulty firms may have faced in obtaining the manual signature of applicants for registration as a result of the impact of the pandemic on daily work environments. The Exchange believes the proposal is consistent with the Act for the reasons described above and for the reasons outlined in the recent filings SR-FINRA-2021-003 and SR-FINRA-2021-015.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. All Members would be subject to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change relating to the Exchange's CE Program, which is materially identical to the FINRA Rule Change, is designed to result in a more efficient CE Program that addresses relevant regulatory requirements and provides individuals with improved tools and resources to understand and comply with such requirements, enhancing investor protection. Moreover, the proposed rule change would provide new channels for individuals to maintain their qualification status for a terminated registration category and, in so doing, could increase the likelihood that professionals who need to step away from the industry for a period could return, subject to satisfying all other requirements relating to the registration process.
As it relates to the proposed amendments to Exchange Rule 3104(c), the proposed rule change relating to manual signatures is, in all material respects, substantively identical to a recent rule change adopted by FINRA. The Exchange believes the proposed change will reduce a regulatory filing burden for Members by allowing them to rely on Form U4 copies with an electronic signature. All Members will have the option to rely on such forms with an electronic signature (or continue to rely on forms with a manual signature).
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Commission may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that this proposed rule change may become operative immediately upon filing. In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
Waiver of the 30-day operative delay would allow the Exchange to implement proposed changes in a more timely fashion. First, the proposed rule changes regarding manual signatures address operational challenges facing firms due to the ongoing public health risks
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PEARL-2022-25 and should be submitted on or before July 28, 2022.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17h-1T requires a covered broker-dealer to maintain and preserve records and other information concerning certain entities that are associated with the broker-dealer. This requirement extends to the financial and securities activities of the holding company, affiliates and subsidiaries of the broker-dealer that are reasonably likely to have a material impact on the financial or operational condition of the broker-dealer. Rule 17h-2T requires a covered broker-dealer to file with the Commission quarterly reports and a cumulative year-end report concerning the information required to be maintained and preserved under Rule 17h-1T.
The collection of information required by Rules 17h-1T and 17h-2T, collectively referred to as the “risk assessment rules”, is necessary to enable the Commission to monitor the activities of a broker-dealer affiliate whose business activities are reasonably likely to have a material impact on the financial and operational condition of the broker-dealer. Without this information, the Commission would be unable to assess the potentially damaging impact of the affiliate's activities on the broker-dealer.
There are currently 235 respondents that must comply with Rules 17h-1T and 17h-2T. Each of these 235 respondents are estimated to require 10 hours per year to maintain the records required under Rule 17h-1T, for an aggregate estimated annual burden of 2,350 hours (235 respondents × 10 hours). In addition, each of these 235 respondents must make five annual responses under Rule 17h-2T. These five responses are estimated to require 14 hours per respondent per year for an aggregate estimated annual burden of 3,290 hours (235 respondents × 14 hours).
In addition, new respondents must draft an organizational chart required under Rule 17h-1T and establish a system for complying with the risk
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication by September 6, 2022.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
(a) The proposed rule change of NSCC is annexed [sic] hereto as Exhibit 5 and consists of modifications to Rule 57 and Addendum A of NSCC's Rules & Procedures (“Rules”) in order to (i) decommission the Insurance Profile service, (ii) adjust the fees for the Insurance Information Exchange service (“IIEX”) to (a) provide for fees for product data that is being moved from Insurance Profile to IIEX and (b) adjust certain fees for service providers and (iii) make certain other corrections to the Rules, as described below.
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
NSCC is proposing to move the processing of certain product data that is currently being processed through Insurance Profile to IIEX and decommission Insurance Profile. Following the proposed changes, product data that is currently being processed through Insurance Profile will be processed through IIEX. The fees for the use of IIEX for processing of such product data will be moved to IIEX in Addendum A of the Rules but will remain the same as the fees currently charged for the processing of such product data through Insurance Profile.
NSCC is also proposing to remove fees for service providers using IIEX for policy data and proposing to add fees for service providers using IIEX for product data.
Finally, NSCC is proposing to correct incorrect references to “IPS” and “IPS Data” in the Rules.
The proposed changes would not have a substantial impact on I&RS Members (as defined below). I&RS Members would use IIEX rather than Insurance Profile to process product data, but the fees for processing such product data would not change. Following the proposed changes, service providers would be charged for processing product data using IIEX but would not be charged for processing policy data through IIEX.
Insurance and Retirement Processing Services (“I&RS”) provides for transmission of I&RS Data,
I&RS Data can be categorized generally into three types of data: product data, policy data and producer data. Product data is general public data relating to products that are being issued by Carriers, such as fees and expenses for specific policies and commission schedule data
Insurance Profile was launched in 2017 to enable annuities Distributors to access fee, expense and commission schedule data (“Fee Data”) from Carriers which is product data.
IIEX was launched in 2020 to enable I&RS Members and service providers to access and exchange I&RS Data.
NSCC would like to use the IIEX platform to process the Fee Data that is currently being processed through Insurance Profile because it is inefficient to continue to have two data repositories. IIEX is a newer platform that is API-enabled. NSCC believes that consolidating the data repository services onto one platform will be more efficient because I&RS Members will only need to sign into one platform rather than two. Using IIEX alone rather than continuing to use Insurance Profile would create a better user experience, take advantage of newer and better technology, such as the API-enabled platform and updated user interfaces that enhance the user experience by, among other things, offering a single-entry point into upgraded, standardized data screens and client flexibility in determining level of authorization to access. In addition, IIEX has been designed to include an architecture modernization by developing reusable components to be used across I&RS applications. Discontinuing Insurance Profile would also eliminate unnecessary regression and other system testing that is required if Insurance Profile maintained as a separate platform.
Once the Fee Data is processed through IIEX, the Insurance Profile platform would no longer be used to process data. Therefore, NSCC is proposing to decommission Insurance Profile. NSCC would process all Fee Data on the IIEX platform beginning on June 30, 2022. NSCC would not change the fees that it is currently charging I&RS Members to access and exchange the Fee Data through Insurance Profile once such data is moved to the IIEX platform. NSCC would provide updates to I&RS Members on the timing of the proposed changes by Important Notice.
IIEX was developed to allow service providers that were authorized by I&RS Members to access IIEX through APIs.
Currently, the Fee Data that is accessible through Insurance Profile is only available to I&RS Members and not to service providers. NSCC would like to also provide service providers with access to IIEX to process this Fee Data as well. Product data is more general than policy data, which is limited to specific clients, and NSCC believes that service providers would be more likely to pay for the use of IIEX for such product data. Therefore, NSCC is proposing to require that service providers that use IIEX for product data pay the current fees for such service, including for the Fee Data that will be moved from Insurance Profile to be processed through IIEX.
NSCC is proposing to identify the different categories for policy data and product data in the fee schedule in Addendum A of the Rules. Fees for processing the Fee Data, which is being moved from Insurance Profile to be processed through IIEX, would be placed under the product data category and fees for processing the existing policy data that is currently being processed through IIEX would be placed under the policy data category.
In the IIEX Filing, NSCC also amended the Rules to change the name of I&RS from Insurance and Retirement Processing Services to Insurance & Retirement Services in order to reflect the conventional use of the name of the service.
NSCC is proposing to remove Insurance Profile from Section 10 of Rule 57 and remove references to the fees for Insurance Profile from Section IV.H.2.i of Addendum A. NSCC would renumber Section 11 of Rule 57 and Section IV.H.2.j of Addendum A to reflect the deletion of Section 10 of Rule 57 and Section IV.H.2.i of Addendum A.
NSCC is proposing to move the fees for processing Fee Data currently in Insurance Profile to IIEX in proposed Section IV.H.2.i of Addendum A. NSCC would also add different categories of data in proposed Section IV.H.2.i of Addendum A with separate fees for policy data which would include the current IIEX fees, and product data which would include the fees currently in Insurance Profile with respect to Fee Data that would be moved to IIEX. With respect to the product data, NSCC would also add service providers to the list of entities that would have access in the proposed Section IV.H.2.i of Addendum A.
To reflect that NSCC would stop charging fees for service providers to access policy data, as described above, but provide fees for service providers to access product data, NSCC would change proposed Section 10 of Rule 57 to provide that the agreements with the service providers will include an agreement to pay the fees set forth in the Rules for product data for which service providers are required to pay a fee as set forth in the Rules. NSCC would also remove the fees for policy data for service providers in new proposed Section IV.H.2.i of Addendum A.
NSCC is proposing to correct two references of “IPS Data” to “I&RS Data” and one reference of “IPS” to “I&RS” in Section 2.(f) of Rule 58 to reflect the correct defined terms.
The proposed changes would not have a substantial impact on I&RS Members. I&RS Members would use IIEX rather than Insurance Profile to process product data. IIEX would include the IIEX API which is not currently available for Insurance Profile. The fees for processing such product data would not change. Following the changes, service providers would be charged the same fees as I&RS Members for processing product data using IIEX but would not be charged for processing policy data through IIEX.
The changes to use the correct terms “I&RS” and “I&RS Data” would have no impact on the I&RS Members except to enhance clarity and transparency of the Rules.
NSCC would implement the removal of the fees for service providers for policy data in IIEX and the corrections to the defined terms in Rule 58 upon filing of the proposed rule changes.
NSCC would implement the removal of Insurance Profile and movement of the fees from Insurance Profile to IIEX on June 30, 2022. As proposed, a legend would be added to Rule 57 and Addendum A stating there are changes that became effective upon filing with the Commission but have not yet been implemented. The proposed legend also would include June 30, 2022, as the date on which such changes would be implemented and the file number of this proposal, and state that, once this proposal is implemented, the legend would automatically be removed from Rule 57 and Addendum A.
NSCC believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a registered clearing agency. In particular, NSCC believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with Sections 17A(b)(3)(F) and (D) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,
Removing Insurance Profile from the Rules, adding the categories for policy data and product data and correcting the defined terms “IPS” and “IPS Data” to “I&RS” and “I&RS Data”, respectively, are also consistent with 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act
NSCC believes the proposed changes to the fees are equitable because they would apply uniformly to all service providers that utilize the services and would not impact the fees being paid by I&RS Members. NSCC believes the proposed changes are reasonable because the fees that would be charged to service providers for product data would be the same fees that are being charged to I&RS Members that access such product data through I&RS, which are designed to align with the cost of delivering the feature.
In addition, the proposed rule change is designed to comply with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(21) promulgated under the Act.
NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule changes would have an impact on competition. The proposed changes would merely facilitate I&RS Members access to Fee Data through the IIEX platform rather than the Insurance Profile platform. The fees for I&RS Members to access such information would not change. NSCC also does not believe that the removal of fees for service providers for policy information would burden competition because service providers are not currently using the service or paying fees. NSCC believes that removing the fees for service providers to access policy data and providing that service providers may have access to product data by paying the same fees as I&RS Members may promote competition by incentivizing service providers to use IIEX which NSCC believes would result in more I&RS Members using IIEX.
NSCC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to this proposal. If any written comments are received by NSCC, they will be publicly filed as an Exhibit 2 to this filing, as required by Form 19b-4 and the General Instructions thereto.
Persons submitting comments are cautioned that, according to Section IV (Solicitation of Comments) of the Exhibit 1A in the General Instructions to Form 19b-4, the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. Commenters should submit only information that they wish to make available publicly, including their name, email address, and any other identifying information.
All prospective commenters should follow the Commission's instructions on how to submit comments, available at
NSCC reserves the right not to respond to any comments received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment formv(
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 6120 (Trading Halts) to conform to recent amendments to the NMS plans governing the collection, consolidation and dissemination of quotation and transaction information for NMS stocks and to make technical and clarifying changes to the rule.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's website at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
FINRA Rule 6120 provides FINRA with the authority to halt trading otherwise than on an exchange in NMS stocks under the circumstances specified in Rule 6120(a) and pursuant to the procedures set forth in Rule 6120(b). Rule 6120(a)(1) provides that FINRA shall halt trading otherwise than on an exchange in any NMS stock whenever any market that has the authority to call a regulatory halt in the security imposes a trading halt, or suspends a listing, to: (a) permit dissemination of material news; (b) obtain information from the issuer relating to material news; (c) obtain information relating to the issuer's ability to meet listing qualification requirements; or (d) obtain any other information that is necessary to protect investors and the public interest.
In addition, Rule 6120(a)(2) provides that FINRA shall halt trading otherwise than on an exchange in any NMS stock when extraordinary market activity in the security is occurring, such as the execution of a series of transactions for a significant dollar value at prices substantially unrelated to the current market for the security, as measured by the national best bid or offer. To halt trading under this provision, FINRA must determine that such extraordinary market activity is likely to have a material effect on the market for the security and either (i) FINRA determines that such extraordinary market activity is caused by the misuse or malfunction of an electronic quotation, communication, reporting, or execution system operated by, or linked to, FINRA, or (ii) after consultation with a national securities exchange trading the security, FINRA determines that such extraordinary market activity is caused by the misuse or malfunction of an electronic quotation, communication, reporting, or execution system operated by, or linked to, such other national securities exchange. Rule 6120(a)(3) addresses FINRA's authority to close its quotation display and trade reporting facilities for NMS stocks under specified circumstances. Specifically, Rule 6120(a)(3) provides that FINRA shall close the Alternative Display Facility (“ADF”)
Rule 6120(b) sets forth the procedures for commencement and termination of trading halts and closures declared under Rule 6120(a). Rule 6120(b)(1) provides that the commencement of a trading halt or closure, as applicable, will be effective simultaneously with appropriate notice. Rule 6120(b)(2) provides that trading shall resume upon appropriate notice that a trading halt or closure is no longer in effect.
In February 2021, the Participants filed proposed amendments to the provisions of the SIP Plans governing regulatory and operational halts (the “SIP Plan Amendments”).
FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 6120 to conform to the updated Regulatory Halt provisions for NMS stocks as set forth in the SIP Plan Amendments. Under the proposed rule change, Rule 6120 would be amended as described below to incorporate the definitions, notice and timing requirements for Regulatory Halts under the SIP Plan Amendments, as well as to make related organizational, clarifying, and technical changes.
The purpose of Rule 6120(a)(1) is to provide authority for FINRA to halt OTC trading in an NMS stock when a Primary Listing Market declares a Regulatory Halt in that NMS stock, so that trading is halted both on the equity exchanges and in the OTC market. FINRA is proposing amendments to simplify the text of Rule 6120(a) to delete the list of specific types of Regulatory Halts and instead provide FINRA with authority to declare a halt in trading otherwise than on an exchange in an NMS stock whenever a Primary Listing Market declares any type of halt that meets the definition of a “Regulatory Halt” under the SIP Plans.
In addition, Rule 6120(a)(2) would be updated to align FINRA's authority to declare an OTC trading halt in an NMS stock due to “extraordinary market activity” with the scope of that term as provided for in the SIP Plan Amendments. As described above, Rule 6120(a)(2) provides that FINRA shall halt OTC trading in an NMS stock when extraordinary market activity is occurring, FINRA determines that such activity is likely to have a material effect on the market for the security, and FINRA determines that the activity is caused by the misuse or malfunction of a system operated by, or linked to, FINRA or a national securities exchange. Under the proposed rule change, FINRA is amending this provision to incorporate the elements of the definition of Extraordinary Market Activity under the SIP Plan Amendments.
FINRA is also proposing several clarifying changes to Rule 6120(a)(3), which provides FINRA with authority to close the ADF or a TRF to quotation or trade reporting activity in certain circumstances.
With respect to the process for initiating and terminating halts or facility closures, the proposed rule change would amend Rule 6120(b) to align FINRA's process related to Regulatory Halts declared under Rule 6120(a)(1) with the process specified in the SIP Plan Amendments. Existing Rule 6120(b) would be reorganized to address Regulatory Halts initiated under Rule 6120(a)(1) under paragraph (b)(1), and separately address FINRA halts and facility closures initiated under Rules 6120(a)(2) or (3), respectively, under paragraph (b)(2).
Proposed Rule 6120(b)(2) would incorporate the existing commencement and termination language under current Rules 6120(b)(1) and (2), and specify that such provisions apply to trading halts and facility closures initiated by FINRA under Rule 6120(a)(2) and (a)(3).
FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. The operative date of the proposed rule change will be 30 days from the date of filing.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Further, the proposed rule change is expected to have little impact on how FINRA executes trading halts. Thus, FINRA does not expect the proposed rule change to impose any additional costs on member firms or the investing public, or to convey material benefits beyond providing additional clarity and avoiding potential confusion about differences between FINRA's authority under Rule 6120 and Regulatory Halts that are declared by a Primary Listing Market.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of NEW MEXICO (FEMA-4652-DR), dated 05/04/2022.
Issued on 06/30/2022.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of NEW MEXICO, dated 05/04/2022, is hereby amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical damages as a result of this disaster to 08/04/2022.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of MONTANA (FEMA-4655-DR), dated 06/30/2022.
Issued on 06/30/2022.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 06/30/2022, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 17497 6 and for economic injury is 17498 0.
Small Business Administration
30-Day notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB procedures, SBA is publishing this notice to allow all interested members of the public an additional 30 days to provide comments on the proposed collection of information.
Submit comments on or before August 8, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection request should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
You may obtain a copy of the information collection and supporting documents from the Agency Clearance Office at
The servicing agent agreement is executed by the borrower, and the certified development company as the loan
Comments may be submitted on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
Surface Transportation Board.
Decision No. FD 36500; notice of acceptance of responsive applications.
The Surface Transportation Board (Board) is accepting for consideration the responsive applications filed by Canadian National Railway Company (CNR) and its rail carrier affiliate, Illinois Central Railroad Company (ICRR) (collectively, CN), on February 28, 2022, and amended on June 9, 2022, in Docket Nos. FD 36500 (Sub-No. 1), FD 36500 (Sub-No. 2), FD 36500 (Sub-No. 3), and FD 36500 (Sub-No. 4); and by Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR), on February 28, 2022, and amended on June 9, 2022, in Docket No. FD 36500 (Sub-No. 5). The responsive applications relate to the primary application filed October 29, 2021, by Canadian Pacific Railway Limited (Canadian Pacific), Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and their U.S. rail carrier subsidiaries, Soo Line Railroad Company, Central Maine & Quebec Railway US Inc., Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation, and Delaware & Hudson Railway Company, Inc. (collectively, CP) and Kansas City Southern and its U.S. rail carrier subsidiaries, The Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCSR), Gateway Eastern Railway Company, and The Texas Mexican Railway Company (collectively, KCS) (CP and KCS collectively, Applicants).
The effective date of this decision is July 1, 2022. Comments regarding the responsive filings must be filed with the Board by July 12, 2022. Rebuttal in support of the responsive filings must be filed with the Board by August 11, 2022. Briefs must be filed with the Board by September 20, 2022.
Any filing submitted in this proceeding must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board either via e-filing on the Board's website or in writing addressed to 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each filing must be sent (and may be sent by email only if service by email is acceptable to the recipient) to each of the following: (1) Secretary of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; (2) Attorney General of the United States, c/o Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, Room 3109, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530; (3) CP's representative, David L. Meyer, Law Office of David L. Meyer, 1105 S Street NW, Washington, DC 20009; (4) KCS's representative, William A. Mullins, Baker & Miller PLLC, Suite 300, 2401 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037; (5) any other person designated as a Party of Record on the service list in the primary Docket No. FD 36500
In addition, one copy of all comments filed in these proceedings must be served on the responsive applicants' representatives: Raymond A. Atkins, Sidley Austin LLP, 1501 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005 (representing CN); and Carrie Mahan, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, 2001 M Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036 (representing NSR).
Valerie Quinn at (202) 245-0283. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
By application filed with the Board on October 29, 2021, the primary applicants seek approval and authorization under 49 U.S.C. 11321-26 for a proposed transaction that involves the acquisition of control by Canadian Pacific, through its indirect, wholly owned subsidiary Cygnus Merger Sub 2 Corp., of Kansas City Southern, and through it, of KCSR and its railroad affiliates, and for the resulting common control by Canadian Pacific of its U.S. railroad subsidiaries, and KCSR and its railroad affiliates (Transaction). In
CN and NSR filed their respective responsive applications on February 28, 2022. On March 16, 2022, the Board suspended the procedural schedule and directed Applicants to address an apparent inconsistency in certain data they had submitted.
In Docket No. FD 36500 (Sub-No. 2), ICRR seeks overhead trackage rights on KCS's Pittsburg Subdivision, between milepost 5.6± at Airline Junction in Kansas City, and milepost 29.5± near Grandview, Mo., to reach the IFG Terminal (in which ICRR would acquire a 50% ownership interest as part of the transaction in Docket No. FD 36500 (Sub-No.1)). (
CN asserts that its responsive application should be classified as a minor transaction because the proposed divestiture transaction “clearly will not have any anticompetitive effects.”
In Docket No. FD 36500 (Sub-No. 5), as a condition to any Board approval of the proposed Transaction, NSR seeks certain contingent trackage rights for overhead movement on KCS's line, between the connection of KCS with the Meridian Speedway,
On March 22, 2022, CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), filed a motion to reject NSR's responsive application, asserting that the responsive application is not a minor transaction and does not address “the significant potential competitive harms that would come from extending NSR's exclusive rights over the Meridian Speedway to NSR's Wylie Intermodal Traffic, should NSR exercise its option to purchase the Wylie Intermodal Terminal.” (CSXT Motion 2.) CSXT also argues that NSR did not provide all the information required for a minor transaction. On March 29, 2022, NSR replied, asserting that its responsive application was properly filed as a minor transaction and that it had provided all of the information required for a minor transaction. In its amended responsive application, NSR maintains that its responsive application is complete and further addresses CSXT's allegations.
1. The responsive applications in Docket Nos. FD 36500 (Sub-No. 1), FD 36500 (Sub-No. 2), FD 36500 (Sub-No. 3), FD 36500 (Sub-No. 4), and FD 36500 (Sub-No. 5) are accepted for consideration and are consolidated for disposition with the primary application in Docket No. FD 36500.
2. This decision is effective on its service date.
By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, Oberman, Primus, and Schultz.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of intent to designate Emerald Enterprises LTD. type certificate as abandoned; request for comments.
This notice announces the FAA's intent to designate Emerald Enterprises LTD. Type Certificate (TC) No. A9WE as abandoned and make the related engineering data available upon request. The FAA has received a request to provide engineering data concerning this TC. The FAA has been unsuccessful in contacting Emerald Enterprises LTD. concerning the TC. This action is intended to enhance aviation safety.
The FAA must receive all comments by January 3, 2023.
You may send comments on this notice by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Manuel Hernandez, Aerospace Engineer, Federal Aviation Administration, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Suite 100 Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5256; email
The FAA invites interested parties to provide comments, written data, views, or arguments relating to this notice. Send your comments to an address listed under the
The FAA is posting this notice to inform the public that the FAA intends to designate Emerald Enterprises LTD. TC No. A9WE for the Wing Aircraft Model D-1 airplane as abandoned and subsequently release the related engineering data.
The FAA has received a third-party request for the release of data for the Wing Aircraft Model D-1 airplane under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552. The FAA cannot release commercial or financial information, such as the requested data, under FOIA without the permission of the data owner. However, in accordance with title 49 of the United States Code § 44704(a)(5), the FAA can make TC “engineering data” in possession of the FAA available upon request if the FAA determines that the TC has been inactive for 3 or more years and, using due diligence, the FAA is unable to locate the owner of record or the owner of record's heir. There has been no activity on this TC for more than 3 years.
On November 3, 2021, the FAA sent a registered letter to Emerald Enterprises LTD. c/o Hillyer & Irwin, at its last known address, 550 West C St. 16th Floor, San Diego, CA 92101. The letter informed Emerald Enterprises LTD. that the FAA had received a request for engineering data related to TC No. A9WE and was conducting a due diligence search to determine whether the TC was inactive and may be considered abandoned. The letter further requested that Emerald Enterprises LTD. respond in writing within 60 days and state whether it is the holder of the TC. The FAA has also attempted to make contact with Emerald Enterprises LTD. by other means, including telephone communication and emails, but without success.
If you are the owner or heir or a transferee of TC No. A9WE or have any knowledge regarding who may now hold TC No. A9WE, please contact Manuel Hernandez using a method described in this notice under
If the FAA does not receive any response by January 3, 2023, the FAA will consider TC No. A9WE abandoned and the FAA will proceed with the release of the requested data. This action is for the purpose of maintaining the airworthiness of an aircraft and enhancing aviation safety.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The collection involves information related to rules governing Helicopter Air Ambulance, Commercial Helicopter, and Part 91 Helicopter Operations. The information to be collected supports the Department of Transportation's strategic goal of safety. Specifically, the goal is to promote the public health and safety by working toward the elimination of transportation-related deaths and injuries.
Written comments should be submitted by September 6, 2022.
Please send written comments:
Thomas Luipersbeck by email at:
Under the authority of Title 49 CFR, Section 44701, Title 14 CFR prescribes the terms, conditions, and limitations as are necessary to ensure safety in air transportation. Title 14 CFR parts 91 and 135 prescribes the requirements governing helicopter air ambulance, commercial helicopter, and Part 91 helicopter operations. The information collected is used to determine air operators' compliance with the minimum safety standards and the applicants' eligibility for air operations certification. Each operator which seeks to obtain, or is in possession of an operating certificate, must comply with the requirements of part 91 or 135, as applicable, which include maintaining data which is used to determine if the air carrier is operating in accordance with minimum safety standards.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of a request for a change in designation of on-airport property purchased with AIP funding from aeronautical to non-aeronautical use.
The FAA is requesting public comment on the Allegheny County Airport Authority's proposal to change 38 acres of airport property at Pittsburgh International Airport, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania from aeronautical to non-aeronautical use. A portion of this acreage was purchased with federal financial assistance through the Airport Improvement Program under Grant Agreement 3-42-0081-003-1983. This notice is required to be published in the
Comments must be received on or before August 1, 2022.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the following address:
Charles Sacavage, Project Manager, Harrisburg Airports District Office, location listed above, (717) 730-2830. The request for change in designation of on-airport property may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The following is a brief overview of the request: The Allegheny County Airport Authority requests to change the designation of 38 acres of on-airport property from aeronautical to non-aeronautical use for long-term lease for construction, operation, and maintenance of warehouse and distribution facilities to be known as Skyview Business Park. No land shall be sold as part of this land request. The property metes and bounds are: “All that certain Lease Area, Building #1 and Building #2, along with an access road, associated paved parking, and necessary areas for clearing and grading for the Skyview Business Park, situated in the Township of Findlay, County of Allegheny, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, more particularly described as beginning at a center point in McClaren Road, variable width, said point being the northeast corner of Parcel A of the Savekis Plan No. 2, recorded in Plan Book Volume 125, Page 76, which is property now or formerly owned by Antoinette L. Vossier, et al. (being Tax Parcel 693-M-240), said point also being a corner of property now or formerly owned by The County of Allegheny (being Tax Parcel 696-D-396); thence N54°32′48″ W 52.09403′ to the Point of Beginning; thence north along the westerly side of McClaren Road to the northeast corner of Skyview Business Park N11°05′50″ W 145.61305′; thence the following 7 courses and distances to the northeast corner of Skyview Building #1 lease: 1. S77°14′18″ W 16.28415′; 2. S87°16′11″ W 99.2787′; 3. N84°57′14″ W 118.13998′; 4. N72°56′30″ W 54.85074′; 5. N63°06′11″ W 155.01039′; 6. N66°09′31″ W 119.35571′; 7. N79°19′32″ W 7.65344′; thence continuing along the northern boundary of Skyview Building #1 lease the following 20 courses and distances to northwest corner of Skyview Business Park: 1. N84°02′09″ W 33.10966′; 2. N75°26′02″ W 32.24644′; 3. N70°33′36″ W 35.44247′; 4. N66°11′39″ W 45.66257′; 5. N56°34′02″ W 30.33074′; 6. N54°44′22″ W 47.25171′; 7. N50°27′57″ W 56.89707′; 8. N52°58′11″ W 54.83322′; 9. N51°41′12″ W 39.63981′; 10. N51°37′58″ W 35.26145′; 11. N52°57′56″ W 80.32992′; 12. N50°36′58″ W 52.19505′; 13. N55°20′55″ W 99.1901′; 14. N59°54′58″ W 100.54001′; 15. N63°18′09″ W 116.1815′; 16. N68°57′45″ W 133.7068′; 17. N74°54′41″ W 126.76494′; 18. N78°01′52″ W 84.71001′; 19. N78°01′52″ W 34.63081′; 20. N85°20′45″ W 45.95006′; thence in a southerly direction to the southwest corner of Skyview Business Park the following 5 courses and distances: 1. S36°39′51″ W 972.97714′; 2. S18°29′12″ W 138.38488′; 3. S1°54′04″ E 111.25513′; 4. S8°45′35″ E 191.21665′; 5. S12°14′48″ E 158.05714′; thence along the southern boundary of Skyview Business Park S55°34′57″ E 348.51375′ and continuing N70°40′22″ E 188.72506′; thence continuing N30°15′47″ E 97.0933′ along eastern side of Skyview Business Park and continuing the following 14 courses and distances: 1. N34°06′48″ E 319.51622′; 2. N56°01′39″ E 99.33959′; 3. N80°59′08″ E 101.84117′; 4. S85°36′10″ E 113.94664′; 5. S87°24′12″ E 144.53457′; 6. N88°08′45″ E 100.51457′; 7. N67°35′13″ E 183.43316′; 8. N41°16′01″ E 48.90713′; 9. N40°34′06″ E 74.0512′; 10. N40°01′32″ E 48.09366′; 11. N39°59′59″ E 189.31802′; 12. N64°44′51″ E 95.53055′; 13. N82°46′33″ E 51.62404′; 14. N89°03′46″ E 33.01131′; thence along the southern boundary of the access road to Skyview Business Park the following 4 courses and distances: 1. S65°26′52″ E 19.98406′; 2. S57°16′49″ E 148.47784′; 3. S76°36′28″ E 98.95761′; 4. N86°09′52″ E 246.6246′; to the Point of Beginning, containing 38 acres.” The 38 acre area requested to be designated as non-aeronautical is currently vacant and not used or developed. Subsequent to the implementation of the proposed redesignation, rents received by the airport from this property must be used in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, published in the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces that it has received an application for exemption from the National Ground Water Association (NGWA) from the entry level driver training (ELDT) regulations “for individuals operating class B ground water well drilling rigs.” FMCSA requests public comment on the applicant's request for exemption.
Comments must be received on or before August 22, 2022.
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Number FMCSA-2022-0137 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number (FMCSA-2022-0137) for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to
Mr. Richard Clemente, Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards, FMCSA, at (202) 366-2722 or by email at
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2022-0137), indicate the specific section of this document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant exemptions from Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The Agency must publish its decision in the
NGWA seeks an exemption from the ELDT regulations “for individuals operating class B ground water well drilling rigs.” NGWA states that it is the country's largest professional trade association representing water well contractors, groundwater scientists, and manufacturers and suppliers of groundwater technology. According to NGWA, the exemption “could save hundreds of hours each year for water well contractors.”
A copy of NGWA's application for exemption is available for review in the docket for this notice.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on NGWA's application for an exemption. All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated at the beginning of this notice will be considered and will be available
Federal Transit Administration, Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice; Request for comments.
This notice provides information on proposed changes and clarifications to the National Transit Database (NTD) reporting requirements. Some of the proposed NTD changes would take effect beginning in NTD report year (RY) 2023 or 2024, which corresponds to an agency's fiscal year, while others would take effect in calendar year (CY) 2023.
Comments are due by September 6, 2022. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) will consider late comments to the extent practicable.
You may file comments identified by docket number FTA-2022-0018 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Thomas Coleman, National Transit Database Program Manager, FTA Office of Budget and Policy, (202) 366-5333,
The National Transit Database (NTD) was established by Congress to be the Nation's primary source for information and statistics on the transit systems of the United States. Recipients and beneficiaries of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grants under either the Urbanized Area Formula Program (49 U.S.C. 5307) or Rural Area Formula Program (49 U.S.C. 5311) are required by law to report to the NTD. FTA grantees that own, operate, or manage public transportation capital assets are required to provide more limited reports to the NTD regarding Transit Asset Management.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5334(k), FTA is seeking public comment on five proposed NTD reporting changes and clarifications. These proposals are based on changes to Federal transportation law made by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, enacted as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58) and based on input from the transit industry. These proposed changes are not related to safety and security (S&S) reporting, as FTA is proposing S&S changes in a separate
During the recent COVID-19 pandemic, FTA found that it did not have timely data on transit ridership or transit service levels that was sufficient to inform decision-makers at the Federal, State, and local levels during a rapidly changing crisis situation. To better understand changes in the transit industry on a timely basis, FTA proposes to collect additional data from a sample set of modal reports from across the universe of full, reduced, tribal, and rural reporters on a new WE-20 Form. The goal of the sample is to obtain a representative nationwide snapshot of transit ridership and transit service levels. The sampling methodology would use a stratified random sampling based on region, mode, and other factors. FTA would then make sampling adjustments as needed based on unavailable modes, reporters without weekly data access, or other factors. Sampling may not be purely random to ensure the accuracy of the nationwide estimate of ridership and service levels. Therefore, NTD reporters with the largest service levels nationally or regionally may be more likely to be selected multiple times to ensure the accuracy of the nationwide estimate.
For the sampled modes, FTA proposes to collect four data points once each month:
• Weekday 5-day unlinked passenger trip (UPT) total for the reference week;
• Weekday 5-day vehicle revenue miles (VRM) total for the reference week;
• Weekend 2-day unlinked passenger trip (UPT) total for either the weekend preceding or following the reference week; and
• Weekend 2-day vehicle revenue miles (VRM) total for either the weekend preceding or following the reference week.
Under this proposal, these data will be due three business days after the last day of the reference week. In general, FTA is proposing to designate the second full week of the month as the “reference week,” unless the reference week contains a Federal holiday. FTA will inform reporters for the selected modes of the precise dates of the reference week at least three months in advance and will list the precise dates of the reference week on the form. For example, the reference week for July 2023 would cover July 10-16, and data for that week would be due three business days later—by the end of the day on July 19. FTA will also give three months advance notice about whether FTA will require agencies to report UPT and VRM data for the weekend preceding or the weekend following the reference week.
FTA proposes to require a sampled subset of approximately 400 NTD reporters to report these data for at least one mode. FTA proposes that sampled reporters remain constant for a period of three consecutive calendar years after the effective date of the reporting requirement. The reporting requirement effective date is proposed to be approximately three months following the publication of the final notice. For instance, if FTA publishes the final notice in February 2023, FTA estimates the reporting requirement would take effect around May 2023. At this time, reporters would be asked to submit a week of data for May 2023, as well as for the prior months in calendar year 2023 on a one-time basis (January 2023-April 2023). Subsequently, reporters would be required to submit a week of data for May 2023 and each month following. FTA would update the sampled group in 2026. FTA proposes to identify which NTD reporters are part of the sample with at least three months' notice.
FTA proposes that the reporting standard for the data on the WE-20 Form will be “best available data.” Best available data will depend on the facts and circumstances and the extent of data available to each agency. The data could be preliminary or minimally validated (
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law amended 49 U.S.C. 5335(a) to require FTA to collect “geographic service area coverage” data through the NTD. Transit agencies across the country have made significant progress in recent years to record and publish geographic transit data in a consistent manner. Specifically, FTA estimates that 35% of NTD reporters have adopted the General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) standard. The GTFS specification significantly increases the utility of transit service data, enabling current and accurate snapshots of transit service that support mobile applications such as mapping and routing services.
To implement this data collection requirement, and in light of the existing widespread GTFS adoption, FTA proposes to require annual submissions of static GTFS data to the NTD. In this notice, GTFS standards refer to the May 9, 2022 version of GTFS, which are published here:
FTA is proposing this requirement to enable consistent submissions of geographic service area coverage data. FTA believes that GTFS is the best way to collect geographic service area coverage data for fixed-route service because it is already widely used and meets specific, practical needs in communicating service information in a standardized format. GTFS defines a common format for public transportation schedules and associated geographic information. The standardized specifications ensure data consistency and minimum requirements are met and allows data from across the United States to be aggregated, used, and analyzed in a consistent manner.
FTA is proposing to make GTFS reporting a mandatory requirement. Under this proposal, NTD reporters with fixed route modes must create and maintain a public domain GTFS dataset that reflects their fixed route service. These NTD reporters must also maintain a web link from which the GTFS dataset can be collected. Specifically, FTA proposes that agencies create and host one or more web links containing their GTFS data. Each web link must link to a compressed (.zip or `zip') archive containing at least one copy of each of the required text files listed below under
FTA is proposing to implement this reporting requirement in two parts. First, FTA is proposing that in RY 2023, applicable NTD reporters will be required to establish and submit a web-hosted GTFS dataset for their fixed route service. The dataset may have multiple links, such as one per mode. All links must be persistent (
Second, beginning in RY 2024, FTA is proposing that applicable NTD reporters certify annually via the D-10 certification form that their previously submitted web links are up to date. All fixed route service changes must be reflected in the previous weblink with the GTFS dataset. Specifically, if there are changes to fixed routes, the reporter must update the GTFS dataset at the previously submitted web link. FTA does not expect this to be a large administrative burden because fixed route service changes are infrequent.
FTA is proposing that if a reporter cannot publish a GTFS dataset, they must email their NTD analyst and explain why hosting a web link is not possible. FTA is proposing that reporters that are unable to host a web link to a GTFS dataset must submit their geographic service area coverage data via alternative means,
FTA is proposing that this new requirement apply to full reporters, reduced reporters, tribal reporters, and rural reporters, but not capital asset-only reporters. This requirement would apply only to reporters that operate a fixed route mode. FTA is proposing that in cases where an NTD reporter reports on behalf of multiple reporters (such as a State for multiple rural reporters), the State will be required to submit at least one unique link or compressed file per unique NTD reporting ID (NTDID). If the
GTFS ensures data consistency by establishing minimum requirements. Specifically, GTFS requires that an overarching compressed file contain, at a minimum, seven underlying text files: (a) Agency; (b) Stops; (c) Routes; (d) Trips; (e) Stop Times; (f) Calendar or Calendar Dates.txt; and (g) Feed Info.txt. An eighth file, Shapes.txt, is an optional file, but it is recommended to make the files more useful for geospatial mapping purposes. Additionally, within each file, some fields are noted as “optional.” Optional fields are recommended in the file(s) mentioned above since they improve the usefulness of the datasets for data users.
Detailed information about the fields required for each of these files is published here:
For transit systems that currently operate fixed route modes, but lack existing web-hosted GTFS datasets, FTA will provide technical assistance. Existing available technical assistance includes:
FTA is proposing to monitor compliance in two ways. First, FTA proposes to periodically check that web links are viable and current, reflecting fixed route service stops, routes, and schedules. Second, on an annual basis, FTA proposes to ask reporters to confirm the accuracy of their GTFS feeds as part of their annual kick-off task. The kick-off is the NTD's system task which confirms information to create the relevant reporting forms for the new fiscal year.
FTA expects reporting burdens to vary depending on existing agency data processes. NTD reporters are likely in three different phases of offering GTFS data feeds. First, some NTD reporters already submit GTFS data feeds voluntarily to the NTD. Second, some reporters have GTFS feeds but have not submitted these feeds to the NTD. Third, some reporters do not yet have GTFS feeds.
FTA anticipates the greatest challenges will be for those reporters who do not have GTFS feeds yet, or States who currently report data on their behalf (
Upon publication, all GTFS data submitted to the NTD will enter the public domain.
FTA proposes that beginning in RY 2023 certain demand response modes must report geospatial data to the NTD. FTA will begin collecting these data to implement the new requirement that FTA collect geographic service area coverage data. FTA is proposing that this new requirement apply to full, reduced, tribal, and rural reporters, but not capital asset-only reporters. FTA is proposing to collect geospatial data for non-fixed routes using a new NTD form. FTA is proposing to collect these data annually through the questions shown below:
(1) Do you serve residents in another State besides your State?
(2) Select the Counties that you serve, either in whole or in part, where you pick up residents for a new trip origination.
(3) Select Census `Places' served in these counties; indicate whether these Places (
(4) Is your demand response service intended to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary paratransit requirements for a fixed route system?
(5) If yes to #4, is your service area limited to the ADA complementary paratransit distance for:
a. Your own NTD Reporter ID; or
b. Select all those that are not your NTD Reporter ID.
(6) Within your service area, do you have different passenger eligibility requirements or different terms and conditions of service?
(7) How many days per week do you operate?
(8) For each day of the week, what are your hours of operation, and is your service open to:
(a) Only those persons found eligible for complementary paratransit under the ADA through your local eligibility process?
(b) Another specific segment of the population defined by age or disability?
(c) The general population?
(9) What is the minimum advanced reservation time for your service? Select days or hours.
(10) What is the fare charged?
FTA is proposing to begin asking these questions on a new form beginning in RY 2023.
At present, the NTD requires that each organization submit organizational contact information on the P-10 form. The P-10 collects details such as organization name, address, and website. FTA proposes that beginning in RY 2023, FTA will also collect the organization's emergency contact information on the P-10 form. This emergency contact does not have to be the same person as someone with an existing NTD system role. FTA proposes to use this emergency contact information to facilitate communication between FTA and the reporter during emergencies. Maintaining a current emergency point of contact (POC) will allow FTA to quickly send updated relevant information to the right contact and ensure communication before, during, and after the emergency event.
FTA proposes that the emergency contact be someone affiliated with emergency preparedness or response functions. This includes an emergency liaison officer, a facility or building emergency response team member, or a person with similar job functions. This person must be the individual at an agency that is the FTA POC in the event of an emergency. The agency will be asked to certify the accuracy of this information on their annual kick-off task.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides historic investments towards
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of receipt of petition for temporary exemption; request for public comment.
Czinger Vehicles (Czinger) has petitioned NHTSA for a temporary exemption from windshield requirements in Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing materials. Czinger is a low volume start-up manufacturer and seeks the exemption on the basis that compliance with the standard would cause substantial economic hardship. NHTSA is publishing this document in accordance with statutory and administrative provisions and requests comment on the merits of Czinger's exemption petition. NHTSA has made no judgement at this time on the merits of the petition.
Comments must be received on or before August 8, 2022.
Callie Roach, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-366-2992; Fax: 202-366-3820.
•
•
•
•
NHTSA is responsible for promulgating and enforcing FMVSS designed to improve motor vehicle safety. Generally, a manufacturer may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce a vehicle that does not comply with all applicable FMVSS.
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), codified at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to exempt, on a temporary basis and under specified circumstances, and on terms the Secretary considers appropriate, motor vehicles from a FMVSS or bumper standard. This authority is set forth at 49 U.S.C. 30113. The Secretary has delegated the authority for implementing this section to NHTSA.
The Safety Act authorizes NHTSA (by delegation) to grant, in whole or in part, a temporary exemption to a vehicle manufacturer if certain specified findings are made.
(i) Compliance with the standard[s] [from which exemption is sought] would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried to comply with the standard[s] in good faith;
(ii) the exemption would make easier the development or field evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature providing a safety level at least equal to the safety level of the standard;
(iii) the exemption would make the development or field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle easier and would not unreasonably lower the safety level of that vehicle; or
(iv) compliance with the standard would prevent the manufacturer from
Czinger submitted its petition under the first of these bases, asserting that compliance with the standard would cause it substantial economic hardship and it has tried in good faith to comply with the standard.
NHTSA established 49 CFR part 555,
(1) Engineering and financial information demonstrating in detail how compliance or failure to obtain an exemption would cause substantial economic hardship, including—
(i) A list or description of each item of motor vehicle equipment that would have to be modified in order to achieve compliance;
(ii) The itemized estimated cost to modify each such item of motor vehicle equipment if compliance were to be achieved—
(A) As soon as possible,
(B) At the end of a 1-year exemption period (if the petition is for 1 year or more),
(C) At the end of a 2-year exemption period (if the petition is for 2 years or more),
(D) At the end of a 3-year exemption period (if the petition is for 3 years),
(iii) The estimated price increase per vehicle to balance the total costs incurred pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section and a statement of the anticipated effect of each such price increase;
(iv) Corporate balance sheets and income statements for the three fiscal years immediately preceding the filing of the application;
(v) Projected balance sheet and income statement for the fiscal year following a denial of the application; and
(vi) A discussion of any other hardships (
(2) A description of its efforts to comply with the standards, including—
(i) A chronological analysis of such efforts showing its relationship to the rulemaking history of the standard from which exemption is sought;
(ii) A discussion of alternate means of compliance considered and the reasons for rejection of each;
(iii) A discussion of any other factors (
(iv) A description of the steps to be taken, while the exemption is in effect, and the estimated date by which full compliance will be achieved either by design changes or termination of production of nonconforming vehicles; and
(v) The total number of motor vehicles produced by or on behalf of the petitioner in the 12-month period prior to filing the petition, and the inclusive dates of the period. (49 U.S.C. 30113(d) limits eligibility for exemption on the basis of economic hardship to manufacturers whose total motor vehicle production in the year preceding the filing of their applications does not exceed 10,000.)
The following discussion provides: An overview of Czinger's petition; a brief summary of the information Czinger submitted to demonstrate that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship, the efforts Czinger has made to comply with the standard, and Czinger's arguments that granting the petition would be in the public interest. Because Czinger has sought confidential treatment of some aspects of its petition, a redacted version of its petition is included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice. NHTSA notes that any of the descriptions provided in this section were provided by Czinger in its petition and do not necessarily reflect the views of NHTSA.
On December 12, 2021, Czinger submitted a petition for exemption under 49 CFR part 555 for a temporary exemption from parts of FMVSS No. 205,
Czinger states that it is a very small volume start-up producer of innovative sports cars and has not yet started manufacturing.
To be eligible for a temporary exemption under the substantial economic hardship basis, the petitioner's total motor vehicle production in the most recent year of production must be not more than 10,000 vehicles.
In support of its claim that compliance with the windshield requirements would cause substantial economic hardship, Czinger states that it is experiencing substantial economic hardship, which would be exacerbated by the denial of its exemption petition.
Czinger states that compliance with the standard will result in an extra loss of $38 million.
In further support of its petition, Czinger notes that it has been enduring the pandemic and supply chain issues which, Czinger states, are straining even established OEMs.
Pursuant to 49 CFR 555.6(a)(2), a petition for a temporary exemption made under the substantial economic hardship basis must include a description of the petitioner's efforts to comply with the standard for which the exemption is sought. In support of its petition, Czinger asserts that it has put considerable good faith efforts into FMVSS compliance.
Czinger states that the 21C has been designed with in-line seating for two occupants.
Czinger states that the wrap-around cockpit is realized by a unique double curvature windscreen, which during prototype stage, was produced in polycarbonate by a supplier in Europe, Iscolima.
Czinger also states that at an early stage in the development of the 21C, their supplier Isoclima indicated that it believed the polycarbonate windshield would meet regulatory requirements for the USA market.
Czinger also states that, despite Iscolima's opinion that the shape of the 21C windshield could not be produced in laminated glass, Czinger invested time and money trying to develop, with the help of multiple suppliers, the planned windshield shape in laminated glass.
Czinger asserts that granting their petitions is consistent with the public interest and the Safety Act for the following reasons:
1. The 21C model range will comply with all FMVSS other than the windshield requirements in FMVSS 205.
2. The exempted cars will have a windshield that meets all EU requirements.
3. The exempted cars will not present an unacceptable safety risk.
4. The 21C will be produced in the US in very low numbers and will not be used daily due to its unconventional design.
5. The denial of the exemption request could have a negative effect on US employment.
6. The 21C's innovative technology is a benefit to the public.
NHTSA has not yet made any judgment on the merits of Czinger's petition nor on the adequacy of the information submitted. NHTSA will assess the merits of the petition and consider public comments on the petition, as well as any additional information that the agency receives from Czinger. NHTSA is placing a non-confidential copy of the petition in the docket in accordance with statutory and administrative provisions.
The agency seeks comment from the public on the merits of Czinger's petition for a temporary exemption from portions of FMVSS No. 205.
NHTSA is providing a 30-day comment period. After conducting a review of the adequacy for the justification for the petition and considering public comments, NHTSA will publish a decision notice regarding the petition in the
Please see
• Your comments must be written in English.
• To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the Docket Number shown at the beginning of this document in your comments.
• If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) File, NHTSA asks that the documents be submitted using the Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing NHTSA to search and copy certain portions of your submissions. Comments may be submitted to the docket electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System website at
• You may also submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet the information
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
You may see the comments on the internet. To read the comments on the internet, go to
Please note that, even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
49 U.S.C. 30113 and 49 U.S.C. 30166; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 49 CFR 501.5.
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comment.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”), prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including consumer furnaces. EPCA also requires the Department of Energy (“DOE” or “the Department”) to periodically determine whether more-stringent, amended standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. In this notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”), DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards for non-weatherized gas furnaces and mobile home gas furnaces, and also announces a public meeting webinar to receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.
Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in the
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
(1)
(2)
No telefacsimilies (“faxes”) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section VII of this document (Public Participation).
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions through a variety of mechanisms, including postal mail and hand delivery/courier, the Department has found it necessary to make temporary modifications to the comment submission process in light of the ongoing coronavirus (“COVID-19”) pandemic. DOE is currently suspending receipt of public comments via postal mail and hand delivery/courier. If a commenter finds that this change poses an undue hardship, please contact Appliance Standards Program staff at (202) 586-1445 to discuss the need for alternative arrangements. Once the COVID-19 pandemic health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates resuming all of its regular options for public comment submission, including postal mail and hand delivery/courier.
The docket web page can be found at
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy following the instructions at
EPCA requires the U.S. Attorney General to provide DOE a written determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen competition. The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Antitrust Division invites input from market participants and other interested persons with views on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested persons may contact the Antitrust Division at
Ms. Julia Hegarty, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 597-6737. Email:
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-5827. Email:
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting webinar, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
Title III, Part B
Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA specifically provides that DOE must conduct two rounds of energy conservation standard rulemakings for NWGFs and MHGFs. (42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(B) and (C)) The statute also requires that not later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) including new proposed energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) This rulemaking is being undertaken pursuant to the statutorily-required second round of rulemaking for NWGFs and MHGFs, and once completed, it will also satisfy the statutorily-required 6-year-lookback review.
In accordance with these and other relevant statutory provisions discussed in this document, DOE is proposing amended and new energy conservation standards for the subject consumer furnaces (
Table I.3 and Table I.4 summarize DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the proposed AFUE standards and standby mode/off mode standards, respectively, on consumers of NWGFs and MHGFs, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (“LCC”) savings and the simple payback period (“PBP”).
DOE's analysis of the anticipated impacts of the proposed standards on consumers is described in section IV.F of this document.
The industry net present value (“INPV”) is the sum of discounted industry cash flows starting with the publication year (2022) of the NOPR and extending over a 30-year period following the expected compliance date of the standards (2022 to 2058). The impacts of the AFUE standards are independently considered from the impacts of the standby mode and off mode standards, as manufacturers would utilize different technologies to meet these two standards. Using a real discount rate of 6.4 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of NWGFs and MHGFs in the case without new or amended standards is $1,411.8 million in 2020$. Under the proposed AFUE standards, the change in INPV is estimated to range from −26.9 percent to −2.2 percent, which is a reduction of approximately −$380.3 million to −$30.5 million. Under the proposed standby mode and off mode standards, the change in INPV is estimated to range from −0.1 percent to 0.4 percent, which is a change of approximately −$2.1 million to $5.0 million. When evaluating the proposed AFUE and proposed standby mode and off mode standards together, the INPV impacts are additive. The combined change in INPV is estimated to range from −27.1 percent to −1.8 percent, which is a reduction of approximately −$382.4 million to −$25.5 million. In order to bring products into compliance with the proposed new and amended standards, DOE expects industry to incur total conversion costs of $150.6 million. DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed energy conservation standards on manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this document. The analytic results of the MIA are presented in section V.B.2 of this document.
Benefits and costs for the proposed AFUE standards are presented and considered separately from benefits and costs for the proposed standby mode and off mode standards because it was not feasible to develop a single, integrated standard. As discussed in the October 20, 2010, test procedure final rule for consumer furnaces and boilers, DOE concluded that due to the magnitude of the active mode energy consumption as compared to the standby mode and off mode electrical consumption, an integrated metric would not be feasible because the standby mode and off mode electrical consumption would be a
DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation standards for NWGFs and MHGFs would save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without amended AFUE standards, the lifetime energy savings for NWGFs and MHGFs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the amended AFUE standards (2029-2058), are estimated to be amount to 5.48 quadrillion British thermal units (“Btu”), or “quads.”
The cumulative net present value (“NPV”) of total consumer benefits of the proposed standards for NWGFs and MHGFs ranges from $6.2 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $21.6 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product and installation costs for NWGFs and MHGFs purchased in 2029-2058.
In addition, the proposed AFUE standards for NWGFs and MHGFs are projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the proposed standards would result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 363 million metric tons (“Mt”)
DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in greenhouse gases using four different estimates of the social cost of CO
DOE also estimates health benefits from SO
Table I.5 summarizes the monetized benefits and costs expected to result from the proposed AFUE standards for NWGFs and MHGFs. There are other important unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate benefits, unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of toxic air pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security benefits, and distributional effects, among others.
The benefits and costs of the proposed AFUE standards, for NWGFs and MHGFs sold in 2029-2058, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the total annualized net benefits are: (1) the reduced consumer operating costs, minus (2) the increases in product purchase costs and installation costs, plus (3) the value of climate and health benefits of emission reductions, all annualized.
The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered products and are measured for the lifetime of NWGFs and MHGFs shipped in 2029-2058. The health benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the proposed standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of NWGFs and MHGFs shipped in 2029-2058. Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average GHG social costs with 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG values are presented for all four discount rates in section V.B.8 of this document. Table I.6 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs associated with the proposed AFUE standard, expressed in terms of annualized values. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from SO
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed AFUE standards for NWGFs and MHGFs is $511 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits would be $1,865 million in reduced operating costs, $1,015 million in climate benefits, and $1,213 million in health benefits (accounting for reduced NO
DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is described in sections IV.H, IV.K, and IV.L of this document.
For standby mode and off mode standards, relative to the case without new standards, the lifetime energy savings for NWGFs and MHGFs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the new standby mode and off mode standards (2029-2058), are estimated to be amount to 0.28 quads.
The cumulative NPV of total consumer benefits of the proposed standby mode and off mode standards for NWGFs and MHGFs ranges from $1.1 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $3.4 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs for NWGFs and MHGFs purchased in 2029-2058.
In addition, the proposed standby mode and off mode standards for NWGFs and MHGFs are projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the proposed standards would result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 9.6 Mt of CO
DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in greenhouse gases using four different estimates of the SC-CO
DOE also estimates health benefits from SO
Table I.7 summarizes the monetized benefits and costs expected to result from the proposed standby mode and off mode standards for NWGFs and MHGFs. There are other important unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate benefits, unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of toxic air pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security benefits, and distributional effects, among others.
The benefits and costs of the proposed standby mode and off mode standards, for NWGFs and MHGFs sold in 2029-2058, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the total annualized net benefits are:
The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered products and are measured for the lifetime of NWGFs and MHGFs shipped in 2029-2058. The health benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the proposed standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of NWGFs and MHGFs shipped in 2029-2058. Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average GHG social costs with 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG values are presented for all four discount rates in section V.B.8 of this document. Table I.8 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs associated with the proposed standby and off mode standard, expressed in terms of annualized values. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from reduced SO
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standby mode and off mode standards for NWGFs and MHGFs is $12.4 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits would be $224 million in reduced operating costs, $23 million in climate benefits, and $40 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $275 million per year.
DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is described in sections IV.H, IV.K, and IV.L of this document.
DOE considers and evaluates these standards independently under EPCA and the analytical process outlined in DOE's Process Rule (as amended). However, DOE is also presenting the combined effects of these standards for the benefit of the public and in compliance with E.O. 12866, as shown in Table I.9. and Table I.10 of this document
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from SO
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards in this rule is $524 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits would be $2,089 million in reduced operating costs, $1,038 million in climate benefits, and $1,253 million in health benefits (accounting for reduced NO
DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is described in sections IV.H, IV.K, and IV.L of this document.
DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed AFUE standards and standby mode and off mode standards represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant conservation of energy. Specifically, with regards to technological feasibility, products achieving these standard levels are already commercially available for the product classes covered by the proposed standards. As for economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that the benefits of the proposed standards exceed, to a great extent, the burdens of the proposed standards. Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from SO
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.
As previously mentioned, the standards are projected to result in estimated national energy savings of 5.76 quads and an estimated cumulative emissions reduction of 373 Mt of CO
DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels as potential standards, and the Department is still considering them in this rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential burdens of the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh the projected benefits.
Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in response to this document and related information collected and analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt energy efficiency levels presented in this document that are either higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part.
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this NOPR, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the proposed standards for residential NWGFs and MHGFs.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317, as codified) authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of EPCA
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption in limited instances for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. 42 U.S.C. 6297(d).
Subject to certain statutory criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures that are reasonably designed to produce test results which measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product during a representative average use cycle and that are not unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) Manufacturers of covered products must use the prescribed Federal test procedure as the basis for: (1) certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA and (2) making representations about the energy use or efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with the relevant energy conservation standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for residential furnaces appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 430, subpart B, appendix N.
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended energy conservation standards for covered products. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) for certain products, including residential furnaces, if no test procedure has been established for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after receiving views and comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water) savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”) considers relevant.
Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
EPCA also contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if the Secretary finds (and publishes such finding) that interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more subcategories that warrant separate product classes and energy conservation standards with a level of energy efficiency or energy use either higher or lower than that which would apply for such group of covered products which have the same function or intended use. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type or class of products that has the same function or intended use if DOE determines that products within such group: (A) consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether capacity or another performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate.
Pursuant to amendments contained in the Energy Independence and Security
Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in EISA 2007, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE's current test procedures for residential furnaces address standby mode and off mode energy use for all covered residential furnaces. DOE's energy conservation standards address standby mode and off mode energy use only for non-weatherized oil-fired and electric furnaces. 10 CFR 430.32(e)(1)(iii). In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to develop separate energy conservation standards that would address the standby mode and off mode energy use of NWGFs and MHGFs.
EPCA established the energy conservation standards that apply to most consumer furnaces currently being manufactured. The original standards established a minimum AFUE of 75 percent for mobile home furnaces. For all other furnaces, the original standards generally established a minimum AFUE of 78 percent. However, Congress recognized the potential need for a separate standard based on the capacity of a furnace and directed DOE to undertake a rulemaking to establish a standard for “small” gas furnaces (
EPCA also required DOE to conduct two rounds of rulemaking to consider amended standards for consumer furnaces. (42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(B)-(C)). In addition, EPCA requires a six-year-lookback review of energy conservation standards for all covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) In a final rule published in the
Following DOE's adoption of the November 2007 final rule, several parties jointly sued DOE in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (“Second Circuit”) to invalidate the rule. Petition for Review,
On June 27, 2011, DOE published a direct final rule (“DFR”) in the
The June 2011 DFR and October 2011 notice of effective date and compliance dates amended, in relevant part, the energy conservation standards and compliance dates for three product classes of consumer furnaces (
After publication of the October 2011 notice, the American Public Gas Association (“APGA”) sued DOE
The AFUE standards currently applicable to all residential furnaces, including the two product classes for which DOE is proposing amended standards in this NOPR, are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(e)(1)(ii). Table II.1 presents the currently applicable standards for NWGF and MHGF and the date on which compliance with that standard was required.
Given the somewhat complicated interplay of recent DOE rulemakings and statutory provisions related to consumer furnaces, DOE provides the following regulatory history as background leading to this document. Amendments to EPCA in the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA; Pub. L. 100-12) established EPCA's original energy conservation standards for furnaces, consisting of the minimum AFUE levels described above for mobile home furnaces and for all other furnaces except “small” gas furnaces. (42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(1)-(2)) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(1)(B), in November 1989, DOE adopted a mandatory minimum AFUE level for “small” furnaces. 54 FR 47916 (Nov. 17, 1989). The standards established by NAECA and the November 1989 final rule for “small” gas furnaces are still in effect for mobile home oil-fired furnaces, weatherized oil-fired furnaces, and electric furnaces.
Pursuant to EPCA, DOE was required to conduct two rounds of rulemaking to consider amended energy conservation standards for furnaces. (42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(B) and (C)) In satisfaction of this first round of amended standards rulemaking under 42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(B), as noted above, DOE published the November 2007 final rule that revised these standards for most furnaces, but left them in place for two product classes (
As described previously in section II.B.1 of this document, on June 27, 2011, DOE published in the
As noted earlier, following DOE's adoption of the June 2011 DFR, APGA filed a petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to invalidate the DOE rule as it pertained to NWGFs. Petition for Review,
As part of the settlement, DOE agreed to use best efforts to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking within one year of the remand, and to issue a final rule within the later of two years of the issuance of remand, or one year of the issuance of the proposed rule, including at least a ninety-day public comment period. Due to the extensive and recent rulemaking history for residential furnaces, as well as the associated opportunities for notice and comment described previously, DOE forwent the typical earlier rulemaking stages (
In the March 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed adopting a national standard of 92-percent AFUE for all NWGFs and MHGFs. 80 FR 13120, 13198 (March 12, 2015). In response, while some stakeholders supported the national 92-percent AFUE standard, others opposed the proposed standards and encouraged DOE to withdraw the March 2015 NOPR.
Multiple parties suggested that DOE should create a separate product class for furnaces based on input capacity and set lower standards for “small furnaces” in order to mitigate some of the negative impacts of the proposed standards. Among other reasons, commenters suggested that such an approach would reduce the number of low-income consumers switching to electric heat due to higher installation costs, because those consumers typically have smaller homes in which a furnace with a lower input capacity would be installed and, therefore, would not be impacted if a condensing standard were adopted only for higher-input-capacity furnaces. To explore the potential impacts of such an approach, DOE published a notice of data availability (“NODA”) in the
Therefore, DOE published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (“SNOPR”) in the
In addition, for the March 2015 NOPR and September 2016 SNOPR, DOE analyzed energy conservation standards for the standby mode and off mode energy use of NWGF and MHGF, as required by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3); 80 FR 13120, 13198; 81 FR 65720, 65759-65760) In both the March 2015 NOPR and the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE proposed a maximum energy use of 8.5 watts in both standby mode and off mode for NWGF and MHGF. 80 FR 13120, 13198 (March 12, 2015) and 81 FR 65720, 65852 (Sept. 23, 2016).
On January 15, 2021, in response to a petition for rulemaking
On January 20, 2021, the White House issued Executive Order 13990, “Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.” 86 FR 7037 (Jan. 25, 2021). Section 1 of that Order lists several policies related to the protection of public health and the environment, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions and bolstering the Nation's resilience to climate change.
Following the re-evaluation of the January 2021 final interpretive rule and consideration of public comments, DOE published a final interpretive rule in the
Consistent with the December 2021 final interpretive rule, in conducting the analysis for this NOPR, DOE does not divide product classes based on condensing technologies and associated venting systems when analyzing potential energy conservation standards.
As illustrated by the preceding discussion, the rulemaking for consumer furnaces has been subject to multiple rounds of public comment, including public meetings, and extensive records have been developed in the relevant dockets. (See Docket Number EERE-2011-BT-STD-0011). Consequently, the information obtained through those earlier rounds of public comment, information exchange, and data gathering have been considered in this rulemaking, and DOE is building upon the existing record through further analysis and further notice and comment. DOE has tentatively found that the relevant furnaces market has stayed sufficiently similar since the time of these past rulemakings such that much of the previously-collected feedback and data continue to be relevant. However, as discussed in section IV of this NOPR, DOE has updated analytical inputs in its analyses where appropriate and welcomes further data, information, and comments.
In the withdrawn September 2016 SNOPR, DOE preliminarily addressed the comments received in response to the March 2015 NOPR and September 2015 NODA. In response to the withdrawn September 2016 SNOPR, DOE received a number of written comments from interested parties during the comment period on that document. Table II.2 identifies those commenters. Although DOE withdrew the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE considered these comments, as well as comments from the September 2016 SNOPR public meeting, to the extent relevant in preparing this document.
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.
Consumer furnaces are a regulated product in Canada and are subject to energy efficiency regulations. On December 24, 2008, Natural Resources Canada published regulations in the
On June 12, 2019, Natural Resources Canada published regulations in the
In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (“appendix A”), DOE notes that it is deviating from the provision in appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR stages for an energy conservation standards rulemaking. Section 6(a)(2) of appendix A states that if the Department determines it is appropriate to proceed with a rulemaking, the preliminary stages of a rulemaking to issue or amend an energy conservation standard that DOE will undertake will be a framework document and preliminary analysis, or an advance notice of proposed rulemaking. For the reasons that follow, DOE finds it necessary and appropriate to deviate from this step in appendix A and to instead publish this NOPR without once again conducting these preliminary stages. Completion of this furnaces rulemaking is overdue under the relevant statutory deadline, so DOE seeks to complete its statutory obligations as expeditiously as possible. Moreover, DOE finds that there would be little benefit in repeating the preliminary stages of this rulemaking. The earlier stages of a rulemaking are intended to introduce the various analyses DOE conducts during the rulemaking process, present preliminary results, and request initial feedback from interested parties to seek early input. Although the most recent rulemaking notices for NWGFs and MHGFs (the March 2015 NOPR and September 2016 SNOPR) have been withdrawn, as discussed in section II.B.2 of this document, this analysis builds upon the previous rulemaking stages. As DOE is using similar analytical methods in this NOPR (with differences described in the sections that follow), publication of a framework document, preliminary analysis, or ANOPR would be largely redundant of previously published documents. Stakeholders have previously provided numerous rounds of input on these methodologies in the most recent rulemaking. Further, as discussed in section II.A, EPCA provides that DOE must conduct two rounds of energy conservation standard rulemakings for NWGFs and MHGFs. (42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(B) and (C)) The statute also requires that not later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) The energy conservation standards for NWGF and MHGF were last amended in the November 2007 final rule. Additionally, as discussed in section II.B.2 of this document, in settling the lawsuit filed by APGA following the June 2011 DFR (Petition for Review,
Section 6(f)(2) of appendix A provides that the length of the public comment period for the NOPR will be at least 75 days. For this NOPR, DOE finds it necessary and appropriate to provide a 60-day comment period. As stated previously, DOE faces an overdue statutory deadline for this rulemaking and, furthermore, the analytical methods used for this NOPR are similar to those used in previous rulemaking notices. Consequently, DOE has determined it is necessary and appropriate to provide a 60-day comment period, which the Department has determined provides sufficient time for interested parties to review the NOPR and develop comments.
DOE developed this proposed rule after considering comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent a variety of interests. This NOPR addresses all relevant issues raised by commenters since the last published proposal in this rulemaking proceeding.
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify differing standards. In making a determination whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
In this proposed rule, DOE is only analyzing a subset of consumer furnace classes. DOE agreed to the partial vacatur and remand of the June 2011 DFR, specifically as it related to energy conservation standards for NWGFs and MHGFs in the settlement agreement to resolve the litigation in
EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for DOE's adoption and amendment of test
Since the initial adoption of the consumer furnaces test procedure, DOE has undertaken a number of additional rulemakings related to that test procedure, including ones to account for measurement of standby mode and off mode energy use (
Most recently, DOE published a final rule in the
• Clarification of the electrical power term “PE”;
• Adoption of a smoke stick test for determining use of minimum default draft factors;
• Allowance for the measurement of condensate under steady-state conditions;
• Reference to manufacturer's installation and operation manual and clarifications for when that manual does not specify test set-up;
• Specification of ductwork requirements for units that are installed without a return duct; and
• Revision of the requirements regarding AFUE reporting precision.
As such, the most current version of the test procedure (published in January 2016) has now been in place for several years and is available to commenters when considering the proposals presented in this NOPR.
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. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially-available products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible.
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 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 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process Rule. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for NWGF and MHGF, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the potential standards considered in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the technical support document (“TSD”).
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 product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for NWGFs and MHGFs, 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.1.b of this NOPR and in chapter 5 of the TSD.
For each trial standard level (“TSL”), DOE projected energy savings from application of the TSL to NWGFs and MHGFs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the expected first year of compliance with the proposed amended or new standards (2029-2058).
DOE used its national impact analysis (“NIA”) spreadsheet models to estimate national energy savings (“NES”) from potential amended and new standards for NWGFs and MHGFs. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this NOPR) 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 (source) 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. To calculate the primary energy impacts, DOE derives annual conversion factors from the model used to prepare the Energy Information Administration's (“EIA”) most recent
To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product, DOE must determine that such action would result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.
Accordingly, DOE is evaluating the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the significance of cumulative FFC national energy savings, the cumulative FFC emissions reductions, and the need to confront the global climate crisis, among other factors. As discussed in section V.C of this document, DOE is proposing to adopt TSL 8 for AFUE, which would save an estimated 5.76 quads of energy (FFC) over 30 years, and TSL 3 for standby mode and off mode, which would save an estimated 0.28 quads over 30 years. Based on this amount of FFC savings, the corresponding reduction in emissions, and need to confront the global climate crisis, DOE has initially determined the energy savings from the proposed standard levels are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).
As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) The following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven factors in this rulemaking.
In determining the impacts of potential amended standards on manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of this document. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment—based on the cost and capital requirements during the period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the regulation—and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) INPV, which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows; (2) cash flows by year; (3) changes in revenue and income; and (4) other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and other product-specific regulatory requirements on manufacturers.
For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular standards. DOE also evaluates the LCC impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a national standard.
EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP analyses.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including its installation) and the operating expense (including energy, maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating costs. In general, DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
For its LCC and PBP analyses, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the covered products in the first year of compliance with new or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and PBP analyses is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this document.
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section IV.H of this document, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.
In establishing product classes, and in evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards proposed in this document would not reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration in this rulemaking.
EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy of this proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) provide its determination on this issue. DOE will publish and respond to the Attorney General's determination in the final rule. DOE invites comment from the public regarding the competitive impacts that are likely to result from this proposed rule. In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments separately to DOJ regarding these potential impacts. See the
DOE also considers the need for national energy and water conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from the proposed standards are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how potential standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of this document.
DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take into account when considering the need for national energy conservation. The proposed standards are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and GHGs associated with energy production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.K of this document; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in section V.B.6 of this document. DOE also estimates the monetized value of health benefits of certain emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L of this document.
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. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the other categories described above, DOE could consider such information under “other factors.”
As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), 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 full year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's 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. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's 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 of this proposed rule.
On June 30, 2016, AGA presented information to DOE and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) that AGA asserted supports a 70 kBtu/h maximum capacity threshold for small furnaces.
In their subsequent written comments, AGA stated that DOE misrepresented the information from the HTR Engineering furnace sizing study to support the proposed standard. First, AGA commented that DOE incorrectly described the data in the table presented at the SNOPR public meeting as AGA's data and AGA's methodology, even
In response, DOE notes that in the summary spreadsheets provided by AGA, the output from the Manual J load calculation, as listed on the J1-ALP forms, is used for the Manual S furnace sizing. In other words, Manual S specifies that the appropriate equipment size be based on the load calculation resulting from Manual J. When compared to the information presented by AGA regarding the appropriate furnace size for each scenario (Additional Information for OIRA Staff DOE Furnace SNOPR, June 30, 2016 presented in slide #7), these values imply an oversize factor of approximately 2, which is inconsistent with the Manual S requirement for an oversize factor of 1.0-1.4 for these buildings. In their written comments, AGA provided a table (AGA, No. 306-1 at p. 52) which includes heating load numbers (labeled Heating Load Numbers from HTR Furnace Sizing Study); however, these values were not previously provided as the basis for the furnace sizing requirements for the scenarios by AGA. More specifically, AGA did not provide information to DOE regarding its assumptions or calculations for the load associated with the duct system efficiency assessment or the outdoor air requirements. Therefore, DOE maintains that its characterization of the original data submittal compared to the presented data is appropriate.
However, when considering AGA's “corrected” version of the table, DOE notes that for the ranges presented in the column for “ACCA Manual S preferred input capacity ” show that in most cases (all but one—Minneapolis), a 55,000 Btu/h furnace could meet the required load. While AGA's “corrected” table shows the “Appropriate Furnace Size for a 1,500 s.f. Inefficient Townhouse presented in AGA slide deck to OMB (kBtu/h)” is based on a 1.4 oversize factor, DOE notes that Manual S specifies that the factor can be anywhere from 1.0 to 1.4, and Manual S recommends sizing the furnace as close to 1.0 as possible. Thus, while oversizing a furnace up to 40 percent is acceptable, it is preferred to size it appropriately according to the calculated load in Manual S. Therefore, the “preferred” input capacity would be the low end of the range presented in AGA's table, which for four of the five scenarios presented is below 55,000 Btu/h (and in the fifth case is 62,200 Btu/h). Thus, based on the data submitted by AGA, a threshold of 55,000 Btu/h would alleviate impacts in the majority of situations, except in the most extreme cases (such as Minneapolis). Even in these situations, such as in Minneapolis, a 55,000 Btu/h furnace would likely be able to meet the majority of the heating load, with a small amount of supplemental heating required from other sources. Therefore, DOE maintains its position that 55 kBtu/h is appropriate for consideration as a potential threshold for defining small furnaces, and further discusses its decision with regard to this in sections IV.A.1.a and V.C.1 of this document. Furnaces at or above this threshold would represent approximately 86% of furnace shipments in the no-new-standards case. In response to PHCC, DOE notes that the files submitted by AGA do appear to account for infiltration losses, and some scenarios include unoccupied basement space. However, some of the assumptions used by PHCC in its calculations appear to differ from those made in the data submitted by AGA, including the dimensions of exterior walls and area and type of windows, among other parameters, which may account for the difference in results.
As discussed in the withdrawn September 2016 SNOPR, missed deadlines in the furnace rulemaking history have resulted in ambiguity in terms of the applicable statutory compliance date for any potential amended standards that result from this rulemaking. 81 FR 65720, 65746 (Sept. 23, 2016). DOE explained that, in light of this ambiguity, it is informed by Congress's most recent direction regarding the lead time specific to furnace rulemakings (
DOE interprets furnaces and furnace fans as separate products under EPCA. The 6-year period under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(B) is applicable in the context of standards directly applicable to the product in question. As such, the standards for furnace fans are not a consideration when applying the 6-year period to new or amended standards for furnaces. DOE acknowledges that
Further, the authority to establish such standards was added to EPCA by section 135, of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which was titled “Energy Conservation Standards for Other Products,” again indicating that the standards are to be treated as standards applicable to a product separate from furnaces. Public Law 109-58, section 135 (August 8, 2005); 119 Stat. 594, 624. The establishment of such standards was made mandatory under section 304 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), which was titled “Furnace Fan Standard Process,” further indicating that furnace fans are to be considered as a covered product separate from furnaces. Public Law 110-140, section 304 (Dec. 19, 2007); 121 Stat. 1492, 1553.
The authority to establish energy conservation standards for “electricity used for purposes of circulating air through duct work” does not expressly reference furnaces. (
Consistent with treating the furnace fan standards and the furnace standards as standards on separate products, EPCA established two separate timeframes for the furnace fan and furnace rulemakings. Section 304 of EISA 2007, Furnace Fan Standard Process, amended the provision regarding standards for electricity used for the purpose of circulating air through duct work by requiring DOE to establish such standards by December 31, 2013. EISA 2007, Public Law 110-140, section 304 (Dec. 19, 2007); 121 Stat. 1492, 1553; 42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D). In the section immediately following the Furnace Fan Standard Process section, EISA 2007 amended EPCA to establish the 6-year-lookback review requirement for energy conservation standards. EISA 2007, Public Law 110-140, section 305 (Dec. 19, 2007); 121 Stat. 1492, 1553; 42 U.S.C. 6295(m). EPCA required DOE to establish an amended final rule for furnaces no later than January 1, 2007, with a compliance date of January 1, 2012. (42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(C)) As a result of the 6-year review provision added under EISA 2007, DOE had to either a publish a determination that no amendment of the furnace standards is needed or issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the furnace standards by January 1, 2013. Instead of aligning the furnace fan rulemaking with the furnace rulemaking schedule, EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, established a distinct December 1, 2013 deadline, further indicating that furnace fans are to be treated separately from furnaces.
As DOE acknowledged in a 2013 notice of proposed rulemaking for furnace fan energy conservation standards, standards for furnace fans may require manufacturers to redesign the furnaces in which the fans are installed. 78 FR 64068, 64103 (Oct. 25, 2013). However, the compliance date mandated by EPCA for amendments to standards under the 6-year review requirement does not permit DOE to account for standards applicable to other products, even if such standards for other products may impact the product subject to the amendment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)) EPCA directs DOE to prescribe a compliance date in consideration of both the publication date of the final rule and the date of the last amended standards with which that product was required to comply. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(A)-(B)) Standards with which furnaces are not required to comply are not a consideration under 42 U.S.C. 6295 (m)(4)(A)-(B) even if those standards have an impact on furnaces. As discussed, EPCA treats furnaces and furnace fans as two separate products. As such, DOE has not considered the furnace fan standards when establishing the compliance date of furnace standards under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(A)-(B).
This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this rulemaking with regard to NWGFs and MHGFs. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses. Comments on the methodology and DOE's responses are presented in each section.
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 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. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the Government Regulatory Impact Model (“GRIM”), to assess manufacturer impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are available on the DOE website for this rulemaking:
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
EPCA defines a “furnace” as “a product which utilizes only single-phase electric current, or single-phase electric current or DC current in conjunction with natural gas, propane, or home heating oil, and which:
(1) Is designed to be the principal heating source for the living space of a residence;
(2) Is not contained within the same cabinet with a central air conditioner whose rated cooling capacity is above 65,000 Btu per hour;
(3) Is an electric central furnace, electric boiler, forced-air central furnace, gravity central furnace, or low pressure steam or hot water boiler; and
(4) Has a heat input rate of less than 300,000 Btu per hour for electric boilers and low pressure steam or hot water boilers and less than 225,000 Btu per hour for forced-air central furnaces, gravity central furnaces, and electric central furnaces.” (42 U.S.C. 6291(23))
DOE has incorporated this definition into its regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) at 10 CFR 430.2.
EPCA's definition of a “furnace” covers the following types of products: (1) gas furnaces (non-weatherized and weatherized); (2) oil-fired furnaces (non-weatherized and weatherized); (3) mobile home furnaces (gas and oil-fired); (4) electric resistance furnaces; (5) hot water boilers (gas and oil-fired); (6) steam boilers (gas and oil-fired); and (7) combination space/water heating appliances (water-heater/fancoil combination units and boiler/tankless coil combination units). As discussed in section II.B.1 of this document, DOE agreed to the partial vacatur and remand of the June 2011 DFR, specifically as it related to energy conservation standards for NWGFs and MHGFs in the settlement agreement to resolve the litigation in
At various rulemaking stages, interested parties have raised concerns pertaining to potential impacts of a national condensing standard on certain consumers as a result of either increased installation costs (due to the increased cost of the condensing furnace itself and/or related venting modifications) or switching to electric heat (potentially resulting in higher monthly bills). In response to these concerns, DOE first published the September 2015 NODA, which contained analyses examining the potential impacts of a separate product class for furnaces with a lower input capacity, one of the statutory bases for establishing a separate product class. Such an approach was suggested by stakeholders as a potential way to reduce negative impacts on some furnace consumers while maintaining the overall economic and environmental benefits of amended standards for consumer furnaces. 80 FR 55038, 55038-55039 (Sept. 14, 2015). In response to the September 2015 NODA, DOE received further comments from several stakeholders recommending that DOE establish separate product classes based on furnace capacity, in order to preserve the availability of non-condensing NWGF for buildings with lower heating loads, thereby helping to alleviate the negative impacts of the proposed standards. DOE responded to these comments in the withdrawn September 2016 SNOPR, in which the Department tentatively concluded that the establishment of a small furnace class would have merit. Accordingly, after considering energy savings and economic benefits of several potential input capacity thresholds, DOE proposed to establish a separate product class for small NWGF, defined as those furnaces with a certified input capacity of less than or equal to 55 kBtu/h, and the Department proposed to retain a minimum standard of 80-percent AFUE for this class. 81 FR 65720, 65752 and 65837 (Sept. 23, 2016).
For the current NOPR analysis, DOE again considered whether a “small furnace” product class is justified for NWGFs and MHGFs and evaluated several input capacity thresholds, including the 55 kBtu/h threshold that was proposed in the withdrawn 2016 SNOPR, along with several others. DOE analyzed a range of potential input capacity cut-offs and considered the benefits and burdens of each. However, as discussed in section V.C.1 of this document, after considering the benefits and burdens of the various approaches, DOE is not proposing to divide furnace product classes by capacity in this document.
DOE has recently considered whether different venting technologies should be considered a necessary feature. On January 15, 2021, in response to a petition for rulemaking
However, as explained in section II.B.2 of this document, DOE subsequently published a final interpretive rule in the
In response to the September 2016 SNOPR (subsequently withdrawn), some stakeholders requested that DOE establish a small furnace product class for MHGFs. MHI suggested that DOE should exempt all MHGFs from this rule, but it stated that if MHGFs are included, DOE should adopt a small furnace MHGFs product class with a threshold of 80 kBtu/h. Nortek and MHI commented that tight construction of manufactured homes reduces the structure's air leakage, which results in lower heating loads and negates the need for a more expensive 92-percent AFUE furnace in many climates, especially in the South. (Nortek, No. 300 at p. 2; MHI, No. 282 at p. 2) Nortek and MHI further stated that because the majority of manufactured home buyers are low- to median-income consumers, it is important that any increase in home cost resulting from new energy conservation standards be economically justified and not burden affordability by increasing up-front costs without mitigating resulting access barriers. Nortek stated that without a small MHGFs product class, potential homebuyers with modest incomes will be forced to purchase MHGFs that are unnecessary for their home. (Nortek, No. 300 at pp. 5-6; MHI, No. 282 at p. 4)
Mortex argued that the standard level for MHGFs should not be changed due to the small market size, and the commenter also stated that an input capacity threshold for MHGFs at any level does not make sense because it would create a smaller, less significant market size for each class (above and below the threshold). (Mortex, No. 305 at p. 2)
AHRI stated that DOE must reevaluate its analysis for MHGFs so as to set an appropriate breakpoint for such products that maintains a non-condensing option for that market. (AHRI, No. 303 at p. 1) AHRI and Nortek noted that in previous comments submitted by AHRI in response to the September 2015 NODA, AHRI had requested that DOE analyze potential separate standard levels for small and large MHGF in order to minimize potential negative aspects of the proposed standard in the (now withdrawn) March 2015 NOPR. (AHRI, No. 303 at p. 18; Nortek, No. 300 at p. 3) In particular, AHRI's comments responding to the September 2015 NODA expressed concerns regarding the number of consumers that would be negatively affected or would switch heating fuels if an AFUE standard set at a condensing level were adopted as the minimum efficiency standard for MHGFs. Furthermore, AHRI expressed its concerns with the tools utilized in the (now withdrawn) March 2015 NOPR analysis would apply equally to MHGFs. (AHRI, No. 195 at p. 1)
AHRI and Nortek also argued that DOE reached a number of incorrect conclusions in the September 2016 SNOPR, including: (1) that condensing gas furnaces in new mobile homes will cost about the same as non-condensing models; (2) that replacing an existing non-condensing MHGF with a condensing MHGF would not have a significant increased installation cost; and (3) that very few residents living in mobile homes will experience negative life cycle costs.
After considering these comments regarding a “small” MHGF product class, DOE has preliminarily determined that that some of the potential negative outcomes for MHGF consumers could be mitigated by consideration of a separate standard for “small” MHGF similar to the analysis done for NWGF. Accordingly, DOE analyzed a separate standard for small MHGFs for this NOPR. However, as discussed in section IV.A.1.a of this document, after considering the benefits and burdens of potential capacity-based product classes, DOE has decided not to propose to establish classes based on capacity in this document. Section V.C.1 of this document contains discussion that explains DOE's weighting of the burdens and benefits of the potential new and amended energy conservation standards analyzed for this NOPR. Additionally, DOE does not agree that condensing MHGFs are necessarily larger than noncondensing MHGFs. Based on a review of product literature, it appears that noncondensing and condensing MHGFs are often designed with similar cabinet sizes, and, thus, DOE does not expect that replacing a noncondensing MHGF with a condensing MHGF would necessitate a larger footprint.
As discussed in section II.A of this document, EPCA requires any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, to address standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Accordingly, this rulemaking considers standby mode and off mode energy consumption of NWGFs and MHGFs, and this notice includes proposed standards for these operational modes.
“Standby mode” and “off mode” energy use are defined in the DOE test procedure for residential furnaces and boilers (
In the market analysis and technology assessment, DOE has identified 12 technology options that would be expected to improve the AFUE efficiency of NWGFs and MHGFs, as measured by the DOE test procedure: (1) using a condensing secondary heat exchanger; (2) increasing the heat exchanger surface area; (3) heat exchanger baffles; (4) heat exchanger surface feature improvements; (5) two-stage combustion; (6) step-modulating combustion; (7) pulse combustion; (8) premix burners; (9) burner de-rating; (10) insulation improvements; (11) off-cycle dampers; and (12) direct venting. In addition, DOE identified three technologies that would reduce the standby mode and off mode energy consumption of residential furnaces: (1) low-loss linear transformer (“LL-LTX”); (2) switching mode power supply (“SMPS”); and (3) control relay for models with brushless permanent magnet (“BPM”) motors. A detailed discussion of each technology option identified is contained in chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD.
DOE considered each technology further in the screening analysis (see section IV.B of this document or chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD) to determine which could be considered further in the analysis and which should be eliminated.
DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy conservation standards rulemaking:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the above five criteria, it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed in the following sections.
The subsequent sections include comments from interested parties pertinent to the screening criteria, DOE's evaluation of each technology option against the screening analysis criteria, and whether DOE determined that a technology option should be excluded (“screened out”) based on the screening criteria.
For this NOPR, DOE has screened out the following technologies: pulse combustion, burner de-rating, and control relay to depower BPM motors. Each of these will be discussed in turn.
As mentioned, DOE screened out the use of pulse combustion. Pulse combustion furnaces use self-sustaining pressure waves to draw a fresh fuel-air mixture into the combustion chamber, heat it by way of compression, and then ignite it using a spark. This technology option was screened out due to past reliability and safety issues, which has resulted in manufacturers generally not considering their use a viable option to improve efficiency. In addition, furnace manufacturers can achieve similar or greater efficiencies through the use of other technologies that do not operate with positive pressure in the heat exchanger, such as those relying on induced draft.
DOE also screened out burner de-rating. Burner de-rating reduces the burner firing rate while maintaining the same heat exchanger geometry/surface area and fuel-air ratio, which increases the ratio of heat transfer surface area to energy input, which increases efficiency. This technology option was screened out because it reduces the burner firing rate while maintaining the same heat exchanger geometry/surface area and fuel-air ratio, resulting in less heat being provided to the user than is provided using conventional burner firing rates.
Lastly, DOE screened out use of a control relay to depower BPM motors. For this option, a switch is spring-loaded to a disconnected position and can only close to allow a supply of electrical power to the BPM motor upon an inrush of current. This technology option was screened out because manufacturer interviews previously indicated that using a control relay to depower BPM motors could reduce the lifetime of the motors.
It is noted that in earlier rulemaking analyses (
The technology options assumed to be implemented to achieve each efficiency
Based on comments received in response to the September 2016 SNOPR from stakeholders who were concerned that raising standards to condensing levels would result in adverse impacts to safety (
Commenters also suggested in response to the subsequently withdrawn 2016 SNOPR that the increased cost of furnace replacement could lead consumers to use alternate heat sources that they characterize as less safe, or to conduct an unsafe repair of a malfunctioning furnace rather than replace it. In response, DOE notes that furnace repairs are typically performed by contractors, so it is unlikely that a contractor would opt to repair a furnace in a manner that allows for unsafe operation. In most cases, to do so would be a breach of local codes that have negative consequences for the contractor. Regarding the possibility of a consumer choosing to use an alternate heating source such as a space heater, the reports cited by commenters state that the leading factors contributing to fires resulting from space heaters are the misuse of the product or improper maintenance of the product.
Through a review of each technology, DOE tentatively concludes that all of the other identified technologies listed in section IV.A.2 of this document met all five screening criteria to be examined further as design options in DOE's analysis. In summary, DOE did not screen out the following technology options to improve AFUE: (1) condensing secondary heat exchanger; (2) increased heat exchanger face area; (3) heat exchanger baffles; (4) heat exchanger surface feature improvements; (5) two-stage combustion; (6) step-modulating combustion; (7) insulation improvements; (8) off-cycle dampers; (9) direct venting; and (10) premix burners. DOE also maintained the following technology options to improve standby mode and off mode energy consumption: (1) low-loss transformer; and (2) switching mode power supply.
DOE has determined that these technology options are technologically feasible because they are being used or have previously been used in commercially-available products or working prototypes. DOE also continues to find that all of the remaining technology options meet the other screening criteria (
The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the relationship between the efficiency and cost of NWGFs and MHGFs. There are two elements to consider in the engineering analysis: (1) the selection of efficiency levels to analyze (
The methodology for the efficiency analysis and the cost analysis is described in detail in the following sections that immediately follow (sections IV.C.1 and IV.C.2, respectively, of this document). DOE uses its methodology, which consists of the engineering analysis and mark-ups analysis (see section IV.D of this document), to determine the final price of the furnace to the consumer for several reasons. The sales prices of furnaces currently seen in the marketplace, which include both a manufacturer production cost (“MPC”) and various mark-ups applied through the distribution chain, are not necessarily indicative of what the sales prices of those furnaces would be following the implementation of a more-stringent energy conservation standard. At a given efficiency level, MPC depends in part on the production volume. In general, for efficiency levels above the current baseline, the price to
DOE notes that the engineering analysis incorporated condensing furnaces without “premium” features, and condensing furnaces are more likely to be equipped with “premium” features in today's market. One would expect increased designs (and/or sales) with minimal “premium” features to cater to cost-sensitive consumers, as compared to the current market, and perhaps redesigns where possible, to minimize costs. In its analysis of AFUE levels, DOE sought to minimize or normalize the presence of additional designs or features that do not affect AFUE, as they can increase costs while not affecting the measured AFUE efficiency. In other words, DOE's analysis of the cost-efficiency relationship is for a product that provides only the basic utility (
As described in section IV.D of this document, under a more-stringent standard, the mark-ups incorporated into the sales price may also change relative to current mark-ups. Therefore, DOE has tentatively concluded that basing the engineering analysis on prices of furnaces as currently seen in the marketplace would be a less accurate method of estimating future furnace prices following an amended standard than DOE's approach of conducting an engineering analysis and mark-ups analysis for this NOPR. (However, as noted in section IV.C.2 of this document, price surveys are sometimes required when other methods are infeasible.)
Furthermore, at earlier stages of the NWGF and MHGF rulemaking, some stakeholders performed cost-benefit analyses that relied on online retail pricing,
Certain stakeholders also urged DOE to improve the transparency of the engineering analysis by releasing certain information currently not available within the public domain. (Spire No. 309-1 at pp. 66-67; APGA, No. 292-1 at p. 41) However, previously during this rulemaking, Rheem objected to DOE publishing any information on the manufacturing costs of Rheem's units. Further, Rheem commented that manufacturers in general will object to having a bill of materials (“BOM”) from a complete teardown analysis of their product(s) being made available to the public. (Rheem, NOPR Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0044, at pp. 74-75)
In response, DOE's analysis and proposal are based, in part, on the aggregated data generated during the engineering analysis. The process by which the aggregated data have been generated is discussed in this document and is the result of the engineering analyses described in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. The primary inputs to the engineering analysis are data from the market and technology assessment, input from manufacturers, furnace specifications, and production cost estimates developed based on teardown analysis and consultation with manufacturers. DOE's contractor conducts interviews with manufacturers under non-disclosure agreements (“NDAs”) to determine if the MPCs developed by the analysis reflect the industry average cost rather than current sales prices, and applies mark-ups to determine the expected sales price once a more-stringent standard is implemented. In addition, because the cost estimation methodology uses data supplied by manufacturers under the NDAs (such as raw material and purchased part prices), the resulting individual model cost estimates themselves cannot be published. DOE notes that manufacturers that participated in manufacturer interviews had access to the raw material and purchased part price data underlying the MPC estimates for those models at the time the interviews were conducted. The data resulting from the engineering analysis and which DOE has used as inputs to its modeling are available to the public for comment. Including manufacturer-specific information in the docket would raise serious concerns regarding the business confidentiality of that information and undermine the ability of the Department to gain access to key data based on such specific information going forward. DOE's treatment of confidential business information is governed by the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) and 10 CFR 1004.11. (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4))
In the present proceeding, as is generally the case in appliance standards rulemakings, manufacturer-specific and product-specific data are presented in aggregate. Given the potential for competitive harm, data are not released outside the aggregated form to DOE or its National Labs. Instead, the BOMs used to estimate the industry-aggregate MPCs are developed by a DOE contractor and are not provided to DOE; DOE only receives the industry-aggregate MPCs from its contractor for use in its analyses, without fear of such sensitive data being released to the public. This approach allows manufacturers to provide candid and detailed feedback under NDA, thereby improving the quality of the analysis. The public is provided the opportunity to comment on the aggregated data that was provided to DOE (
DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed efficiency levels in the market (
DOE conducted separate engineering analyses for analyzing AFUE standards and standby mode/off mode standards for this rulemaking, because these are independent metrics that are improved via application of different technologies, and DOE had different sources of data for the two metrics. For the AFUE engineering analysis, DOE generally employed an efficiency level approach, which identified the intermediate efficiency levels (
For the standby mode and off mode engineering analysis, DOE adopted a design option approach to identify the efficiency levels that would result from implementing certain design options for reducing energy use in standby mode and off mode. DOE decided on this approach because the Department does not have sufficient data to execute an efficiency-level analysis, as manufacturers typically do not rate or publish data on the standby mode and/or off mode energy consumption of their NWGF and MHGF products.
For each product/equipment class, DOE generally selects a baseline model as a reference point for each class, and measures anticipated changes to the product resulting from potential energy conservation standards against the baseline. The baseline model in each product/equipment class represents the characteristics of a product/equipment typical of that class (
DOE selected baseline units for the NWGF and MHGF product classes that include characteristics typical of the least-efficient commercially-available consumer furnaces. The baseline unit in each product class represents the basic characteristics of products in that class. Baseline units serve as reference points, against which DOE measures changes resulting from potential amended energy conservation standards. Additional details on the selection of baseline units are in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
Table IV.1 presents the baseline AFUE levels identified for each product class of furnaces addressed by this rulemaking. The baseline AFUE levels analyzed are the same as the current Federal minimum AFUE standards for the subject furnaces, as established by the November 2007 final rule. 10 CFR 430.32(e)(1)(ii); 72 FR 65136, 65169 (Nov. 19, 2007).
For the standby mode and off mode analysis, DOE identified baseline components as those that consume the most electricity during the operation of those modes. Because it would not be practical for DOE to test every furnace on the market to determine the baseline efficiency, and because manufacturers do not currently report standby mode and off mode energy consumption of NWGFs and MHGFs, DOE “assembled” the most consumptive baseline components from the models selected for investigative testing to model the electrical system of a furnace with the expected maximum system standby mode and off mode energy use observed during testing of furnaces. Through reviewing product literature and discussions with manufacturers, DOE found that furnaces generally do not have a seasonal off switch that would be used to turn the product off during the off season. Further, if a switch is included with a product, it is typically left in the on position during the non-heating season because the indoor blower motor in the furnace is needed to move air for the AC side of the home's HVAC system. DOE found that such switch is typically used only as a service or repair switch. Therefore, DOE concluded that time spent in off mode is expected to be minimal, and the energy consumption in standby mode will always be greater than or equal to the energy consumption in off mode. Accordingly, in the analysis of potential standby mode and off mode energy conservation standards, DOE treated both the standby mode and the off mode energy use for residential furnaces as having the same level of energy consumption, which is typical of standby mode.
The components of the baseline standby mode and off mode energy use level used in this analysis are presented in Table IV.2 of this document.
Table IV.3 and Table IV.4 show the efficiency levels DOE selected for analysis of amended AFUE standards for NWGFs and MHGFs, respectively,
Table IV.5 shows the efficiency levels DOE selected for the analysis of standby mode and off mode standards in this NOPR, along with a description of the design options used to achieve each efficiency level above baseline. The baseline technology options include a linear power supply and a 40VA linear transformer (“LTX”). Technology options that may be used to achieve efficiency levels above baseline include a low-loss LTX (“LL-LTX”) and a switching mode power supply (“SMPS”).
The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated product, and the availability and timeliness of purchasing the product on the market. The available cost approaches are summarized as follows:
•
•
•
In the present case, DOE conducted its cost analysis using a combination of physical and catalog teardowns to assess how manufacturing costs change with increased product efficiency. Products were selected for physical teardown analysis that have characteristics of typical products on the market at a representative input capacity of 80,000 Btu/h (determined based on market data and discussions with manufacturers). Selections spanned the range of efficiency levels analyzed and included most manufacturers. The teardown analysis allowed the creation of detailed BOMs for each product torn down, which included all components and processes used to manufacture the products. DOE used the BOMs from the teardowns as inputs to calculate the MPC for products at various efficiency levels spanning the full range of efficiencies from the baseline to the maximum technology achievable (“max-tech”) level.
During the development of the since withdrawn March 2015 NOPR, interviews were held with NWGF and MHGF manufacturers to gain insight into the residential furnace industry, and to request feedback on the engineering analysis. A second round of interviews were held in 2021 to review updates to the cost analysis since that prepared for the withdrawn March 2015 NOPR. DOE used the information gathered from these interviews, along with the information obtained through the teardown analysis, to develop its MPC estimates. For this NOPR, DOE used eight physical teardowns performed for prior rulemaking stages where the model torn down is still available on the current market by updating the BOM for that model to incorporate the most recent input data (
To assemble BOMs and to calculate the manufacturing costs for the different components in residential furnaces, multiple units were disassembled into their base components, and DOE estimated the materials, processes, and labor required for the manufacture of each individual component, a process referred to as a “physical teardown.” Using the data gathered from the physical teardowns, each component was characterized according to its weight, dimensions, material, quantity, and the manufacturing processes used to fabricate and assemble it.
For supplementary catalog teardowns, product data were gathered such as dimensions, weight, and design features from publicly-available information, such as manufacturer catalogs. Such “virtual teardowns” allowed DOE to estimate the major physical differences between a product that was physically disassembled and a similar product that was not. For this NOPR, data from a total of 83 physical and virtual teardowns of residential furnaces were used to calculate industry MPCs in the engineering analysis.
The teardown analysis allowed DOE to identify the technologies that manufacturers typically incorporate into their products, along with the efficiency levels associated with each technology or combination of technologies. The end result of each teardown is a structured BOM, which was developed for each of the physical and virtual teardowns. The BOMs incorporate all materials, components, and fasteners (classified as either raw materials or purchased parts and assemblies), and characterize the materials and components by weight, manufacturing processes used, dimensions, material, and quantity. The BOMs from the teardown analysis were then used as inputs to calculate the MPC for each product that was torn down. The MPCs resulting from the teardowns were then used to develop an industry average MPC for each efficiency level of each product class analyzed.
As discussed in section IV.C.2.d of this document, DOE also performed several physical and catalog teardowns of units at input capacities other than the representative input capacity (
The costs of individual models are estimated using the content of the BOMs (
For parts fabricated in-house, the prices of the underlying “raw” metals (
DOE estimated the MPC at each efficiency level considered for each product class, from the baseline through the max-tech, and then calculated the fractions of the MPC (in percentages) attributable to each cost component (
Table IV.6 and Table IV.7 present DOE's estimates of the MPCs by AFUE efficiency level at the representative input capacity (80 kBtu/h) for both the NWGF and MHGF furnaces in this rulemaking. The MPCs presented incorporate the appropriate design characteristics of NWGFs and MHGFs at each efficiency level. DOE observed both in its market analysis and teardown analysis that products are available on the market across all efficiency levels with a mix of blower motor technologies, including permanent split capacitor (“PSC”) motors, constant torque brushless permanent magnet (“BPM”) motors, and constant airflow BPM motors. To account for the variety of blower motors available on the market, DOE developed cost adjustment factors (“adders”) for each type of blower motor and at each input capacity analyzed (
Similarly, in its market analysis and teardown analysis, DOE observed models across efficiency levels with single-stage, two-stage, and modulating operation. DOE, therefore, also developed a cost adder for two-stage and modulating combustion systems (as compared to single-stage models). The cost to change from a single-stage to a two-stage combustion system includes the cost of a two-stage gas valve, a two-speed inducer assembly, upgraded pressure switch/tubing assembly, and additional controls and wiring. Similarly, the cost to change from a single-stage to a modulating combustion system includes the cost of a modulating gas valve, an upgraded inducer assembly, upgraded pressure switch/tubing assembly, and additional controls and wiring. These cost adders are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5 of the TSD. DOE normalized the burner stages when generating the industry-aggregate MPCs, with the exception of the max-tech level for NWGFs which was assumed to be modulating based on current furnace designs observed at the max-tech level.
Table IV.6 and Table IV.7 present costs for NWGF with a constant-torque BPM and single-stage combustion (except for the max-tech level which, as previously noted, includes a constant airflow BPM and modulating combustion), and for MHGF with an improved PSC and single-stage combustion, respectively. However, as discussed, DOE observed that a variety of products exist on the market that include various blower motor technologies and burner system stages, so the Department developed adders to translate MPCs across various technologies. DOE presents MPCs with these technologies because they are the technologies that DOE has observed are necessary to achieve minimum compliance with the 2014 furnace fan final rule, for which compliance was required beginning on July 3, 2019.
Table IV.8 presents DOE's estimates of the incremental MPCs of each standby mode/off mode efficiency level for this rulemaking, relative to the baseline efficiency level. For standby mode and off mode, the design options used to obtain higher efficiencies were composed of purchased parts, so obtaining price quotes on these electrical components was more accurate than attempting to determine their manufacturing costs via a reverse-engineering analysis. Therefore, the incremental MPC shown reflects the price to implement the component necessary to achieve the given efficiency level. DOE also considered whether other design changes would be necessary to accommodate the components at each efficiency level. Based on the LL-LTX designs DOE has reviewed and the furnace products observed during teardowns (which included numerous models across manufacturers and efficiencies), DOE believes that major redesign would not be required to accommodate these components. While it is possible that thicker metal may be required for the mounting brackets, DOE maintains that
Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD presents more information regarding the development of DOE's estimates of the MPCs for this proposal. DOE seeks further comment on its estimates for the MPC of consumer furnaces under each standards scenario.
DOE created cost-efficiency curves representing the cost-efficiency relationships for the product classes that it examined (
As displayed in Table IV.6 and Table IV.7 of this document, the results indicate that cost-efficiency relationships are nonlinear. For both NWGF and MHGF, the cost increase between the non-condensing (80 percent AFUE) and condensing (90 percent AFUE) efficiency levels is due to the addition of a secondary heat exchanger, so there is a large step in both AFUE and MPC. For NWGFs, a significant cost increase also occurs between the 95 percent and 98 percent AFUE levels due to the addition of modulating combustion components paired with a constant airflow BPM indoor blower motor at 98 percent AFUE.
DOE calculates the manufacturer selling price (“MSP”) by multiplying the MPC and the manufacturer markup. The MSP is the price the manufacturer charges its direct customer (
DOE initially developed an average manufacturer mark-up by examining the annual Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) 10-K
To meet new or amended energy conservation standards, manufacturers typically redesign their baseline products in ways that increase the MPC. Depending on the competitive environment for these particular products, some or all of the increased production costs may be passed from manufacturers to retailers and eventually to consumers in the form of higher purchase prices. As production costs increase, manufacturers may also incur additional overhead (
Throughout the rulemaking process, DOE sought feedback and insight from interested parties that would improve the information used in its analyses. DOE interviewed NWGF and MHGF manufacturers as a part of the manufacturer impact analysis for the since withdrawn March 2015 NOPR. During these interviews, DOE sought feedback on all aspects of its analyses for residential furnaces. DOE discussed the analytical assumptions and estimates, cost estimation method, and cost-efficiency curves with consumer furnace manufacturers. In 2021, DOE conducted a second series of interviews to obtain feedback on the updates to the cost analysis from the additional teardowns performed in spring 2021. DOE considered all the information manufacturers provided while refining its cost estimates (and underlying data) and analytical assumptions. In order to avoid disclosing sensitive information about individual manufacturers' products or manufacturing processes, DOE incorporated equipment and manufacturing process figures into the analysis as averages. Additional information on manufacturer interviews can be found in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
In addition to NWGFs and MHGFs, DOE also estimated the MPCs of electric furnaces. This analysis was performed to develop accurate electric furnace cost data as an input to the product switching analysis (see section IV.F.11 of this document for additional information). To estimate the MPCs of electric furnaces, DOE used information obtained from the teardowns of three modular blower units, as well as a teardown of an electric heat kit assembly, which were all originally used as inputs to the engineering analysis performed for the 2014 furnace fans rulemaking.
The MPCs of electric furnaces were developed by calculating a market share-weighted MPC of the three modular blower units that were torn
Further details regarding the methodology used to estimate electric furnace MPCs are provided in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
The mark-ups analysis develops appropriate mark-ups (
DOE characterized two distribution channel market segments to describe how NWGF and MHGF products pass from the manufacturer to residential and commercial consumers:
The NWGF and MHGF replacement/new owners market distribution channel is primarily characterized as follows:
Based on a 2019 BRG report,
The NWGF new construction distribution channel is characterized as follows, where DOE assumes that for 25 percent of installations, a larger builder has an in-house mechanical contractor:
The MHGF new construction distribution channel is characterized as follows:
For replacements, new owners, and new construction, DOE also considered the national accounts or direct from manufacturer distribution channel, where the manufacturer sells directly to a buyer (builder, mechanical contractor, or commercial consumer).
At each step in the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of the product to cover costs. DOE developed baseline and incremental mark-ups for each participant in the distribution chain to ultimately determine the consumer purchase cost. Baseline mark-ups are applied to the price of products with baseline efficiency, while incremental mark-ups are applied to the difference in price between baseline and higher-efficiency models (the incremental cost increase). The incremental mark-up is typically less than the baseline mark-up and is designed to maintain similar per-unit operating profit before and after new or amended standards.
To estimate average baseline and incremental mark-ups, DOE relied on several sources, including: (1) the HARDI 2013 Profit Report
Typically, contractors will mark up equipment and labor differently, with the labor mark-up being greater than the equipment mark-up. For the purposes of the analysis, DOE is treating the furnace installation work, including the equipment and labor components, as one job, and assumes that the mechanical contractors use the same mark-up to account for overhead and profit of the entire job. However, the determination of that overall markup accounts for the different components of
In addition to the mark-ups, DOE obtained State and local taxes from data provided by the Sales Tax Clearinghouse.
DOE acknowledges that there is uncertainty regarding the appropriate mark-ups to use, so the Department conducted a sensitivity analysis in which the same average mark-up is applied to baseline and higher-efficiency products. Appendix 6B of the NOPR TSD describes this analysis and how the associated LCC results differ from the results using the incremental mark-up approach. The relative comparison of the different efficiency levels remains similar, however, and the proposed energy conservation standard level remains economically justified regardless of which mark-up scenario is utilized.
Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD provides details on DOE's development of mark-ups for NWGFs and MHGFs.
The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual energy consumption of NWGFs and MHGFs at different efficiencies in representative U.S. single-family homes, multi-family residences, mobile homes, and commercial buildings, and to assess the energy savings potential of increased furnace efficiency. The energy use analysis estimates the range of energy use of NWGFs and MHGFs in the field (
DOE estimated the annual energy consumption of NWGFs and MHGFs at specific energy efficiency levels across a range of climate zones, building characteristics, and heating applications. The annual energy consumption includes the natural gas, liquid petroleum gas (“LPG”), and electricity used by the furnace.
Chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD provides details on DOE's energy use analysis for NWGFs and MHGFs.
To determine the field energy use of residential furnaces used in homes, DOE established a sample of households using NWGFs and MHGFs from EIA's 2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (“RECS 2015”).
On November 2016, AHRI provided regional shipment data (North vs. Rest of Country) up to 2015, and DOE also used HARDI shipments data by State and region from 2013-2020.
Based on DOE's shipments model, DOE estimated that 19 percent of NWGF installations in 2029 would be in new construction and that 81 percent would be for replacement and new owners. DOE further estimated that 43 percent of MHGF installations in 2029 would be in new construction and that 57 percent would be for replacement and new owners. See section IV.G of this document and chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD for further details.
To determine the field energy use of NWGFs used in commercial buildings, DOE established a sample of buildings using NWGFs from EIA's 2012 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (“CBECS 2012”), which is the most recent such survey that is currently available.
DOE assigned an input capacity for the existing NWGF or MHGF of each housing unit based on an algorithm that correlates the heating square footage provided by RECS 2015 or CBECS 2012 and the outdoor design temperature for heating,
DOE further refined the methodology to capture the degree of insulation type and other household characteristics by adding ACCA Manual J calculation methods to more accurately determine the design heating load requirements of each household based on all available RECS 2015 household characteristics. The households' calculated design heating load values are then rank ordered to match actual shipments distributions to determine the assigned furnace input capacity. This improved methodology, applied to both NWGFs and MHGFs, allows for older, less-insulated homes to be assigned larger furnaces compared to similar newly-built homes.
The ACCA Manual J process is the most widely accepted method to calculate heating and cooling requirements for the house by using well-documented values and building codes, based on experimental data and extreme conditions (worst-case assumptions). For the NOPR analysis, the actual sizing in the field is accomplished by matching the household Manual J heating load calculations to actual shipments data by capacity. This methodology takes into account the actual field conditions where some households have a greater oversizing factor than recommended by ACCA, which could occur due to old furnaces being replaced by a much more efficient furnace and/or improvements to the building shell since the last furnace installation. This methodology also accounts for regional differences in building shells, which show that, on average, Southern homes are not as well insulated as Northern homes. Regional differences in peak heating load are also captured in the sizing methodology by using the outdoor design temperature that best matches the household location and climate characteristics. Regarding the use of factors for adjusting the annual heating load (such as heating degree day, or “HDD,” adjustment to average climate conditions, HDD trends based on climate change, and the adjustment based on the building shell index), DOE notes that these are only used to adjust the annual heating load to account for changes in the energy use required for heating in a given year. In contrast, the furnace size is determined by calculating the design heating load, which is based on outdoor design temperature and other household characteristics which are not adjusted by these annual heating load factors.
DOE also accounted for the air conditioning sizing when determining the input capacity size of the furnace. DOE acknowledges that currently, there are few low-input-capacity furnace models with large furnace fans. For some installations, particularly in the South, a large furnace fan is required to meet the cooling requirements. DOE accounted for the fact that some furnace installations in the South have a larger input capacity than determined by the peak heating load calculations by calculating the size of the furnace fan required to meet the cooling requirements of the household by using the AHRI shipments data
To estimate the annual energy consumption in active mode of furnaces meeting the considered efficiency levels, DOE first calculated the annual household/building heating load using the RECS 2015 and CBECS 2012 estimates of household or building furnace annual energy consumption,
DOE adjusted the energy use estimates in RECS 2015 (for the year 2015) and in CBECS 2012 (for the year 2012) to “normal” weather using long-term heating degree-day (“HDD”) data for each geographical region.
DOE accounted for changes in building shell efficiency between 2015 (for RECS 2015) or 2012 (for CBECS 2012) and the compliance year by applying the shell integrity indexes associated with
Building codes and building practices vary widely across the U.S. For example, as of November 2021, more than half of the States were still under the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (“IECC”) or older codes instead of the 2012 IECC, 2015 IECC, or 2018 IECC.
DOE's analysis of furnace electricity consumption takes into account the electricity used by the furnace's electrical components (such as blower, the draft inducer, and the ignitor). DOE determined furnace fan electricity consumption using field data on static pressures of duct systems and furnace fan performance data from manufacturer literature. As noted in section IV.C of this document, the furnace designs used in DOE's analysis incorporate furnace fans that meet the energy conservation standards for those covered products that took effect in 2019.
DOE accounts for the increased electricity use of condensing furnaces in heating, cooling, and continuous fan circulation due to larger internal static pressure (a more restricted airflow path due to the presence of a secondary heat exchanger). DOE notes that the furnace fan energy conservation standards that took effect in 2019 (for both non-condensing and condensing NWGFs
As stated previously, a condensing furnace uses more electricity than an equivalent non-condensing furnace but uses significantly less natural gas or LPG. DOE accounted for the additional heat released by the furnace fan motor, which must be compensated by the central air conditioner during the cooling season, based on the 2014 furnace fan final rule analysis.
DOE calculated annual standby mode energy use by multiplying the standby power consumption at each efficiency level by the number of standby mode hours, for each technology option identified in the engineering analysis. DOE assumed that furnaces are not usually equipped with an off mode, so only standby mode energy use was considered. To calculate the annual number of standby mode hours for each sampled household, DOE subtracted the estimated total furnace fan operating hours from the total hours in a year (8,760). The total furnace fan operating hours are the sum of the furnace fan operating hours during heating, cooling, and continuous fan modes. It is noted that DOE did account for the additional electricity use of brushless permanent magnet motors in standby mode. Chapter 7 of this NOPR TSD describes this methodology in more detail.
DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for NWGFs and MHGFs. The effect of new or amended energy conservation standards on individual consumers usually involves a reduction in
•
•
For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the estimated efficiency distribution of NWGFs and MHGFs in the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards. In contrast, the PBP for a given efficiency level is measured relative to the baseline product.
For each considered efficiency level in each product class, DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of housing units and, for NWGFs, commercial buildings. As stated previously, DOE developed household samples from RECS 2015 and CBECS 2012. For each sample household, DOE determined the energy consumption of the furnace and the appropriate natural gas, LPG, and electricity price. By developing a representative sample of households, the analysis captured the variability in energy consumption and energy prices associated with the use of NWGFs and MHGFs.
Inputs to the LCC calculation include the installed cost to the consumer, operating expenses, the lifetime of the product, and a discount rate. Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost of the product—which includes MPCs, manufacturer markups, product price projections, wholesaler and contractor markups, and sales taxes (where appropriate)—and installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses include annual energy consumption, energy prices and price projections, repair and maintenance costs, product lifetimes, and discount rates. Inputs to the payback period calculation include the installed cost to the consumer and first year operating expenses. DOE created distributions of values for installation cost, repair and maintenance, product lifetime, and discount rates, with probabilities attached to each value, to account for their uncertainty and variability. In addition, DOE established the efficiency in the no-new-standards case using a distribution of furnace efficiency values.
The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC and PBP relies on Monte Carlo simulations to incorporate uncertainty and variability into the analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly sample input values from the probability distributions and NGWF and MHGF user samples. For this rulemaking, the Monte Carlo approach is implemented in MS Excel together with the Crystal Ball
DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for all consumers of NWGFs and MHGFs as if each were to purchase a new product in the first year of required compliance with new or amended standards. Any amended standards would apply to NWGFs and MHGFs manufactured 5 years after the date on which any new or amended standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(C)) For the reasons described previously, DOE used 2029 as the first year of compliance with amended or new standards for NWGFs and MHGFs.
DOE recognizes the uncertainties associated with some of the parameters used in the analysis. To assess these uncertainties, DOE has performed sensitivity analyses for key parameters such as energy prices, condensing furnace market penetration, consumer discount rates, lifetime, installation costs, downsizing criteria, and product switching criteria. DOE notes that the analysis is based on a Monte Carlo simulation approach, which uses the Crystal Ball
DOE's LCC analysis results at a given efficiency level account for the households that will not install condensing NWGFs unless the standard is changed, based on the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution described in section IV.F.9 of this document. This approach reflects the fact that some consumers may purchase products with efficiencies greater than the baseline levels.
DOE's analysis models the expected product lifetime, not the expected period of homeownership. DOE recognizes that the lifetime of a gas furnace and the residence time of the purchaser may not always overlap. However, EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) In the context of this requirement, the expected product lifetime, not the expected period of homeownership, is the appropriate modeling period for the LCC, as energy cost savings will continue to accrue to the new owner/occupant of a home after its sale. If some of the price premium for a more-efficient furnace is passed on in the price of the home, there would be a reasonable matching of costs and benefits between the original purchaser and the home buyer. To the extent this does not occur, the home buyer would gain at the expense of the original purchaser.
As discussed in section IV.F.12 of this document, in its LCC analysis, DOE considered the possibility that some consumers may switch to alternative heating systems under a standard that requires condensing technology in its
As part of the determination of whether a potential standard is economically justified, EPCA directs DOE to consider, to the greatest extent practicable, the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered products which are likely to result from imposition of the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) EPCA does not expressly limit consideration of the covered product or covered products likely to result under an amended standard to the covered product type (or class) of that would be subject to the amended standard (
EPCA also establishes, as noted above in section III.E.2 of this document, a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy (and, as applicable, water) savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) As with the LCC analysis, accounting for the potential for switching in the PBP analysis provides a payback that is representative across consumers.
Table IV.10 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow provide further discussion. Details of the spreadsheet model, and of all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 8 of the TSD for this NOPR and its appendices.
To calculate consumer product costs, DOE multiplied the MPCs developed in the engineering analysis by the mark-ups described in section IV.D of this document (along with sales taxes). DOE used different mark-ups for baseline products and higher-efficiency products, because DOE applies an incremental mark-up to the increase in MSP associated with higher-efficiency products.
For the default price trend for residential furnaces, DOE derived an experience rate based on an analysis of long-term historical data. As a proxy for manufacturer price, DOE used Producer Price Index (“PPI”) data for warm-air furnace equipment from the Bureau of Labor Statistics from 1990 through 2020.
DOE's learning curve methodology was developed by examining the literature on accounting for technological change and empirical studies of energy technology learning rates.
Furnace prices can be affected by a variety of factors, and the cost of commodity materials is one of them. The nominal commodity PPI data for copper wire and cable, iron and steel, and aluminum wire and cable indicate that the nominal indices rose substantially between the early 2000s and 2011, which is primarily attributed to an increasing demand for such commodities from rapid industrialization in China, India, and other emerging economies. During the same period, the nominal warm air furnace PPI increased by 16 percent. However, these commodity indices have trended downward since 2011, and the nominal warm air furnace PPI has steadily trended upward during this period. Based on these observations, DOE contends that even though the warm air furnace PPI, to a certain extent, is influenced by commodity indices, other factors impact furnace prices. In addition, due to the long-term nature of DOE's analysis, it would be inappropriate to make assumptions based on recent, short-term trends only.
The learning curve methodology implemented in this proposed rule is based on sound economic theory, empirical evidence, and historical data. Based on the historical PPI data, the cost of commodity materials can only partially explain the furnace price trend, particularly when considering the recent trend observed in commodity and furnace price indices. The experience curve model that DOE developed, using the most recent data available, shows strong explanatory power and high statistical significance. DOE welcomes information that could support improvement in its methodology.
DOE acknowledges that the prices of non-condensing and condensing furnaces may not change at the same rate and using a trend for all NWGFs and MHGFs to represent the price trend of condensing furnaces may underestimate the future decline in the cost of condensing furnaces. It also acknowledges that an increase in production and innovation due to a condensing standard could result in a decline in the cost of condensing furnaces. However, DOE could not find detailed data that would allow for a price trend projection for condensing NWGFs and MHGFs that may differ from non-condensing NWGFs and MHGFs. Thus, for this NOPR, it used the same price trend projection for condensing and non-condensing NWGFs and MHGFs. Although DOE was not able to find information or data regarding price trends related to different furnace technologies, DOE is exploring ways to estimate learning rates for different technologies.
A detailed discussion of DOE's derivation of the experience rate is provided in appendix 8C of the NOPR TSD.
DOE requests data and information on the price trend for condensing NWGFs as compared to the trend for non-condensing NWGFs.
The installation cost is the cost to the consumer of installing the furnace, in addition to the cost of the furnace itself. The cost of installation covers all labor, overhead, and material costs associated with the replacement of an existing furnace or the installation of a furnace in a new home, as well as delivery of the new furnace, removal of the existing furnace, and any applicable permit fees. Higher-efficiency furnaces may require one to incur additional installation costs. DOE's analysis of installation costs estimated specific installation costs for each sample household based on building characteristics given in RECS 2015. For this NOPR, DOE used 2021 RS Means data for the installation cost estimates, including labor costs.
DOE conducted a detailed analysis of installation costs for all potential installation cases, including when a non-condensing gas furnace is replaced with a non-condensing gas furnace, and when a non-condensing gas furnace is replaced with a condensing gas furnace. For the latter, particular attention was paid to venting issues in replacement applications, including adding a new flue venting (PVC), combustion air venting (PVC), concealing vent pipes, addressing an orphaned water heater (by updating flue vent connectors, vent resizing, or chimney relining), as well as condensate removal. DOE also included additional installation costs (“adders”) for new construction installations. These are described below.
DOE's analysis estimated basic installation costs for replacement, new owner, and new home applications. These costs, which apply to both condensing and non-condensing gas furnaces, include furnace set-up and transportation, gas piping, ductwork, electrical hook-up, permit and removal/disposal fees, and where applicable, additional labor hours for an attic installation.
DOE's installation costs account for cases where significant ductwork redesign is required, including when
DOE notes that asbestos presents a safety hazard that must be properly abated for all retrofit installations where it is present. As explained above, DOE recognizes that potential ductwork modifications typically occur due to the furnace fan requirements and not necessarily due to the installation of a condensing furnace. DOE included the cost of asbestos abatement for a fraction of both non-condensing and condensing NWGF installations. See appendix 8D of the NOPR TSD for more details.
For replacement applications, DOE included a number of adders for a fraction of the sample households. For non-condensing gas furnaces, these additional costs included updating flue vent connectors, vent resizing, and chimney relining. For condensing gas furnaces, DOE included adders for flue venting (PVC), combustion air venting (PVC), concealing vent pipes, addressing an orphaned water heater (by updating flue vent connectors, vent resizing, or chimney relining), and condensate removal.
For non-condensing non-weatherized gas furnace replacements, DOE added additional costs to a small fraction of installations that involve updating flue vent connectors, vent resizing, and chimney relining. These costs are most commonly applied to older furnace installations, such as natural draft furnace installations, furnaces not installed according to the current codes, and furnace installations that do not meet manufacturers' installation requirements. In total, these costs for vent resizing or chimney relining are applied to less than 5 percent of non-condensing to non-condensing furnace replacement installations in 2029, with an average cost of $755. In addition, DOE estimated that 24 percent of installations of non-condensing to non-condensing furnace replacement installations in 2029 would require updating flue vent connectors, with an average cost of $284.
DOE assumed that condensing furnaces that replace non-condensing furnaces do not utilize the existing venting system, but instead require new, dedicated plastic venting that meets all applicable building codes and manufacturer instructions. In determining these installation costs, DOE takes into account vent length, vent diameter, vent termination, the potential need to create openings in walls or floors for the vent system, additional vent costs for housing units with shared walls, vent resizing in the case of an orphaned water heater, and concealment work cost increases in some installations.
Appendix 8D in the TSD for this NOPR describes the methodology used to determine the installation costs for all of the issues described in the paragraphs that follow.
DOE assumed that condensing furnaces do not utilize the existing venting system but instead require new, dedicated plastic venting that meets all applicable building codes and manufacturer instructions. Accordingly, DOE determined whether a condensing furnace is horizontally or vertically vented based on the shortest vent length. DOE's analysis estimated that 70 percent of condensing furnaces will be installed with a horizontal vent.
DOE assumed that vent length varies depending on where a suitable wall is located relative to the furnace. In addition, when applicable, DOE accounts for use of a snorkel termination to meet minimum clearances to sidewalks, average snow accumulation level, overhangs, and air intake sources, including operable doors and windows, building corners, and gas meter vents. In DOE's analysis, snorkel termination is more frequently needed in situations where the furnace is below the snow line (such as in basements or crawl spaces). DOE assumed that the replacement furnace would remain in the same location as the existing furnace and accounted for the new vent length and structural changes, such as wall knockouts, to install new venting. In some installations, it might be easier and cheaper to change the furnace location, but this would require both gas line extensions and ductwork modifications, which were not modeled in DOE's installation cost analysis. DOE accounted for additional vent length for housing units with shared walls. DOE also accounted for the cost of vent resizing in the case of an orphaned water heater and the cost of concealment work in some installations.
The vent pipe length limitations depend on a number of factors including number of elbows, vent diameter, horizontal vs. vertical length, as well as combustion fan size. A review of several manufacturer installation manuals shows that the maximum vent lengths range from 30 to 130 feet, depending primarily on the vent diameter. For a fraction of installations, DOE increased the vent diameter in order to be able to extend the vent length according to manufacturer specifications.
Common venting provides a single exhaust flue for multiple gas appliances. In some cases, a non-condensing NWGF is commonly vented with a gas-fired water heater. When the non-condensing NWGF is replaced with a condensing NWGF, the new condensing furnace and the existing water heater can no longer be commonly vented due to different venting requirements,
DOE accounted for the probability that in some cases, replacing a non-condensing furnace with a condensing furnace may require significant modifications to the existing vent system for the commonly-vented gas water heater. DOE accounted for costs related to updating the vent connector, relining the chimney, and resizing the vent, which would satisfy the installation requirements of the Natural Fuel Gas Code. DOE understands that a potential option would be to install either a storage or tankless power-vented water heater to avoid the cost of a chimney or metal flue vent modification just for the gas water heater, or to switch to an electric storage water heater. DOE recognizes that the frequency of chimney relining and vent resizing may decrease slightly due to the increase in adoption of high-efficiency gas water heaters. However, DOE did not find any additional information or data
DOE acknowledges that multi-family buildings may require additional measures to replace non-condensing furnaces with condensing furnaces. Such measures include the vent length, existing common vents, and horizontal venting. For this NOPR, DOE assigned additional venting installation costs (on average $248) for a quarter of replacement installations
To address certain difficult installation situations, new venting technologies are being developed to vent a condensing residential furnace and an atmospheric combustion water heater through the same vent by reusing the existing metal vent or masonry chimney with a new vent cap and appropriate liner(s).
DOE recognizes that there are currently limitations to DuraVent's new FasNSeal 80/90 venting technology related to venting in masonry chimneys and that currently there are limited field performance data.
DOE's analysis accounts for the additional cost associated with direct vent installations that use combustion air intake. Direct vent or sealed combustion is not required for condensing installations, but it is recommended for any condensing furnace to utilize “sealed combustion.” All condensing furnaces come with this feature (which requires an opening for the intake combustion air pipe/vent). Condensing furnaces will often be installed as direct vent furnaces since it offers significant energy savings
DOE's analysis assumes that two-thirds of condensing furnaces will be installed with the direct vent feature. Typically, the combustion air intake pipe will go in the same direction of the flue vent or can be in a concentric vent.
DOE accounted for the cost of condensate removal for condensing
DOE acknowledges that condensate management can be costly for some installations (
The use of heat tape to prevent condensate pipes from freezing is standard installation practice.
To address situations where condensate must be treated before disposal (
DOE considered the potential need for additional vent length to reach a suitable location on an outside wall where the vent termination could be located, as well as the potential need for wall penetrations and/or concealing of flue vents in conditioned spaces.
DOE used the best available information and data to characterize the likely nature and cost of installations of a condensing furnace as a replacement for a non-condensing furnace in its consumer sample. DOE estimates that 51 percent of replacements could be labeled as “difficult” installations,
DOE is not aware of any physical limitations or building code issues that would preclude the installation of a condensing NWGF in multi-family buildings, townhomes, and row houses.
DOE sought any information or data regarding potential physical limitations when installing a new condensing furnace. In consumer
DOE acknowledges that installation costs could increase for condensing furnaces in an unplanned emergency situation for the reasons that follow. While it is not possible to estimate the share of installations that would constitute an emergency (unplanned during the heating season), Decision Analyst's 2019 American Home Comfort Study (“AHCS”)
DOE estimated that the incremental retrofit installation cost for condensing furnaces was $644. For new construction and new owners, the incremental installation cost was estimated to be, on average, −$647.
It is common practice in new construction, when possible, to avoid vertical venting in order to limit roof penetrations and reduce potential liability issues (
For new owner and new construction installations, DOE applied an incremental venting cost if the owner/builder had been planning to install a commonly-vented non-condensing furnace and water heater.
DOE included the same basic installation costs for MHGFs as described previously for NWGFs. DOE also included costs for venting and condensate removal. Protection from freezing (heat tape), a condensate pipe, condensate neutralizer, and an additional electrical connection are accounted for in the cost of condensate removal, where applicable.
DOE notes that MHGFs are usually installed in tight spaces and often require space modifications if the replacement furnace dimensions are different from those of the existing furnace. DOE notes that most of the MHGF models at the proposed standard level of 95-percent AFUE are similar in size to the existing non-condensing MHGFs. However, some condensing furnaces in the manufacturer literature are wider and shorter than existing non-condensing furnaces. Accordingly, DOE increased the installation costs for a fraction of installations to address the impacts related to space constraints or condensate withdrawal that may be encountered when a condensing MHGF replaces an older mobile-home-specific furnace. DOE also adjusted the installation cost for the dedicated vent system for condensing MHGFs by including an additional cost to remove the old venting system. Mobile homes must be approved, as required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, to ensure compliance with the HUD Code (24 CFR 3282.203), which requires special sealed combustion venting for MHGFs that cannot be commonly vented with other gas-fired equipment (such as a gas-fired water heater). DOE also adjusted the condensate withdrawal installation costs to account for a fraction of installations that encounter difficulty installing the condensate drain.
AHRI and Carrier commented that DOE dismissed industry survey data (the ACCA/AHR/PHCC contractor survey), and that such dismissal is unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious. These commenters stated that DOE was unreasonable to rely on eight websites in lieu of over 700 contractors with experience in the field, and that the websites relied upon, in fact, indicate that the cost of a new furnace installation is much higher than DOE estimates. These commenters stated that a survey seeking average installation costs for the purposes of information collection, rather than lead-generation, is implicitly more reliable that what amounts to online advertisements. AHRI and Carrier also stated that the estimated costs presented by these websites suggest that furnace installation is far more expensive that DOE estimates, with incremental costs potentially ranging from $800 to $4,500. (AHRI, No. 303 at p. 12; Carrier, No. 302 at pp. 6-7) Lennox also criticized DOE for failing to consider data from the contractor survey and commented that the sources DOE quotes in its analysis actually support much higher installation costs and require further review and analysis. (Lennox, No. 299 at pp. 13-14, 30)
AHRI continues to object to the methodology used by DOE to determine installation costs, which it asserts is disassociated from actual costs. AHRI also stated that the differences between the installation costs developed by DOE and those from the marketplace as measured by the ACCA/AHRI/PHCC contractor survey are huge. (AHRI, No. 303 at p. 41) Spire suggested that DOE should rely on actual field installation costs rather than estimating the installation cost. (Spire, September 2016 SNOPR Public Meeting Transcript, No. 243 at p. 88) Spire stated that there is nothing in the record to show what input DOE's consultants actually sought or obtained on installation costs, and that the only manufacturer input that is available on the record is comments from manufacturers stating that DOE's installed cost estimates are gross underestimates of actual installed costs. (Spire, No. 309-1 at p. 92) HARDI stated that DOE should not rely on installation information available on the internet, but rather should speak with installing contractors across diverse sections of the country, in addition to contractor organizations, to assess and verify the information obtained online. HARDI also stated that the online lead generation and price quoting mechanisms cited by DOE are responsible for less than five percent of sales amongst HARDI's customers and are not reflective of industry norms, and the quality and reliability of participants are unknown. Instead, HARDI urged DOE to consult the comments by PHCC, ACCA, and AHRI to assess true installation costs. (HARDI, No. 271 at p. 3)
Rheem asserted that the installation cost data referenced by DOE in the September 2016 SNOPR were incomplete and vague, that the data did not always differentiate between condensing and non-condensing NWGFs, and that the cited costs ranged wildly. Rheem also stated that applications were mixed between furnace only and furnace and central air conditioners (“CAC”) combinations. (Rheem, No. 307 at pp. 7-8)
In response, DOE notes that its focus for installation costs is to estimate the incremental cost between different efficiency levels. However, DOE used the results of the contractor survey to validate its estimates of the average total installed cost for condensing furnaces in replacement applications, as well as the average incremental installation cost. DOE examined the ACCA/AHRI/PHCC survey of contractors but was unable to use the data directly in the LCC analysis because only aggregate values were reported. The ACCA/AHRI/PHCC survey results are binned in wide bins of $250, and the sample is heavily weighted towards the north (339 responses in the North and 181 in the South). As noted previously, installation costs vary widely for different contractors and areas of the country. The installation costs in the Northern region will tend to be much higher than those reported in the Rest of the Country (as defined in the LCC analysis). For this NOPR, DOE revised its installation cost methodology to account for various factors affecting both non-condensing and condensing NWGFs, such as: the cost of ductwork upgrades; baseline electrical installation costs; additional labor required for baseline installations; the cost of relining, resizing, and/or other adjustments of metal venting for baseline installations; premium installation costs for emergency replacements; and other premium installation costs for comfort-related features (
Table IV.12 shows the fraction of installations impacted and the average cost for each of the installation cost adders in replacement applications (not including new owners). The estimates of the fraction of installations impacted were based on the furnace location (primarily derived from information in RECS 2015) and a number of other sources that are described in chapter 8 of this NOPR TSD.
Table IV.13 shows the estimated fraction of new home installations impacted and the average cost for each of the adders.
For each sampled residential furnace installation, DOE determined the energy consumption for a NWGF or MHGF at different efficiency levels using the approach described above in section IV.E of this document.
Higher-efficiency furnaces reduce the operating costs for a consumer, which can lead to greater use of the furnace. A direct rebound effect occurs when a product that is made more efficient is used more intensively, such that the expected energy savings from the efficiency improvement may not fully materialize. At the same time, consumers benefit from increased utilization of products due to rebound. Overall consumer surplus (taking into account additional costs and benefits) is generally understood to increase from rebound. DOE examined a 2009 review of empirical estimates of the rebound effect for various energy-using products.
The LCC analysis is an analysis that does not account for consumer behavior; as a result, DOE does not include the rebound effect in the LCC. Some households may increase their furnace use in response to increased efficiency, and as a result, not all households will realize the LCC savings represented in section V.B of this document. DOE does include rebound in the NIA for a conservative estimate of national energy savings and the corresponding impact to consumer NPV. See section IV.H of this document.
EPCA requires that in its evaluation of proposed energy conservation standards, DOE must consider the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered products which are likely to result from the imposition of the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) That is, DOE must consider the savings resulting from operating a covered product that the consumer would purchase under the proposed standard and the costs that the consumer would realize from operating such a product, as compared to the costs that the consumer would realize from operating a product under the current standard. This consideration is to inform the determination of whether an amended standard would be economically justified. EPCA does not prohibit this consideration from monetizing additional benefits that the consumer may receive from a covered product that complies with a proposed improvement in efficiency.
EPCA directs DOE to consider “savings in operating costs” with no reference as to how DOE is to consider any potential increase in value provided to the consumer under a proposed standard. (
In addition to the consideration required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), EPCA directs DOE to consider the economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and on the consumers of the products subject such standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)) The economic impact is not narrowly defined to include only costs related to energy consumption. The occurrence of a rebound effect demonstrates that consumers value the additional output (
A marginal energy price reflects the cost or benefit of adding or subtracting one additional unit of energy consumption. Marginal electricity prices more accurately capture the incremental savings associated with a change in energy use by higher-efficiency products and provide a better representation of incremental change in consumer costs than average electricity prices. Therefore, DOE applied average electricity prices for the energy use of the product purchased in the no-new-standards case and marginal electricity prices for the incremental change in energy use associated with the other efficiency levels considered.
DOE derived average monthly marginal residential and commercial electricity, natural gas, and LPG prices for each state using data from EIA.
DOE compared marginal price factors developed by DOE from the EIA data to develop seasonal marginal price factors for 23 gas tariffs provided by the Gas Technology Institute for the 2016 residential boilers energy conservation standards rulemaking.
DOE notes that within a State, there could be significant variation in the marginal price factors, including differences between rural and urban rates. In order to take this to account, DOE developed marginal price factors for each individual household using RECS 2015 billing data. These data are then normalized to match the average State marginal price factors, which are equivalent to a consumption-weighted average marginal price across all households in the State. For more details on the comparative analysis and updated marginal price analysis, see appendix 8D of this NOPR TSD.
To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the 2020 energy prices by the projection of annual average price changes for each of the nine Census Divisions from the Reference case in
Maintenance costs are associated with maintaining the operation of the product, while repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing product components that have failed in an appliance.
DOE estimated maintenance costs for residential furnaces at each considered efficiency level using a variety of sources, including 2021 RS Means,
In order to validate DOE's approach, DOE did a review of maintenance and repair costs available from a variety of sources, including online resources. Overall, DOE found that the maintenance and repair cost estimates applied in its analysis fall within the typical range of published maintenance and repair charges.
For more details on DOE's methodology for calculating repair costs, including all online resources reviewed, see appendix 8F of the TSD for this NOPR.
Product lifetime is the age at which an appliance is retired from service. DOE conducted an analysis of furnace lifetimes based on the methodology described in a recent journal paper.
To better account for differences in lifetime due to furnace utilization, DOE determined separate lifetimes for the North and Rest of Country (as identified in the shipments analysis) but only based on the difference in operating hours in the two regions. DOE assumed that equipment operated for fewer hours will have a longer service lifetime. DOE developed regional lifetime estimates by using regional shipments, RECS survey data, and AHS survey data and applying the methodology described above. More specifically, these data include AHRI shipments in the North and Rest of Country regions from 2010-2015,
There is significant variation in the distribution of furnace lifetime and DOE uses a Weibull distribution to account for this distribution of product failure. DOE accounts for this variation by projecting energy cost savings and health benefits through the final year of furnace lifetime for all products shipped in 2058 (
Chapter 8 of the TSD for this NOPR provides further details on the methodology and sources DOE used to develop furnace lifetimes.
In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate to households to estimate the present value of future operating costs. The discount rate used in the LCC analysis represents the rate from an individual consumer's perspective. DOE estimated a distribution of residential discount rates for NWGFs and MHGFs based on consumer financing costs and the opportunity cost of consumer funds.
DOE applies weighted average discount rates calculated from consumer debt and asset data, rather than marginal or implicit discount rates.
To establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE identified all relevant household debt or asset classes in order to approximate a consumer's opportunity cost of funds related to appliance energy cost savings. DOE estimated the average percentage shares of the various types of debt and equity by household income group using data from the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances (“SCF”) for 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019.
DOE notes that the interest rate associated with the specific source of funds used to purchase a furnace (
To establish commercial discount rates for the small fraction of NWGFs installed in commercial buildings, DOE estimated the weighted-average cost of capital using data from Damodaran Online.
See chapter 8 of this NOPR TSD for further details on the development of consumer and commercial discount rates.
To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be affected by a potential energy conservation standard at a particular efficiency level, DOE's LCC analysis considered the projected distribution (
To estimate the efficiency distribution of NWGFs and MHGFs in 2029, DOE considered the market trends regarding increased sales of high-efficiency furnaces (including any available incentives). DOE relied on data provided by AHRI on historical shipments for each product class. DOE reviewed AHRI data from 1992 and 1994-2003 (which includes both NWGF and MHGF shipments data), detailing the market shares of non-condensing
Additionally, DOE developed a sensitivity analysis incorporating a higher and lower market share for condensing NWGFs and MHGFs. See appendix 8I of the TSD for this NOPR for further information on the derivation of the efficiency distribution projections and sensitivity analysis results.
DOE used data on the shipments by efficiency from the 2013-2020 HARDI shipments to disaggregate the condensing furnace shipments among the different condensing efficiency levels. Based on stakeholder input, DOE assumed that the fraction of furnace shipments of 95-percent or higher AFUE in the replacement market would be double the fraction in the new construction market. DOE also assumed that the fraction of furnace shipments of 95-percent or higher AFUE would be higher in the North compared to the South, because the threshold for ENERGY STAR designation in the North is 95-percent AFUE compared to 90-percent AFUE in the South. The resulting distributions were then used to assign the new furnace AFUE for each sampled household or building in the no-new-standards case, both in the replacement and new construction markets, and in each of the 30 RECS regions and 9 CBECS Census Divisions. The resulting national distribution for condensing NWGFs in 2029 is expected to be 0.3 percent for 90-percent AFUE, 16.5 percent for 92-percent AFUE, 40.3 percent for 95-percent AFUE, and 0.9 percent for 98-percent AFUE. For condensing MHGFs in 2029, the national distribution is expected to be 8.9 percent for 92-percent AFUE, 21.3 percent for 95-percent AFUE, and 1.3 percent for 96-percent AFUE. See appendix 8I of the TSD for this NOPR for further details.
For the September 2016 SNOPR (since withdrawn), the assignment of furnace efficiency to each household or building was random within each of the disaggregated distributions (
A number of stakeholders objected to DOE's approach to assigning furnace efficiency in the no-new-standards case. AHRI stated that DOE's decision model assumes that consumers ignore economic factors such as climate when choosing a non-condensing or condensing NWGF. (AHRI, No. 303 at pp. 9-10) AHRI stated that DOE is assuming that consumers behave randomly in their consideration of energy efficiency absent new standards, a position that AHRI believes is arbitrary and capricious. AHRI commented that none of the studies cited by DOE support the proposition that consumer behavior is completely irrational. AHRI stated that most of the academic studies cited by DOE are based on home appliances (
APGA contended that DOE offers the unsupported proposition that random assignment, while admittedly not based on economics, “may simulate actual behavior as well as assigning furnace efficiency based solely on imputed cost-effectiveness.” APGA contended that DOE relies on working papers for the proposition that consumers do not always act in a perfectly economically rational fashion, but the fact that there are market failures does not undermine reliance on economic decision-making as the best representation of consumer behavior. APGA stated that rejecting economic decision-making demonstrates agency bias to reach a preordained outcome. (APGA, No. 292-1 at pp. 23-25) AGA stated that DOE's methodology lacks any regard to consumer costs and benefits—even to consumers for whom the first cost of the more-efficient condensing furnace is lower than the first cost of the non-condensing furnace. (AGA, No. 306-1 at p. 11) Lennox, Carrier, and Spire commented that DOE's analysis ignores the logical behavior of consumers when purchasing residential furnace products. (Lennox, No. 299 at p. 5; Carrier, No. 302 at p. 4; Spire, No. 309-1 at pp. 5-6) Additionally, Lennox commented that based on U.S. contractor survey data, factors such as installation difficulty, high first cost, or the diminishment of air conditioning performance in regions with milder climates drive consumers to the most economical decision, which in many cases is an 80-percent AFUE NWGF. (Lennox, No. 299 at p. 6) SoCalGas expressed concern that DOE did not revise its model for assigning furnace efficiency in the no-new-standards case in accordance with stakeholder comments on the NOPR and NODA. (SoCalGas, No. 304-3 at p. 5) The City of Rocky Mount, Austin Utilities, Gas Authority, Dickson Gas, and the Jefferson Cocke Utility District stated that the random assignment of furnace efficiency in the no-new-standards case, rather than relying on economic decision making, produces irrational outcomes. (City of Rocky Mount, No. 254 at p. 2; Austin Utilities, No. 255 at p. 1; Gas Authority, No. 256 at pp. 1-2; Dickson Gas, No. 276 at p. 2; Jefferson Cocke Utility District, No. 289 at p. 2)
The GTI report on the (since withdrawn) September 2016 SNOPR submitted by APGA stated that the random assignment of furnace efficiency in the no-new-standards case does not consider any individual building's characteristics in a given region. (APGA, No. 292-2 at pp. 60-61) APGA argued that despite a disaggregation by region, there is still a misallocation of furnaces within a region on a building-specific basis as a result of DOE's failure to use economic decision-making to assign furnaces. (APGA, No. 292-1 at p. 21) Spire stated that despite randomly assigning the right percentage of condensing and non-condensing furnaces to each region, there remains a break in the link between consumer decision-making and individual economics. Spire stated that consumer behavior can be modeled in a way that reflects a degree of economic decision-making that would be reasonably consistent with observed consumer behavior, which GTI did in its analysis of the September 2016 SNOPR. (Spire, No. 309-1 at pp. 60-61) The GTI report on the September 2016 SNOPR submitted by APGA stated that the shipment projections only affect the number of impacted buildings on a per region and per building type basis, not the LCC savings per impacted building within a certain region and building type. For a given region and building type, the LCC savings per impacted building will be the same regardless of the condensing NWGF shipment projections. The report stated that the inherent result of the random assignment methodology is a finding of LCC savings in any region where LCC savings are present on average, whether or not the shipment projections include a very high or very low condensing NWGF market share in the no-new-standards case. (APGA, No. 292-2 at p. 61) APGA and AGA noted that the GTI report on the September 2016 SNOPR shows that it is possible to monetize non-economic factors to consumer decision making, including product
In contrast to the preceding comments, the Efficiency Advocates stated that, given the lack of data to incorporate economic and non-economic factors, DOE's current approach for assigning efficiency in the no-new-standards case is reasonable because DOE's approach is more likely to capture actual consumer behavior than a model that assumes all consumers are strictly rational economic actors. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 285 at p. 5)
Several stakeholders contended that DOE's decision to not use economic criteria in assigning furnace efficiency is at odds with its use of economic criteria in other parts of the analysis. AGA stated that DOE's assumption that, in the absence of a new standard, consumers will make random rather than at least somewhat rational economic decisions is in conflict with DOE's assumptions used for other LCC analysis and decision making algorithms. (AGA, No. 306-1 at p. 27) Spire stated that despite DOE's assumption that consumers never consider economics when purchasing NWGFs, DOE assumes for the purposes of its product switching analysis that consumers always consider both initial cost and payback economics in deciding whether to switch from a NWGF to an electric alternative. (Spire, No. 309-1 at p. 31) AHRI noted that DOE relies on a pure theory of competition, which is related to economically rational choice theory, to justify its use of incremental mark-ups; according to the commenter, DOE does not explain why it is appropriate to consider rational choice in this context but not when considering consumer behavior. (AHRI, No. 303 at p. 31) APGA stated that unavailability of perfect information on consumer behavior is not a valid reason for not using the available data to assign furnace efficiency, noting by contrast that DOE used available data in the consumer choice model underlying the product switching analysis. (APGA, No. 292-1 at p. 27) Lennox questioned what it understood as DOE's contradictory characterization of consumers—assuming when determining the appropriate discount rate that consumers have sufficient understanding to rebalance debt, yet when projecting consumer purchases of furnaces, assuming consumers do not include economic considerations. Lennox commented that DOE must articulate the basis for its seemingly contradictory assumptions regarding consumer behavior. (Lennox, No. 299 at p. 11) The GTI report on the September 2016 SNOPR submitted by APGA argued that DOE's assertion that a random approach to furnace efficiency assignment is as accurate as a methodology based solely on estimated cost-effectiveness is inconsistent with other parts of the LCC model that incorporate rational economic decisions by various stakeholders. (APGA, No. 292-2 at p. 67) APGA and AGA commented that even though DOE does not have site-specific information regarding product switching and downsizing, it still relied on “consumer choice” models that do not account for the potential illogical consumer behavior. (APGA, No. 292-1 at p. 26; AGA, No. 306-1 at pp. 23-24)
In response, for this NOPR, DOE continued to assign furnace efficiency to households in the no-new-standards case in two steps, first at the state level, then at the building-specific level. However, DOE's approach was modified to include other household characteristics. The market share of each efficiency level at the State level is based on historical shipments data (from the 2013-2020 HARDI data) and an estimated projection of trends between 2020 and the compliance year. The furnace efficiency distribution is then allocated to specific RECS households or CBECS, according to the market shares generated for each State. If a household is assigned a condensing furnace in the no-new-standards case, the replacement furnace is assumed to be condensing as well.
To assign the efficiency at the building-specific level, DOE carefully considered any available data that might improve assignment of furnace efficiency in the LCC analysis. First, DOE examined the 2013-2020 HARDI data of gas furnace input capacity by efficiency level and region. DOE did not find a significant correlation between input capacity and condensing furnace market share in a given region, a correlation which might be expected
While DOE acknowledges that economic factors may play a role when consumers, commercial building owners, or builders decide on what type of furnace to install, assignment of furnace efficiency for a given installation, based solely on economic measures such as life-cycle cost or simple payback period most likely would not fully and accurately reflect actual real-world installations. There are a number of market failures discussed in the economics literature that illustrate how purchasing decisions with respect
First, consumers are motivated by more than simple financial trade-offs. There are consumers who are willing to pay a premium for more energy-efficient products because they are environmentally conscious.
The first of these market failures—the split-incentive or principal-agent problem—is likely to affect furnaces more than many other types of appliances. The principal-agent problem is a market failure that results when the consumer that purchases the equipment does not internalize all of the costs associated with operating the equipment. Instead, the user of the product, who has no control over the purchase decision, pays the operating costs. There is a high likelihood of split incentive problems in the case of rental properties where the landlord makes the choice of what furnace to install, whereas the renter is responsible for paying energy bills. In the LCC sample, 25.7 percent of households with a NWGF and 26.5 percent of households with a MHGF are renters. These fractions are significantly higher for low-income households (see section IV.I.1 of this document). In new construction, builders influence the type of furnace used in many homes but do not pay operating costs. Finally, contractors install a large share of furnaces in replacement situations, and they can exert a high degree of influence over the type of furnace purchased.
In addition to the split-incentive problem, there are other market failures that are likely to affect the choice of furnace efficiency made by consumers. Davis and Metcalf
In part because of the way information is presented, and in part because of the way consumers process information, there is also a market failure consisting of a systematic bias in the perception of equipment energy usage, which can affect consumer choices. Attari, Krantz, and Weber
These market failures affect a sizeable share of the consumer population. A study by Houde
There are market failures relevant to furnaces installed in commercial
First, a recognized problem in commercial settings is the principal-agent problem, where the building owner (or building developer) selects the equipment and the tenant (or subsequent building owner) pays for energy costs.
Second, the nature of the organizational structure and design can influence priorities for capital budgeting, resulting in choices that do not necessarily maximize profitability.
Stole, L.A., and Zwiebel, J. (1996). “Organizational design and technology choice under intrafirm bargaining,”
Takahashi, M. and Asano, H. (2007). “Energy Use Affected by Principal-Agent Problem in Japanese Commercial Office Space Leasing,” In
Visser, E. and Harmelink, M. (2007). “The Case of Energy Use in Commercial Offices in the Netherlands,” In
Bjorndalen, J. and Bugge, J. (2007). “Market Barriers Related to Commercial Office Space Leasing in Norway,” In
Schleich, J. (2009). “Barriers to energy efficiency: A comparison across the German commercial and services sector,”
Muthulingam, S., et al. (2013). “Energy Efficiency in Small and Medium-Sized Manufacturing Firms,”
Boyd, G.A., Curtis, E.M. (2014). “Evidence of an `energy management gap' in US manufacturing: Spillovers from firm management practices to energy efficiency,”
Third, there are asymmetric information and other potential market failures in financial markets in general, which can affect decisions by firms with regard to their choice among alternative investment options, with energy efficiency being one such option.
Cummins, J.G., Hassett, K.A., Hubbard, R.G., Hall, R.E., and Caballero, R.J. (1994). “A reconsideration of investment behavior using tax reforms as natural experiments,”
DeCanio, S.J., and Watkins, W.E. (1998). “Investment in energy efficiency: do the characteristics of firms matter?”
Hubbard R.G. and Kashyap A. (1992). “Internal Net Worth and the Investment Process: An Application to U.S. Agriculture,”
Jollands, N., Waide, P., Ellis, M., Onoda, T., Laustsen, J., Tanaka, K., and Meier, A. (2010). “The 25 IEA energy efficiency policy recommendations to the G8 Gleneagles Plan of Action,”
In sum, the commercial and industrial sectors face many market failures that can result in an under-investment in energy efficiency. This means that discount rates implied by hurdle rates
The existence of market failures in the residential and commercial sectors is well supported by the economics literature and by a number of case studies. If DOE developed an efficiency distribution that assigned furnace efficiency in the no-new-standards case solely according to energy use or economic considerations such as life-cycle cost or payback period, the resulting distribution of efficiencies within the building sample would not reflect any of the market failures or behavioral factors above. DOE thus concludes such a distribution would not be representative of the furnace market. Further, even if a specific household/building/organization is not subject to the market failures above, the purchasing decision of furnace efficiency can be highly complex and influenced by a number of factors not captured by the building characteristics available in the RECS or CBECS samples. These factors can lead to households or building owners choosing a furnace efficiency that deviates from the efficiency predicted using only energy use or economic considerations such as life-cycle cost or payback period (as calculated using the information from RECS 2015 or CBECS 2012). However, DOE intends to investigate this issue further, and it welcomes suggestions as to how it might improve its assignment of furnace efficiency in its analyses.
The estimated market shares for the no-new-standards case for NWGFs and MHGFs in 2029 are shown in Table IV.14 and Table IV.15 of this document, respectively. See chapter 8 and appendix 8I of the NOPR TSD for further information on the derivation of the efficiency distributions.
DOE also estimated no-new-standards case efficiency distributions for furnace standby mode and off mode power. As shown in Table IV.16 of this document, DOE estimated that 66 percent of the affected market for NWGFs and 32 percent of the affected market for MHGFs would be at the baseline level in 2029, according to data from 18 furnace models from a field study conducted in Wisconsin
DOE analyzed potential separate energy conservation standards for small and large NWGFs and MHGFs, with varying capacity thresholds for a small NWGF or MHGF. The examined thresholds had a maximum input rate that ranged from less than or equal to 40 kBtu/h to 100 kBtu/h, which were assessed in 5 kBtu/h increments.
DOE assigned an input capacity to existing furnaces based on data from RECS 2015 and CBECS 2012. It is common industry practice to oversize furnaces to ensure that they can meet the house heating load in extreme temperature conditions. Under a scenario which envisions a separate energy conservation standard for small NWGFs and MHGFs set at a level which does not require condensing technology, DOE expects that some consumers who would otherwise install a typically-oversized furnace
DOE identified households from the NWGF and MHGF sample that might downsize at each of the considered standard levels. In identifying these households, DOE first determined whether a household would install a non-condensing furnace with an input
DOE has found that the available data regarding oversizing of furnaces in the existing stock indicate that an average oversizing in past installations of 70 percent is likewise reasonable.
AHRI stated that DOE severely overestimated the number of consumers who would downsize their NWGF to avoid the higher cost of a condensing NWGF. AHRI argued that DOE's downsizing estimate is speculation, unsupported by historical shipment data or any documented field study. (AHRI, No. 303 at p. 16) Consequently, AHRI urged DOE to be much more conservative in its downsizing analysis because if the downsizing estimates are incorrect, the proposed rule will harm many more consumers and negatively affect the industry. (AHRI, September 2016 SNOPR Public Meeting Transcript, No. 243 at pp. 145-146) Ingersoll Rand likewise argued that the oversizing factor is limited in practice to 40 percent and, therefore, that DOE's downsizing approach substantially overestimates the number of consumers that would be able to install a lower capacity furnace, resulting in an underestimation of the percentage of consumers who would experience an increased cost due to the new standard. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 297 at p. 10) Rheem similarly stated that it is not reasonable to assume that the primary heating source will be downsized. In Rheem's experience, consumers and installers are reluctant to risk an investment in a replacement NWGF that may not provide adequate heat in extreme weather conditions or allow for quick recovery from their thermostat setback (
Lennox strongly disagreed with DOE's assumption that a significant shift in furnace sizing would occur with an 80-percent AFUE standard for small NWGFs. Lennox stated that NWGFs are sized to meet the heat load of the home according to local climate conditions; therefore, consumers and contractors are not expected to shift their sizing practices, as downsizing equipment creates the risk of not providing adequate heat to the dwelling. (Lennox, No. 299 at p. 30) Lennox stated that DOE used a flawed downsizing methodology without any market data to support the agency's assumption. Lennox stated that DOE failed to mention the negative impacts of downsizing, such as a loss of utility, consumer comfort, and a shortened life of the furnace due to an increase in operating time, as well as the need for consumers to supplement their heating needs in extreme conditions with less-efficient options than the use of a properly-sized NWGF. (Lennox, No. 299 at p. 18) Along these same lines, Goodman stated that downsizing would occur for only a small percentage of applications. (Goodman, No. 308 at p. 10) The GTI report on the September 2016 SNOPR submitted by APGA stated that DOE's downsizing decision approach ignores other utility functions of a furnace and the range of consumer risk tolerances regarding known variability in design calculations and accommodation of their own behavior. (APGA, No. 292-2 at p. 68) Spire stated that NWGFs must be oversized to be able to satisfy peak heating demands; encouraging downsizing would leave many low-income consumers desperate to minimize initial costs with NWGFs that are inadequate to meet their peak heating needs. Spire commented that DOE has not analyzed the loss of utility downsizing would impose on consumers. (Spire, No. 309-1 at pp. 46-47)
In contrast, the Efficiency Advocates stated that data from RECS 2009 imply that a 55,000 Btu/h or even a 50,000 Btu/h NWGF would be sufficient for many households. Based on this analysis, the Efficiency Advocates stated that DOE's assumption of downsizing to an oversize factor of 35 percent is reasonable and might even be too conservative, as they would expect some furnaces to be downsized even more to take advantage of the 80-percent AFUE standard for small NGWFs. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 285 at p. 3) NEAA stated that downsizing as a result of a separate standard for small NWGFs is logical. (NEEA, September 2016 SNOPR Public Meeting Transcript, No. 243 at p. 158)
In response to these comments, DOE continues to expect that in the case of an energy conservation standard that allows small furnaces to use non-condensing technology, some consumers would have a financial incentive to downsize their furnace. Even without oversizing, a furnace installation should be designed to handle dry-bulb temperatures that will occur 99 percent of the time. Therefore, handling nearly all extreme conditions is already accounted for when selecting the unit, so a 35-percent oversizing should provide ample allowance for the most extreme conditions that might occur. Thus, DOE reasons that there would be no loss of utility or comfort under DOE's proposed approach. DOE acknowledges that there could be cases where downsizing might not be advantageous. Therefore, for this NOPR, DOE assumed that not all consumers
AHRI requested that DOE analyze the alternative concept of separate standard levels for small and large mobile home gas furnaces for the same purpose of minimizing these potential negative outcomes, as was done for NWGFs. (AHRI, No. 202, p. 18) For this NOPR, DOE analyzed the potential for similar separate energy conservation standards for small and large MHGFs, as it did for NWGFs.
Goodman stated that the rational downsizing methodology is inconsistent with the random furnace sizing methodology and furnace efficiency assignment in the no-new-standards case. (Goodman, No. 308 at p. 10) In response, DOE notes that the furnace efficiency assignment in the no-new-standards case methodology has been revised for this NOPR to include some economic criteria (see section IV.F.9.c of this document).
The estimated degree of downsizing anticipated in the case of a non-condensing standard for small NWGFs and MHGFs is presented in Table IV.17 under the criteria of various “small furnace” definitions. For further details regarding this downsizing methodology, see appendix 8M of the TSD for this NOPR. This appendix also presents sensitivity analysis results.
DOE considered the potential for a standard level to impact the choice between various types of heating products, for residential new construction, new owners, and the replacement of existing products. Because home builders are sensitive to the initial cost of heating equipment, a standard level that significantly increases purchase price may induce some builders to switch to a different heating product than they would have otherwise installed in the no-new-standards case. Such an amended standard level may also induce some homeowners to replace their existing furnace at the end of its useful life with a different type of heating product.
DOE developed a consumer choice model to estimate the switching response of builders and homeowners in residential installations to potential amended AFUE standards for NWGFs. DOE analyzed product switching scenarios that represent the most common combinations of space conditioning and water heating products. The model considers three options available for each sample home when installing a heating product: (1) a NWGF that meets a particular standard level, (2) a heat pump, or (3) an electric furnace. In addition, for situations in which installation of a condensing furnace would leave an “orphaned” gas water heater requiring costly re-venting, the model allows for the option to purchase an electric water heater as an alternative. For option 2, DOE took into consideration the age of the existing central air conditioner, if one exists. If the existing air conditioner is not very old, it is unlikely that the consumer would opt to install a heat pump, which can also provide cooling.
The consumer choice model calculates the PBP between the higher-efficiency NWGF in each standards case compared to the electric heating options using the total installed cost and first-year operating cost for each sample household or building. The operating costs take into account the space heating load and the water heating load for each household, as well as the energy prices over the lifetime of the available product options.
DOE used updated CAC and heat pump prices from the 2016 CAC and heat pump final rule,
The decision criterion in DOE's model was based on proprietary survey data from Decision Analyst, collected from four separate surveys conducted between 2006 and 2019.
The consumer choice model calculates the PBP between the condensing NWGF in each standards case compared to the electric heating options using the total installed cost and first-year operating cost as estimated for each sample household or building. For switching to occur, the total installed cost of the electric option must be less than the NWGF standards case option. The model assumes that a consumer will switch to an electric heating option if the PBP of the condensing NWGF relative to the electric heating option is greater than 3.5 years or the PBP relative to the electric heating option is negative.
DOE acknowledges that the consumer survey data it used to determine the switching criterion do not directly address the consumer choice to switch heating fuels, but because the data reflect a trade-off between first cost and ongoing savings, it is reasonable to expect that the payback criterion is broadly reflective of the potential consumer behavior regarding switching. Furthermore, the fuel switching results from DOE's analysis match the overall findings from the GTI Fuel Switching Study
DOE's analysis also takes into account propane NWGFs when considering product switching. For the proposed standard, the switching fraction of propane NWGF consumers is 15.1 percent, and the switching fraction of propane MHGF consumers is 17.6 percent.
The GTI report on the 2016 SNOPR submitted by APGA stated that the DOE product switching model should exclude product switching in cases where there is a first-cost advantage for the electric technology when comparing to an 80-percent AFUE NWGF, as well as when there is an operating cost advantage for the electric technology compared to the proposed TSL for NWGFs. According to the comment, these cases would likely cause product switching without an amended rule and would be considered as “No Impact” cases when using Consumer Economic Decision criteria proposed by GTI. GTI contends that DOE's approach results in overstated LCC savings compared to rational product switching under a Consumer Economic Decision framework methodology. (APGA, No. 292-2 at p. 25) In response, for the 2016 September SNOPR, DOE's product switching methodology was primarily dependent on a first-cost comparison between an alternative electric option and the standards-compliant NWGF option. As a result, DOE estimated that switching could occur when the first cost of an alternative electric option is lower than the baseline NWGF (80 percent AFUE) and the operating cost of the alternative electric option is less than the standards-compliant NWGF option. For this NOPR, DOE adopted a more conservative approach and excluded these households from the product switching methodology.
For the September 2016 SNOPR (since withdrawn), DOE concluded that fuel switching would be unlikely for MHGFs. 81 FR 65720, 65793 (Sept. 23, 2016).
Nortek and MHI stated that DOE must consider product switching in the MHGF market. (Nortek, No. 300 at p. 3; MHI, No. 282 at p. 1) Nortek and MHI stated that the proposed rule will lead to increased switching from MHGFs to less-efficient electric heating options
For this NOPR, DOE added product switching in its analysis for MHGFs. The MHGF product switching methodology is similar to the product switching methodology for NWGFs, except that there is no switching from gas storage water heaters to electric storage water heaters, since MHGFs and gas storage water heaters do not share common vents. See appendix 8J of the TSD for this NOPR for more details regarding the product switching model for MHGFs.
Several stakeholders commented that when facing the costly installation of a condensing furnace, consumers will likely delay the replacement of their existing furnace by repairing it to extend the lifetime. (ACCA, No. 265 at p. 2; HARDI, No. 271 at p. 3; Carrier, No. 302 at pp. 4-6; PGW, No. 273 at p. 4; SoCalGas, No. 304-3 at p. 5; Rheem, No. 307 at pp. 14, 15; Goodman, No. 308 at pp. 11-12; AHRI, No. 303 at pp. 7-9; Lennox, No. 299 at pp. 16-17, Multifamily Associations, No. 260 at p. 2) AHRI stated that DOE has not provided a reasoned basis for excluding the repair option, other than the difficulty of including the potential for repair in the consumer choice model DOE is currently using. AHRI characterized this as an arbitrary and unsupported decision, particularly since in other rulemakings, DOE has taken a very different approach. (AHRI, No. 303 at pp. 7-9) Lennox offered a similar comment. (Lennox, No. 299 at pp. 16-17) Carrier stated that DOE did not analyze the repair vs. replace option, disregarding stakeholders' comments that increased product and installation costs will drive up the frequency of both product switching and repair. (Carrier, No. 302 at pp. 4-6) SoCalGas recommended that DOE should account for extended repairs, as this may be the most economical option for some retrofit consumers who need a NWGF with a capacity above the small NWGF threshold but for whom switching to electric products would be expensive. (SoCalGas, No. 304-3 at p. 5) Goodman stated that the majority of respondents to an HVAC survey conducted by Parks Associates would replace a system if the repair cost is half the total cost of new equipment. (Goodman, No. 308 at pp. 11-12) Rheem commented that homeowners will most likely repair an old furnace and replace components for as long as possible before switching products. (Rheem, No. 307 at p. 15) Spire stated that according to informal interviews it conducted with Canadian gas utilities, many homeowners have continued repairing their older, lower-efficiency NWGFs to avoid having to replace them with condensing NWGFs. (Spire, No. 309-1 at p. 17) The Multifamily Associations stated that rather than replace an aging, inefficient NWGF with a new, efficient model, multifamily property owners will typically repair the existing NWGF. (Multifamily Associations, No. 260 at p. 2)
In contrast, the Efficiency Advocates stated that few contractors will repair major malfunctions, such as a failed heat exchanger or failed air handler, because the repair costs are a large percentage of the purchase price of a new unit. They also commented that very few consumers will make a major investment in a repair when such repair cost is a large percentage of a new unit's cost. The Efficiency Advocates noted that Canada has had a condensing furnace standard for several years without reporting a substantial increase in repairs. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 285 at p. 4)
For this NOPR, DOE added a repair option into its consumer choice model. Because repair is likely to be considered first by consumers facing furnace replacement, DOE evaluated this option before the product switching options.
To estimate the fraction of consumers in a standards case that would choose to repair their existing furnace rather than replace it or switch to an alternative product, DOE used a price elasticity parameter, which relates the incremental total installed cost to total gas furnace shipments, and an efficiency elasticity parameter, which relates the change in the operating cost to gas furnace shipments. Both types of elasticity relate changes in demand to changes in the corresponding characteristic (price or efficiency). A regression analysis estimated these terms separately from each other and found that the price elasticity of demand for several appliances is on average -0.45.
The payback period is the amount of time it takes the consumer to recover the additional installed cost of more-efficient products, compared to baseline products, through energy cost savings. Payback periods are expressed in years.
The inputs to the PBP calculation for each efficiency level are the change in total installed cost of the product and the change in the first-year annual operating expenditures relative to the baseline. The PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis, except that discount rates are not needed.
As noted previously in section III.E.2 of this document, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered efficiency level, DOE determined the value of the first year's energy savings by calculating the energy savings in accordance with the applicable DOE test procedure, and multiplying those savings by the average energy price projection for the year in which compliance with the amended or new standards would be required.
DOE uses projections of annual product shipments to calculate the national impacts of potential amended or new energy conservation standards on energy use, net present value (“NPV”), and future manufacturer cash flows.
DOE developed shipment projections based on historical data and an analysis of key market drivers for each product. DOE estimated NWGF and MHGF shipments by projecting shipments in three market segments: (1) replacement of existing consumer furnaces; (2) new housing; and (3) new owners in buildings that did not previously have a NWGF or MHGF or existing NWGF or MHGF owners that are adding an additional consumer furnace.
DOE assembled historical shipments data for NWGFs and MHGFs from Appliance Magazine for 1954-2012,
As stated previously, DOE estimated NWGF and MHGF shipments by projecting shipments in three market segments: (1) replacement of existing furnaces; (2) new housing; and (3) new owners in buildings that did not previously have a NWGF or MHGF or existing NWGF or MHGF owners that are adding an additional consumer furnace. These projections reflect equipment switching that is occurring without standards and additions to homes without central heating.
To project furnace replacement shipments, DOE developed retirement functions from furnace lifetime estimates and applied them to the existing products in the housing stock, which are tracked by vintage. DOE calculated replacement shipments using historical shipments and the lifetime estimates (average 21.4 years). In addition, DOE adjusted replacement shipments by taking into account demolitions, using the estimated changes to the housing stock from
To project shipments to the new housing market, DOE utilized a forecast of new housing construction and historic saturation rates of furnaces in new housing. DOE used the
To project shipments to the new owners market, DOE estimated the new owners based on the residual shipments from the calculated replacement and new construction shipments compared to historical shipments in the last 5 years (2016-2020 for this NOPR). DOE compared this with data from Decision Analysts' 2002 to 2019 American Home Comfort Study,
Table IV.18 shows the fraction of shipments for the replacement, new construction, and new owner markets. See chapter 9 for more details on the shipments analysis.
Assumptions regarding future policies encouraging electrification of households (such as in the states of California, Maryland, Washington, New York) or electric heating that decrease furnace shipments are speculative at this time, so such policies were not incorporated into the shipments projection. In regards to the proposed California 2016 AQMP,
DOE applied the consumer choice model described in section IV.F.12 of this document to estimate the impact on NWGF shipments of product switching that may be incentivized by potential standards. The options available to each sample household or building are to purchase and install: (1) the NWGF that meets a particular standard level, (2) a heat pump, or (3) an electric furnace.
As applied in the LCC and PBP analyses, the consumer choice model considers product prices in the compliance year and energy prices over the lifetime of products installed in that year. The shipments model considers the switching that might occur in each year of the analysis period (2029-2058). To do so, DOE estimated the switching in the first year of the analysis period (2029) and derived trends from 2029 to 2058. First, DOE applied the NWGF product price trend described in section IV.F.2 of this document to project prices in 2058. DOE used the appropriate energy prices over the lifetime of products installed in each year.
In the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE did not include the option of repairing rather than replacing the furnace or switching to a heat pump or electric furnace in the consumer choice model described in section IV.F.12 of this document.
Ingersoll Rand stated that not considering the option of consumers repairing rather than replacing a failed NWGF leads to overestimating the NES and NPV impacts of the proposed standards. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 297 at pp. 6, 12)
As discussed in IV.F.12, for this NOPR, DOE estimated a fraction of both NWGF and MHGF replacement installations that choose to repair their equipment, rather than replace their equipment or switch to a heat pump or electric furnace, in the new standards case. The approach captures not only a decrease in NWGF and MHGF replacement shipments, but also the energy use from continuing to use the existing furnace and the cost of the repair. DOE assumes that the demand for space heating is inelastic and, therefore, that no household or commercial building will forgo either repairing or replacing their equipment (either with a new NWGF of MHGF or a suitable space-heating alternative).
Because measures to limit standby mode and off mode energy use have a very small impact on the total installed cost and do not impact consumer utility, and thus have a minimal effect on consumer purchase decisions, DOE assumed that NWGF and MHGF shipments in the no-new-standards case would be unaffected by new standby mode and off mode standards.
For details on DOE's shipments analysis, product and fuel switching, and the repair option, see chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD.
The NIA assesses NES and the national NPV from a national perspective of total consumer costs and savings that would be expected to result from new or amended standards at specific efficiency levels.
DOE evaluates the impacts of new or amended standards by comparing a case without such standards with standards-case projections. The no-new-standards case characterizes energy use and consumer costs for each product class in the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards. For this projection, DOE considers historical trends in efficiency and various forces that are likely to affect the mix of efficiencies over time. DOE compares the no-new-standards case with projections characterizing the market for each product class if DOE adopted new or amended standards at specific energy efficiency levels (
DOE uses a spreadsheet model to calculate the energy savings and the national consumer costs and savings from each TSL.
Table IV.19 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA analysis for this NOPR. Discussion of these inputs and methods follows the table. See chapter 10 of the TSD for this NOPR for further details.
A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency projected for the no-new-standards case and each of the standards cases. Section IV.F.10 of this document describes how DOE developed an energy efficiency distribution for the no-new-standards case for each of the considered product classes for the year of anticipated compliance with an amended or new standard (2029). To project the trend in efficiency absent amended standards for NWGFs and MHGFs over the entire shipments projection period, DOE extrapolated the historical trends in efficiency that were described in section IV.F.10 of this document. These trends are based on industry shipment data from AHRI and HARDI and include a near 100 percent saturation of condensing furnaces in the North region. For this NOPR, DOE estimated that the national market share of condensing products would grow from 58 percent in 2029 to 62 percent by 2058 for NWGFs, and from 31 percent to 43 percent for MHGFs. The market shares of the different condensing efficiency levels (
Lennox stated that DOE underestimated the market share of condensing NWGFs in the absence of standards, which results in the energy savings of the proposed rule being overstated by taking credit for energy savings from condensing NWGFs that would already be purchased without amended standards. (Lennox, No. 299 at p. 7)
DOE agrees that there is some uncertainty associated with estimating of condensing furnace shipments in the future. As stated in section IV.F.10 of this document, DOE's methodology is based on the latest available data. DOE developed for this NOPR a sensitivity analysis that captures some of this uncertainty. The scenario resulting in significant lower condensing shipment projections does not change the conclusion that the proposed standards are economically justified (see appendix 10E of the TSD for this NOPR for the condensing shipments projection comparison, NES, and NPV results).
To reduce the uncertainty associated with shipment projections for this product class, DOE requests data for shipments of condensing furnaces.
For the standards cases, DOE used a “roll-up” scenario to establish the shipment-weighted efficiency for the year that standards are assumed to become effective (2029). In this scenario, the market shares of products in the no-new-standards case that do not meet the standard under consideration would “roll up” to meet the new standard level, and the market share of products above the standard would remain unchanged. In the standards case with a 90-percent AFUE national standard, DOE estimated that many consumers will purchase a 92-percent AFUE NWGF rather than a 90-percent AFUE furnace because the extra installed cost is minimal, and the market has already moved significantly toward the 92-percent level. To develop standards case efficiency trends after 2029, DOE estimated growth in shipment-weighted efficiency in the standards cases, except in the max-tech standards case.
DOE did not have a basis on which to predict a change in efficiency trend for standby mode and off mode energy use, so DOE assumed that the efficiency distribution would not change after the first year of compliance.
The national energy savings analysis involves a comparison of national energy consumption of the considered products between each potential trial standards case (“TSL”) and the case with no new or amended energy conservation standards. DOE calculated the national energy consumption by multiplying the number of units (stock) of each product (by vintage or age) by the unit energy consumption (also by vintage). DOE calculated annual NES based on the difference in national energy consumption for the no-new-standards case and for each higher efficiency standard case. DOE estimated energy consumption and savings based on site energy and converted the electricity consumption and savings to primary energy (
The per-unit annual energy use is adjusted with the building shell improvement index, which results in a decline of 3 percent in the heating load from 2029 to 2058, and the climate index, which results in a decline of 9 percent in the heating load. Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the NES for each year over the timeframe of the analysis.
DOE incorporated a rebound effect for NWGFs and MHGFs by reducing the site energy savings (and the associated FFC energy savings) in each year by 15 percent. However, for commercial applications DOE applied no rebound effect in order to be consistent with other recent standards rulemakings (see section IV.F.4 of this document).
In the standards cases, there are fewer shipments of NWGFs or MHGFs compared to the no-new-standards case because of product switching and repair vs. replaced, but there are additional shipments of heat pumps, electric furnaces, and electric water heaters. DOE incorporated the per-unit annual energy use of the heat pumps and electric furnaces that was calculated in
In 2011, in response to the recommendations of a committee on “Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy Efficiency Standards” appointed by the National Academy of Sciences, DOE announced its intention to use FFC measures of energy use and greenhouse gas and other emissions in the national impact analyses and emissions analyses included in future energy conservation standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, DOE published a statement of amended policy in which DOE explained its determination that EIA's NEMS is the most appropriate tool for its FFC analysis and its intention to use NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public domain, multi-sector, partial equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector
The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits experienced by consumers are: (1) total annual installed cost, (2) total annual operating costs (energy costs and repair and maintenance costs), and (3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and savings. DOE calculates net savings each year as the difference between the no-new-standards case and each standards case in terms of total savings in operating costs versus total increases in installed costs. DOE calculates operating cost savings over the lifetime of each product shipped during the projection period.
As discussed in section IV.F.2 of this document, DOE developed NWGF and MHGF price trends based on historical PPI data. DOE applied the same trends to project prices for each product class at each considered efficiency level. DOE's projection of product prices is described in appendix 10C of the NOPR TSD.
To evaluate the effect of uncertainty regarding the price trend estimates, DOE investigated the impact of different product price projections on the consumer NPV for the considered TSLs for NWGFs and MHGFs. In addition to the default price trend, DOE considered two product price sensitivity cases: (1) a high price decline case based on PPI data from 2015-2020 and (2) a constant price trend case. The derivation of these price trends and the results of these sensitivity cases are described in appendix 10C of the NOPR TSD.
As described in section IV.H.2 of this document, DOE assumed a 15-percent rebound from an increase in utilization of the product arising from the increase in efficiency (
The operating cost savings are energy cost savings, which are calculated using the estimated energy savings in each year and the projected price of the appropriate form of energy. To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the average regional energy prices by the projection of annual national-average residential energy price changes in the Reference case from
In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future years by a discount factor to determine their present value. For this NOPR, DOE estimated the NPV of consumer benefits using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent real discount rate. DOE uses these discount rates in accordance with guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory analysis.
In analyzing the potential impact of new or amended energy conservation standards on consumers, DOE evaluates the impact on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be disproportionately affected by a new or amended national standard. The purpose of a subgroup analysis is to determine the extent of any such disproportional impacts. DOE evaluates impacts on particular subgroups of consumers by analyzing the LCC impacts and PBP for those particular consumers from alternative standard levels. For this NOPR, DOE analyzed the impacts of the considered standard levels on two subgroups: (1) low-income households and (2) senior-only households. The analysis used subsets of the RECS 2015 sample composed of households that meet the criteria for the considered subgroups. DOE used the LCC and PBP spreadsheet model to estimate the impacts of the considered efficiency levels on these subgroups. Chapter 11 in the NOPR TSD describes the consumer subgroup analysis.
Low-income households are significantly more likely to be renters or live in subsidized housing units, compared to home owners. DOE notes that in these cases the landlord purchases the equipment and may pay the gas bill as well. RECS 2015 includes data on whether a household pays for the gas bill, allowing DOE to categorize households appropriately in the analysis.
The majority of low-income households that experience a net cost at TSL 8 are homeowner households, as opposed to renters. These households either have a smaller capacity NWGF or MHGF, or a lower building heating load due to the local climate, such that the reduction in operating costs does not offset the higher total installed cost of a higher-efficiency furnace. Unlike renters, homeowners would bear the full cost of installing a new furnace. For these households, a potential rebate program to reduce the total installed costs would be effective in lowering the percentage of low-income consumers with a net cost. DOE understands that the landscape of low-income consumers with a furnace may change before the compliance date of amended energy conservation standards, if finalized. For example, point-of-sale rebate programs are being considered that may moderate the impact on low-income consumers to help offset the total installed cost of a condensing furnace, particularly given the lower total installed cost of smaller capacity NWGFs and MHGFs, or offset the costs of switching to an electric heating systems. Currently, DOE is noticing State or utility program rebates in the Northeast, for example, that support additional heat pump deployment as a result of decarbonization policy goals. Point-of-sale rebates or weatherization programs could also reduce the total number of low-income consumers that would be impacted because the household no longer has a furnace to upgrade. DOE is particularly interested in seeking comment around the landscape of heating replacements leading up to 2029, which may impact the low-income consumer economics being presented and considered in this proposed rulemaking.
Measures of energy insecurity provide another accounting of the number of households that are affected by cost changes due to rules for heating equipment energy efficiency in addition to the senior-only and low-income categories used by DOE in this analysis. Energy insecurity in the 2020 RECS quantifies the households reporting one or more of the metrics for energy insecurity, including that they that are foregoing basic necessities to pay for energy, and that they leave their home at an unhealthy temperature due to energy cost. The energy insecurity data are disaggregated by heating equipment type, income category, race, ethnicity, presence of children, presence of seniors, regional distribution, and ownership/rental status. DOE has determined that the energy insecure designation captures more households than the low-income and seniors-only categories used for distributional analysis. Similar PBP and net savings/net cost analysis applied to energy insecure households could result in larger impacts than for the categories DOE chose to analyze and may be more directly interpreted in terms of welfare changes that can be disaggregated by the factors already listed. DOE seeks comment on conducting distributional analysis for energy insecure households in addition to, or instead of, the low-income and seniors-only categories currently analyzed and described in the NOPR.
DOE performed an MIA to determine the financial impact of proposed new and amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers of NWGFs and MHGFs and to estimate the potential impacts of such standards on domestic direct employment, manufacturing capacity, and cumulative regulatory burden for those manufacturers. The MIA has both quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative part of the MIA includes analyses of forecasted industry cash flows to calculate the INPV, additional investments in research and development (“R&D”) and manufacturing capital necessary to comply with amended standards, and the potential impact on domestic manufacturing employment. Additionally, the MIA seeks to qualitatively determine how amended energy conservation standards might affect manufacturers' capacity and competition, as well as how standards contribute to manufacturers' overall regulatory burden. Finally, the MIA serves to identify any disproportionate
The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies on the GRIM,
The qualitative part of the MIA addresses manufacturer characteristics and market trends. Specifically, the MIA considers such factors as manufacturing capacity, competition within the industry, the cumulative regulatory burden of other Federal product-specific regulations, and impacts on manufacturer subgroups. The complete MIA is outlined in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
DOE conducted the MIA for this rulemaking in three phases. In the first phase of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of the NWGF and MHGF manufacturing industry based on the market and technology assessment and publicly available information. This included a top-down cost analysis of NWGF and MHGF manufacturers in order to derive preliminary financial inputs for the GRIM (
In the second phase of the MIA, DOE prepared a framework industry cash-flow analysis to quantify the potential impacts of new energy conservation standards. The GRIM uses several factors to determine a series of annual cash flows starting with the announcement of the standards and extending over a 30-year period following the compliance date of the standards. These factors include annual expected revenues, costs of sales, SG&A and R&D expenses, taxes, and capital expenditures. In general, energy conservation standards can affect manufacturer cash flow in three distinct ways: (1) create a need for increased investment; (2) raise production costs per unit; and (3) alter revenue due to higher per-unit prices and changes in sales volumes.
In addition, during the second phase, DOE developed interview guides to distribute to NWGF and MHGF manufacturers in order to develop other key GRIM inputs, including product and capital conversion costs, and to gather additional information on the potential impacts of amended energy conservation standards on revenue, direct employment, capital assets, industry competitiveness, and manufacturer subgroup impacts.
In the third phase of the MIA, DOE's contractor conducted structured, detailed interviews with NWGF and MHGF manufacturers. These interviews covered engineering, manufacturing, procurement, and financial topics to validate assumptions used in the GRIM. The interviews also solicited information about manufacturers' views of the industry as a whole and their key concerns regarding this rulemaking. DOE's contractor conducted manufacturer interviews for the withdrawn March 2015 NOPR. DOE's contractor conducted additional abridged interviews in October 2021 for the purposes of updating analyses.
Additionally, in the third phase, DOE evaluated subgroups of manufacturers that may be disproportionately impacted by amended standards or that may not be accurately represented by the average cost assumptions used to develop the industry cash-flow analysis. For example, small manufacturers, niche players, or manufacturers exhibiting a cost structure that largely differs from the industry average could be more negatively affected by amended energy conservation standards. The small business subgroup is discussed in section VI.B of this document, “Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act” and in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the changes in cash flows over time due to amended energy conservation standards. These changes in cash flows result in either a higher or lower INPV for the standards cases compared to the no-new-standards case. The GRIM analysis uses a standard annual cash flow analysis that incorporates manufacturer costs, manufacturer markups, shipments, and industry financial information as inputs. It then models changes in costs, investments, and manufacturer margins that result from new energy conservation standards. The GRIM calculates a series of annual cash flows beginning with the reference year of the analysis, 2022, and continuing to the terminal year of the analysis, 2058. DOE calculates INPV by summing the stream of annual discounted cash flows throughout the analysis period.
DOE used a real discount rate of 6.4 percent for NWGF and MHGF manufacturers. The discount rate estimate was derived from industry corporate annual reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC 10-Ks”) and then modified according to feedback received during manufacturer interviews. More information on the derivation of the manufacturers' discount rate can be found in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
Many GRIM inputs came from the engineering analysis, the NIA, manufacturer interviews, and other research conducted during the MIA. The major GRIM inputs are described in detail in the following sections.
For consideration of standby mode and off mode regulations, DOE modeled the impacts of the technology options for reducing electricity usage discussed in the engineering analysis (chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD). The GRIM analysis incorporates the increases in MPCs and changes in manufacturer markups into the results from the standby mode and off mode requirements. Due to the small cost of standby mode and off mode components relative to the overall cost of a NWGF or MHGF, DOE assumed that standby mode and off mode standards alone would not significantly impact product shipment numbers. DOE determined that the impacts of the
The GRIM results for both the AFUE standards and the standby mode and off mode standards are discussed in section V.B.2 of this document. Additional details about the GRIM, discount rate, and other financial parameters can be found in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
Manufacturing a higher-efficiency product is typically more expensive than manufacturing a baseline product due to the use of more complex components, which are typically more expensive than baseline components. The higher MPCs of more efficient products can affect revenue and gross margin, which will then affect the total volume of future shipments, and cash flows of NWGF and MHGF manufacturers. To calculate the MPCs for NWGFs and MHGFs at and above the baseline, DOE performed teardowns for representative units. The data generated from these analyses were then used to estimate the incremental materials, labor, depreciation, and overhead costs for products at each efficiency level. For a complete description of the MPCs, see chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
DOE used the GRIM to estimate industry revenues based on total unit shipment forecasts and the distribution of these values by efficiency level and product class. Changes in sales volumes and efficiency distribution can significantly affect manufacturer finances over the course of the analysis period. For this analysis, DOE used the NIA's annual shipment forecasts from 2022 (the reference year) to 2058 (the terminal year of the analysis period). In the shipments analysis, DOE estimates the distribution of efficiencies in the no-new-standards case and standards cases for all product classes. To account for a regional standard at TSL 4, shipment values in the GRIM are broken down by region, North and Rest of Country, for the NWGF and MHGF product classes.
The NIA assumes that product efficiencies in the no-new-standards case that do not meet the energy conservation standard in the standards case either “roll up” to meet the amended standard or switch to another product, such as a heat pump or electric furnace. In other words, the market share of products that are below the energy conservation standard is added to the market share of products at the minimum energy efficiency level allowed under each standard case. The market share of products above the energy conservation standard is assumed to be unaffected by the standard in the compliance year. For a complete description of the shipments analysis see section IV.G of this document and chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD.
Amended energy conservation standards could cause manufacturers to incur one-time conversion costs to bring their production facilities and product designs into compliance. DOE evaluated the level of conversion-related expenditures that would be required to comply with each analyzed efficiency level in each product class. For the MIA, DOE classified these conversion costs into two major groups: (1) capital conversion costs; and (2) product conversion costs. Capital conversion costs are one-time investments in property, plant, and equipment necessary to adapt or change existing production facilities such that new compliant product designs can be fabricated and assembled. Product conversion costs are one-time investments in research, development, testing, marketing, and other non-capitalized costs necessary to make product designs comply with amended energy conservation standards.
To evaluate the level of capital conversion expenditures manufacturers could incur to comply with amended AFUE energy conservation standards, DOE used manufacturer interviews to gather data on the anticipated level of capital investment that would be required at each efficiency level. Manufacturer data was aggregated to better reflect the industry as a whole and to protect confidential information. DOE then scaled up the capital conversion cost feedback from interviews to estimate total industry capital conversion costs.
DOE assessed the product conversion costs at each considered AFUE efficiency level by integrating data from quantitative and qualitative sources. DOE considered market-share weighted feedback regarding the potential costs at each efficiency level from multiple manufacturers to estimate product conversion costs. Manufacturer data was aggregated to better reflect the industry as a whole and to protect confidential information.
Industry conversion costs for the proposed AFUE standard total $149.0 million. It consists of $107.8 million in capital conversion costs and $41.2 in product conversion costs.
DOE calculated the conversion costs for the standby mode and off mode standards separately from the AFUE conversion costs. DOE anticipated that manufacturers would incur minimal capital conversion costs to comply with standby and off mode standards, as the engineering analysis indicates that all the design options that improve standby and off mode performance are component swaps which would not require new investments in production lines. However, the standby and off mode standards may require product conversion costs related to testing new components and component configurations as well as one-time updates to marketing materials. DOE estimated these product conversion costs based on the engineering analysis and feedback collected during manufacturer interviews. In general, DOE assumed that all conversion-related investments occur between the year of publication of a final rule and the compliance year. The conversion cost figures used in the GRIM for the proposed standby and off mode standard total $1.6 million. For additional information on the estimated capital and product conversion costs, see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
As discussed in section IV.C.2.e of this document, MSPs include manufacturer production costs and all non-production costs (
Under the preservation of gross margin percentage scenario, DOE applied a single uniform “gross margin percentage” across all efficiency levels, which assumes that following amended standards, manufacturers would be able to maintain the same amount of profit as a percentage of revenue at all efficiency levels within a product class. As production costs increase with efficiency, this scenario implies that the per-unit dollar profit will increase. Based on publicly-available financial information for NWGF and MHGF manufacturers, as well as comments from manufacturer interviews, DOE assumed average gross margin percentages of 25.3% for NWGFs and 21.3% for MHGF.
In the preservation of operating profit scenario, as the cost of production increases in the standards case, manufacturers reduce their manufacturer markups to a level that maintains per-unit operating profit in the year after the standard goes into effect. In this scenario, the industry maintains its operating profit in absolute dollars but not on a percentage basis. Manufacturer markups are set so that operating profit in the standards case is the same as in the no-new-standards case one year after the compliance date of the amended energy conservation standards. As a result, manufacturers are not able to earn additional operating profit from the increased production costs and the investments that are required to comply with amended standards. In percentage terms, the operating margin is reduced between the no-new-standards case and the standards cases. This scenario is the lower bound of the proposed standby mode and off mode standards.
DOE also modeled a tiered scenario, which reflects the industry's “good, better, best” pricing structure. DOE implemented the tiered markup scenario because several manufacturers stated in interviews that they offer multiple tiers of product lines that are differentiated, in part, by efficiency level. Manufacturers further noted that tiered pricing encompasses additional differentiators such as comfort features, brand, and warranty. To account for this nuance in the GRIM, DOE's tiered mark-up structure incorporates both AFUE and combustion systems (
Multiple manufacturers suggested that amended standards could lead to a compression of overall mark-ups and reduce the profitability of higher-efficiency products. During interviews, manufacturers provided information on the range of typical manufacturer mark-ups in the “good, better, best” tiers. DOE used this information to estimate manufacturer mark-ups for NWGFs and MHGFs under a tiered pricing strategy in the no-new-standards case. In the standards cases, DOE modeled the situation in which amended standards result in a reduction of product differentiation, compression of the mark-up tiers, and an overall reduction in profitability.
DOE contractors interviewed manufacturers representing approximately 65 percent of industry shipments. The information gathered during interviews enabled DOE to tailor the GRIM to reflect the unique characteristics of the gas-fired consumer furnace industry.
In interviews, DOE asked manufacturers to describe their major concerns regarding this rulemaking. The following section highlights manufacturer concerns that helped inform the projected potential impacts of an amended standard on the industry. Manufacturer interviews are conducted under non-disclosure agreements (“NDAs”), so DOE does not document these discussions in the same way that it does public comments.
Several manufacturers stated that, depending on the level of the amended energy conservation standard, gas-fired consumer furnaces may not be economically justified for certain consumers. These consumers may be forced to seek alternatives with lower up-front costs. Manufacturers expressed concern that consumers may opt to buy alternative products, such as heat pumps, water heater systems, or electric space heaters. Such substitutions could decrease shipments of gas-fired furnaces, which in turn would reduce industry revenue.
Multiple manufacturers noted that an energy conservation standard set above 80-percent AFUE would make it difficult for substantial portions of the install base to replace their existing consumer furnaces. They noted the potential for significant installation and home renovation costs when replacing non-condensing furnaces with condensing furnaces due to the challenges of managing condensate from furnaces with efficiencies above 80 percent AFUE.
During interviews, manufacturers agreed that if DOE set amended energy conservation standards too high, increased standards could limit their ability to differentiate consumer furnace products based on efficiency. As the standard approaches max-tech, manufacturers stated that there would be fewer performance differences and operating cost savings between baseline and premium products. They were concerned the drop in differentiation would lead to an erosion of manufacturer mark-ups (and profitability).
The emissions analysis consists of two components. The first component estimates the effect of potential energy conservation standards on power sector and site (where applicable) combustion emissions of CO
The analysis of electric power sector emissions of CO
Power sector emissions of CH
The on-site operation of certain consumer furnaces requires combustion of fossil fuels and results in emissions of CO
FFC upstream emissions, which include emissions from fuel combustion during extraction, processing, and transportation of fuels, and “fugitive” emissions (direct leakage to the atmosphere) of CH
The emissions intensity factors are expressed in terms of physical units per megawatt-hour (“MWh”) or million British thermal units (“MMBtu”) of site energy savings. For power sector emissions, specific emissions intensity factors are calculated by sector and end use. Total emissions reductions are estimated using the energy savings calculated in the national impact analysis.
DOE's no-new-standards case for the electric power sector reflects the
SO
However, beginning in 2016, SO
CSAPR also established limits on NO
The MATS limit mercury emissions from power plants, but they do not include emissions caps and, as such, DOE's energy conservation standards would be expected to slightly reduce Hg emissions. DOE estimated mercury emissions reduction using emissions factors based on
DOE welcomes any additional comments on the approach for
As part of the development of this proposed rule, for the purpose of complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866, DOE considered the estimated monetary benefits from the reduced emissions of CO
On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the Federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in
DOE estimates the monetized benefits of the reductions in emissions of CO
DOE estimated the global social benefits of CO
The SC-GHGs estimates presented here were developed over many years, using transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, the best science available at the time of that process, and with input from the public. Specifically, in 2009, the IWG, that included the DOE and other executive branch agencies and offices was established to ensure that agencies were using the best available science and to promote consistency in the social cost of carbon (SC-CO
On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13990, which re-established the IWG and directed it to ensure that the U.S. Government's estimates of the social cost of carbon and other greenhouse gases reflect the best available science and the recommendations of the National Academies (2017). The IWG was tasked with first reviewing the SC-GHG estimates currently used in Federal analyses and publishing interim estimates within 30 days of the E.O. that reflect the full impact of GHG emissions, including by taking global damages into account. The interim SC-GHG estimates published in February 2021 are used here to estimate the climate benefits for this proposed rulemaking. The E.O. instructs the IWG to undertake a fuller update of the SC-GHG estimates by January 2022 that takes into consideration the advice of the National Academies (2017) and other recent scientific literature.
The February 2021 SC-GHG TSD provides a complete discussion of the IWG's initial review conducted under E.O. 13990. In particular, the IWG found that the SC-GHG estimates used under E.O. 13783 fail to reflect the full impact of GHG emissions in multiple ways. First, the IWG found that the SC-GHG estimates used under E.O. 13783 fail to fully capture many climate impacts that affect the welfare of U.S. citizens and residents, and those impacts are better reflected by global measures of the SC-GHG. Examples of effects omitted from the E.O. 13783 estimates include direct effects on U.S. citizens, assets, and investments located abroad, supply chains, U.S. military assets and interests abroad, and tourism, and spillover pathways such as economic and political destabilization and global migration that can lead to adverse impacts on U.S. national security, public health, and humanitarian concerns. In addition, assessing the benefits of U.S. GHG mitigation activities requires consideration of how those actions may affect mitigation activities by other countries, as those international mitigation actions will provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and residents by mitigating climate impacts that affect U.S. citizens and residents. A wide range of scientific and economic experts have emphasized the issue of reciprocity as support for considering global damages of GHG emissions. If the United States does not consider impacts on other countries, it is difficult to convince other countries to consider the impacts of their emissions on the United States. The only way to achieve an efficient allocation of resources for emissions reduction on a global basis—and so benefit the U.S. and its citizens—is for all countries to base their policies on global estimates of damages. As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees with this assessment and, therefore, in this proposed rule DOE centers attention on a global measure of SC-GHG. This approach is the same as that taken in DOE regulatory analyses from 2012 through 2016. A robust estimate of climate damages that accrue only to U.S. citizens and residents does not currently exist in the literature. As explained in the February 2021 TSD, existing estimates are both incomplete and an underestimate of total damages that accrue to the citizens and residents of the U.S. because they do not fully capture the regional interactions and spillovers discussed above, nor do they include all of the important physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate change recognized in the climate change literature. As noted in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the IWG will continue to review developments in the literature, including more robust methodologies for estimating a U.S.-specific SC-GHG value, and explore ways to better inform the public of the full range of carbon impacts. As a member of the IWG, DOE will continue to follow developments in the literature pertaining to this issue.
Second, the IWG found that the use of the social rate of return on capital (7 percent under current OMB Circular A-4 guidance) to discount the future benefits of reducing GHG emissions inappropriately underestimates the impacts of climate change for the purposes of estimating the SC-GHG. Consistent with the findings of the National Academies (2017) and the economic literature, the IWG continued to conclude that the consumption rate of interest is the theoretically appropriate discount rate in an intergenerational context (IWG 2010, 2013, 2016a, 2016b),
Furthermore, the damage estimates developed for use in the SC-GHG are estimated in consumption-equivalent terms, and so an application of OMB Circular A-4's guidance for regulatory analysis would then use the consumption discount rate to calculate the SC-GHG. DOE agrees with this assessment and will continue to follow developments in the literature pertaining to this issue. DOE also notes that while OMB Circular A-4, as published in 2003, recommends using 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates as “default” values, Circular A-4 also reminds agencies that “different regulations may call for different emphases in the analysis, depending on the nature and complexity of the regulatory issues and the sensitivity of the benefit and cost estimates to the key assumptions.” On discounting, Circular A-4 recognizes that “special ethical considerations arise when comparing benefits and costs across generations,” and Circular A-4 acknowledges that analyses may appropriately “discount
As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees with this assessment and will continue to follow developments in the literature pertaining to this issue.
While the IWG works to assess how best to incorporate the latest, peer reviewed science to develop an updated set of SC-GHG estimates, it set the interim estimates to be the most recent estimates developed by the IWG prior to the group being disbanded in 2017. The estimates rely on the same models and harmonized inputs and are calculated using a range of discount rates. As explained in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the IWG has recommended that agencies revert to the same set of four values drawn from the SC-GHG distributions based on three discount rates as were used in regulatory analyses between 2010 and 2016 and subject to public comment. For each discount rate, the IWG combined the distributions across models and socioeconomic emissions scenarios (applying equal weight to each) and then selected a set of four values recommended for use in benefit-cost analyses: an average value resulting from the model runs for each of three discount rates (2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent), plus a fourth value, selected as the 95th percentile of estimates based on a 3 percent discount rate. The fourth value was included to provide information on potentially higher-than-expected economic impacts from climate change. As explained in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, and DOE agrees, this update reflects the immediate need to have an operational SC-GHG for use in regulatory benefit-cost analyses and other applications that was developed using a transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, and the science available at the time of that process. Those estimates were subject to public comment in the context of dozens of proposed rulemakings as well as in a dedicated public comment period in 2013.
There are a number of limitations and uncertainties associated with the SC-GHG estimates. First, the current scientific and economic understanding of discounting approaches suggests discount rates appropriate for intergenerational analysis in the context of climate change are likely to be less than 3 percent, near 2 percent or lower.
DOE's derivations of the SC-GHG (
The SC-CO
In calculating the potential global benefits resulting from reduced CO
DOE multiplied the CO
The SC-CH
DOE multiplied the CH
DOE estimated the monetized value of NO
DOE also estimated the monetized value of NO
DOE multiplied the site emissions reduction (in tons) in each year by the associated $/ton values, and then discounted each series using discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent as appropriate.
The utility impact analysis estimates several effects on the electric power generation industry that would result from the adoption of new or amended energy conservation standards. The utility impact analysis estimates the changes in installed electrical capacity and generation that would result for each TSL. The analysis is based on published output from the NEMS associated with
The output of this analysis is a set of time-dependent coefficients that capture the change in electricity generation, primary fuel consumption, installed capacity and power sector emissions due to a unit reduction in demand for a given end use. These coefficients are multiplied by the stream of electricity savings calculated in the NIA to provide estimates of selected utility impacts of potential new or amended energy conservation standards.
Energy efficiency can reduce utility fixed and variable costs (
As of February 2020, 26 states have approved revenue decoupling for one or more gas utilities. Several other states without revenue decoupling have approved lost revenue adjustment mechanisms (
The specific design of revenue decoupling mechanism varies across states and utilities, but the mechanisms share many common design elements, including adjustments to authorized revenue to account for growth in customers and “attrition.” These design elements ensure the utility fully recovers its fixed costs in years between rate cases and does not suffer loss of revenue. It is true that revenue decoupling does not insulate utilities from loss of customers. However, revenue decoupling does not alter underlying retail rate design that can be adjusted to limit fuel switching. Furthermore, loss of customers due to fuel switching is also dependent on the price of electricity as a substitute product and electric service rate design, factors that cannot be directly influenced by gas utilities.
The precise magnitude of impacts on utility revenues and customer retail rates, with or without revenue decoupling, lost revenue adjustment mechanisms, or straight-fixed variable rate design, depends on many factors. One of the most important drivers of financial impacts to utilities and ratepayers is the magnitude of energy savings, as the decline in retail sales drives both utility cost and revenue reductions. Similarly, the proportion of total utility costs that are fixed versus variable and the proportion of revenues that are based on volumetric sales also determine a significant portion of the magnitude of financial impacts. Given that many of these factors are utility-specific, it is difficult to ascertain the precise financial impacts on specific gas utilities, with or without revenue
DOE identified the States (or groups of States) where it estimated that more than 5 percent of customers installing a non-weatherized gas furnace in the compliance year would switch to electric heating as a result of the potential amended standard. Of these 14 States, five have approved revenue decoupling or a similar mechanism for one or more gas utilities as of February 2020 (see chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD for details). Based on its current understanding of revenue decoupling arrangements, DOE tentatively concludes that negative impacts on gas utilities in these States would be minimal. The States without revenue decoupling include Florida and Texas, States for which DOE estimates switching would affect approximately 15 percent of customers installing a gas furnace in the compliance year. For these and several other States,
DOE considers employment impacts in the domestic economy as one factor in selecting a standard. Employment impacts from new or amended energy conservation standards include both direct and indirect impacts. Direct employment impacts are any changes in the number of employees of manufacturers of the products subject to standards. The MIA addresses those impacts. Indirect employment impacts are changes in national employment that occur due to the shift in expenditures and capital investment caused by the purchase and operation of more-efficient appliances. Indirect employment impacts from standards consist of the net jobs created or eliminated in the national economy, other than in the manufacturing sector being regulated, caused by: (1) reduced spending by consumers on energy, (2) reduced spending on new energy supply by the utility industry, (3) increased consumer spending on the products to which the new standards apply and other goods and services, and (4) the effects of those three factors throughout the economy.
One method for assessing the possible effects on the demand for labor of such shifts in economic activity is to compare sector employment statistics developed by the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”). BLS regularly publishes its estimates of the number of jobs per million dollars of economic activity in different sectors of the economy, as well as the jobs created elsewhere in the economy by this same economic activity. Data from BLS indicate that expenditures in the utility sector generally create fewer jobs (both directly and indirectly) than expenditures in other sectors of the economy.
DOE estimated indirect national employment impacts for the standard levels considered in this NOPR using an input/output model of the U.S. economy called Impact of Sector Energy Technologies version 4 (“ImSET”).
DOE notes that ImSET is not a general equilibrium forecasting model, and understands the uncertainties involved in projecting employment impacts, especially changes in the later years of the analysis. Because ImSET does not incorporate price changes, the employment effects predicted by ImSET may over-estimate actual job impacts over the long run for this proposed rule. Therefore, DOE used ImSET only to generate results for near-term timeframes (2029-2034), where these uncertainties are reduced. For more details on the employment impact analysis, see chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD.
The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses with respect to the considered energy conservation standards for NWGFs and MHGFs. It addresses the TSLs examined by DOE, the projected impacts of each of these levels if adopted as energy conservation standards for NWGFs and MHGFs, and the standards levels that DOE is proposing in this NOPR. Additional details regarding DOE's analyses are contained in the TSD supporting this notice.
In general, DOE typically evaluates potential amended standards for products and equipment at the product class level and by grouping select individual efficiency levels for each class into TSLs. Use of TSLs allows DOE to identify and consider industry-level manufacturer cost interactions between the product classes, to the extent that there are such interactions, and national-level market cross-elasticity from consumer purchasing decisions that may change when different
For this NOPR, DOE analyzed the consumer impacts of four efficiency levels for NWGFs, four efficiency levels for MHGFs, and the national impacts of nine TSLs for NWGFs and MHGFs. Table V.1 presents the TSLs and the corresponding efficiency levels that DOE has identified for potential amended energy conservation standards for NWGFs and MHGFs. It is noted that because the impact of a potential standard on different consumers can depend on the input capacity of the NWGF or MHGF, DOE considered certain TSLs (six cases) with an input capacity threshold, below which the proposed standard would remain at the current efficiency level of 80-percent AFUE. For other TSLs (three cases), DOE examined a national standard level for NWGFs and MHGFs not differentiated by input capacity. Also, because the impact of a potential standard on different consumers can depend on the region of the country, DOE considered a regional TSL such that the proposed standard would remain at an efficiency level of 80-percent AFUE outside the Northern region. Next, DOE presents the results for the TSLs and corresponding ELs in Table V.47 and Table V.48 of this document. Results for all efficiency levels that DOE analyzed are in the NOPR TSD.
The following provides a brief overview of the TSLs considered. Each TSL consists of similar efficiency levels for both NWGFs and MHGFs. TSL 9 represents the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) energy efficiency for both NWGFs and MHGFs and represents the maximum energy savings possible among the specific efficiency levels analyzed by DOE (see section III.C.2 of this NOPR). TSL 8 consists of a national standard at an efficiency level of 95-percent AFUE for both NWGFs and MHGFs, which reflects a high degree of energy savings second only to the max-tech efficiency levels. TSL 7 consists of an efficiency level at 80-percent AFUE for small NWGFs and MHGFs at or below an input capacity of 55 kBtu/h and an efficiency level at 95-percent AFUE for large NWGFs and MHGFs. The threshold of 55 kBtu/h generally separates the market into larger capacity furnaces typically installed in larger single-family detached homes versus smaller capacity furnaces more likely to be installed in multi-family buildings and other households with higher potential installation costs. TSL 6 consists of the next highest efficiency levels, which would set a national standard at 92-percent AFUE for both NWGFs and MHGFs, regardless of input capacity. Similarly to TSL 7, TSL 5 is constructed with an input capacity threshold. TSL 5 consists of an efficiency level at 80-percent AFUE for small NWGFs and MHGFs at or below an input capacity of 55 kBtu/h and an efficiency level at 92-percent AFUE for large NWGFs and MHGFs. TSL 4 consists of the efficiency levels that represent 95-percent AFUE for the Northern region for both NWGFs and MHGFs, but retains the baseline efficiency level (80-percent AFUE) for the Rest of Country. TSLs 3, 2, and 1 are similar to TSL 5, except with an increasingly higher input capacity threshold (and a correspondingly smaller fraction of the market subject to more-stringent standards). TSL 3 consists of the efficiency level that represents 80-percent AFUE for small NWGFs and MHGFs at or below an input capacity of 60 kBtu/h and the efficiency level that represents 92-percent AFUE for large NWGFs and MHGFs. TSL 2 consists of the efficiency level that represents 80-percent AFUE for small NWGFs and MHGFs at or below an input capacity of 70 kBtu/h and the efficiency level that represents 92-percent AFUE for large NWGFs and MHGFs. TSL 1 consists of the efficiency level that represents 80-percent AFUE for small NWGFs and MHGFs at or below an input capacity of 80 kBtu/h and the efficiency level that represents 92-percent AFUE for large NWGFs and MHGFs.
Table V.2 presents the standby mode and off mode TSLs and the corresponding efficiency levels (values expressed in watts) that DOE considered for NWGFs and MHGFs. DOE considered three efficiency levels. TSL 3 represents the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) energy efficiency for both NWGFs and MHGFs and represents the maximum energy savings possible among the specific efficiency levels analyzed by DOE (see section III.C.2 of this NOPR). TSL 2 represents efficiency levels below max-tech and represents the maximum
DOE analyzed the economic impacts on NWGF and MHGF consumers by looking at the effects that potential new and amended standards at each TSL would have on the LCC and PBP. DOE also examined the impacts of potential standards on selected consumer subgroups. These analyses are discussed in the following sections.
In general, higher-efficiency products affect consumers in two ways: (1) purchase price increases and (2) annual operating costs decrease. In addition, for NWGFs, some consumers may choose to switch to an alternative heating system rather than purchase and install a NWGF if they judge the economics to be favorable. DOE estimated the extent of switching at each TSL using the consumer choice model discussed in section IV.F.11.
Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total installed costs (
For NWGFs, the LCC and PBP results at each efficiency level include consumers that would purchase and install a NWGF at that level, and also consumers that would choose to switch to an alternative heating product rather than purchase and install a NWGF at that level. The impacts for consumers that switch depend on the product that they choose (heat pump or electric furnace) and the NWGF that they would purchase in the no-new-standards case. The extent of projected product/fuel switching (in 2029) is shown in Table V.3 and Table V.4 for each TSL for NWGFs and MHGFs, respectively. The degree of switching increases at higher-efficiency TSLs where the installed cost of a NWGF is very high for some consumers, making the alternative option competitive. As discussed in section IV.F.12, DOE also conducted sensitivity analysis using no-switching, high, and low switching estimates. See appendix 8J of the NOPR TSD for more details. . For the proposed standards (TSL 8), the total switching and repair vs. replace is 11.1 percent for NWGFs and 10.3 percent for MHGFs.
Table V.5 through Table V.8 show the LCC and PBP results for the TSLs considered for each product class. Table V.9 through Table V.12 show the LCC and PBP results for the TSLs considered for each product class for standby mode and off mode standards. In the first of each pair of tables, the simple payback is measured relative to the baseline product. In the second table, the impacts are measured relative to the efficiency distribution in the in the no-new-standards case in the compliance year (see section IV.F.10 of this document). The LCC and PBP results for NWGFs include both residential and commercial users. The LCC and PBP results are shipment-weighted and averaged over all capacities and regions. Results for all efficiency levels are reported in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD. LCC Results for the alternative product switching scenarios are reported in appendix 8J of the NOPR TSD.
Because some consumers purchase products with higher efficiency in the no-new-standards case, the average savings are less than the difference between the average LCC of the baseline product and the average LCC at each TSL. The savings refer only to consumers who are affected by a standard at a given TSL. Those who already purchase a product with efficiency at or above a given TSL are not affected. Consumers for whom the LCC increases at a given TSL experience a net cost.
In the consumer subgroup analysis, DOE estimated the impact of the considered AFUE TSLs on low-income households and senior-only households.
As discussed in section III.E.2, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the increased purchase cost for a product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first-year energy savings resulting from the standard. In calculating a rebuttable presumption payback period for each of the considered TSLs, DOE used discrete values, and, as required by EPCA, based the energy use calculation on the DOE test procedures for residential furnaces and boilers. In contrast, the PBPs presented in section V.B.1.a were calculated using distributions that reflect the range of energy use in the field.
Table V.15 and Table V.16 present the rebuttable-presumption payback periods for the considered AFUE and standby mode/off mode TSLs, respectively, for NWGFs and MHGFs. The payback periods for most NWGF and MHGF AFUE TSLs do not meet the rebuttable-presumption criterion. The payback periods for all NWGF and MHGF standby mode and off mode TSLs meet the rebuttable-presumption criterion. While DOE examined the rebuttable-presumption criterion, it considered whether the standard levels considered for this rule are economically justified through a more detailed analysis of the economic impacts of those levels, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), that considers the full range of impacts to the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, and environment. The results of that analysis serve as the basis for DOE to definitively evaluate the economic justification for a potential standard level, thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification.
DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers of NWGFs and MHGFs. The next section describes the expected impacts on manufacturers at each considered TSL. Chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD explains the analysis in further detail.
In this section, DOE provides GRIM results from the analysis, which examines changes in the industry that could result from a standard. Table V.17 presents the financial impacts of analyzed standards on NWGF and MHGF manufacturers represented by changes in INPV and free cash flow in the year before the standard would take effect as well by the conversion costs that DOE estimates NWGF and MHGF manufacturers would incur at each TSL. To evaluate the range of cash-flow impacts on the NWGF and MHGF industry, DOE modeled three markup scenarios that correspond to the range of anticipated market responses to amended standards. For AFUE standards, DOE modeled a preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario and a tiered markup scenario. For standby mode and off mode standards, DOE modeled a preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario and a per-unit preservation of operating profit markup scenario. Each scenario results in a unique set of cash flows and corresponding industry values at each TSL.
In the following discussion, the INPV results refer to the difference in INPV between the no-new-standards case and the standards cases, calculated by summing discounted cash flows from the reference year (2022) through the end of the analysis period (2058).
To assess the upper (less severe) bound of the range of potential impacts on NWGF and MHGF manufacturers, DOE modeled a preservation of gross margin percentage scenario. This scenario assumes industry would be able to maintain its average no-new-standards case gross margin percentage in the standard case, even as MPCs increase and companies make upfront investments to bring products into compliance with amended standards. DOE assumed gross margin percentages of 25.3% for NWGFs and 21.3% for MHGF.
To assess the lower (more severe) bound of the range of potential impacts of AFUE standards on NWGF and MHGF manufacturers, DOE modeled a tiered scenario. DOE implemented the tiered scenario because multiple manufacturers stated in interviews that they offer multiple tiers of product lines that are differentiated, in part, by efficiency level. Manufacturers further noted that pricing tiers encompass additional differentiators, such as the combustion system (
Several manufacturers suggested that amended standards would lead to a reduction in premium markups and would reduce the profitability of higher efficiency products. During the MIA interviews, manufacturers provided information on the range of typical efficiency levels in those tiers and the change in profitability at each level. DOE used this information to estimate manufacturer markups for NWGFs and MHGFs under a tiered pricing strategy in the no-new-standards case. In the standards cases, DOE modeled the situation in which standards result in less product differentiation, compression of the markup tiers, and an overall reduction in profitability.
To assess the lower (more severe) bound of the range of potential impacts of standby mode and off mode standards on NWGF and MHGF manufacturers, DOE modeled a per-unit preservation of operating profit scenario. In this scenario, manufacturer markups are set so that operating profit one year after the compliance date of amended energy conservation standards (2030) is the same as in the no-new-standards case on a per-unit basis. Under this scenario, manufactures do not earn additional operating profit from increased manufacturer production costs and conversion costs incurred as a result of standards.
Table V.17 presents the financial impacts of the analyzed AFUE standards on NWGF and MHGF manufacturers. These impacts are represented by changes in INPV summed over the analysis period and free cash flow in the year before the standard (2028), as well as by the conversion costs that DOE estimates NWGF and MHGF manufacturers would incur at each TSL. The range of results reflect the two manufacturer markup scenarios that were modeled.
The following cash flow results discussion refers to the AFUE efficiency levels and capacity threshold cutoffs detailed in section V.A of this document. Table V.18 and Table V.19 present the percentage of NWGF and MHGF shipments in 2028 that are considered to be large or small, based on the input capacity threshold for each TSL. See section IV.G of this document for additional details on the shipments analysis.
TSLs 1, 2, 3, and 5 all represent national standards set at 92-percent AFUE for large furnaces, while small furnaces remain at the current Federal minimum of 80-percent AFUE. However, the capacity threshold used to classify small furnaces is different at each TSL. Small NWGFs and MHGFs are defined as units having an input capacity of 80 kBtu/h or less at TSL 1, 70 kBtu/h or less at TSL 2, 60 kBtu/h or less at TSL 3, and 55 kBtu/h or less at TSL 5. As the capacity threshold decreases from 80 kBtu/h at TSL 1 down to 55 kBtu/h at TSL 5, the number of furnace shipments classified as large gas-fired consumer furnaces, and subsequently the portion of shipments that must be condensing after the standard year, increases. Capital conversion costs increase as manufacturers add additional capacity to their secondary heat exchanger production lines. Manufacturers would also incur product conversion costs as they invest resources to develop cost-optimized 92-percent AFUE models that are competitive at lower price points. Manufacturers are expected to incur $26.6 million in product conversion costs to develop such models at each of TSLs 1, 2, 3, and 5.
In addition to conversion costs, a national standard of 92-percent AFUE for large NWGFs and MHGFs could lead to a slight compression of manufacturer markups. In its manufacturer markup scenarios, DOE includes a scenario which models the industry maintaining three tiers of markups, with efficiency as one differentiating attribute. In a market where the national standard is 92-percent AFUE, DOE characterizes these markups as “good,” “better,” and “best,” and they correspond to 92-percent AFUE, 95-percent AFUE, and max-tech levels (98-percent for NWGFs and 96-percent for MHGFs), respectively.
TSL 1 represents a national standard set at 92-percent AFUE for large NWGFs and MHGFs, while small NWGFs and MHGFs remain at the current Federal minimum of 80-percent AFUE. At TSL 1, small furnaces are defined as NWGFs and MHGFs with input capacities of 80 kBtu/h or less. DOE estimates the change in INPV to range from −$95.2 million to −$17.3 million, or a change of −6.7 percent to −1.2 percent. At this level, industry free cash flow in 2028 (the year before the compliance date) is estimated to decrease to $65.0 million, or a decrease of 24.2 percent compared to the no-new-standards case value of $85.8 million.
Small furnaces with input capacities of 80 kBtu/h or less account for approximately 58.8 percent of NWGF shipments and 88.4 percent of MHGF shipments in 2028, a year before the standard goes into effect. In the no-new-standards case, approximately 59.1 percent of NWGF shipments and 30.4 percent of MHGF shipments are expected to be sold at condensing levels in the year before the standard goes into effect. At TSL 1, once the standard goes into effect, DOE expects 70.5 percent of NWGF shipments and 36.5 percent of MHGF shipments to be sold at condensing levels, requiring the industry to expand its production of secondary heat exchangers. Manufacturers will incur an estimated $25.4 million in capital conversion costs as manufacturers increase secondary heat exchanger production line capacity. Manufacturers would also incur product conversion costs driven by the development necessary to create compliant, cost-competitive products. Total industry conversion costs are expected to reach $51.9 million at TSL 1.
TSL 2 represents a national standard at 92-percent AFUE for large furnaces, while small furnaces remain at the current Federal minimum of 80-percent AFUE. Small furnaces are defined as NWGFs and MHGFS with input capacities of 70 kBtu/h or less. At TSL 2, DOE estimates the change in INPV to range from −$131.5 million to −$16.8 million, or a change in INPV of −9.3 percent to −1.2 percent. At this level, free cash flow in 2028 is estimated to decrease to $58.6 million, or a decrease of 31.7 percent compared to the no-new-standards-case value of $85.8 million in the year 2028.
Small furnaces with input capacities of 70 kBtu/h or less account for approximately 35.0 percent of NWGF shipments and 59.8 percent of MHGF shipments in the year before standards go into effect. At TSL 2, once the standard goes into effect, DOE expects 77.2 percent of NWGF shipments and 50.6 percent of MHGF shipments to be sold at condensing levels, requiring the industry to expand its production of secondary heat exchangers. Capital conversion costs increase from $25.4 million at TSL 1 to $39.6 million at TSL 2. Manufacturers would also incur product conversion costs driven by the development necessary to create compliant, cost-competitive products. Total industry conversion costs are expected to reach $66.1 million at TSL 2.
TSL 3 represents a national standard at 92-percent AFUE for large furnaces, while small furnaces remain at the
Small furnaces with input capacities of 60 kBtu/h or less account for approximately 23.3 percent of NWGF shipments and 46.7 percent of MHGF shipments in the year before standards take effect. At TSL 3, once standards go into effect, DOE expects 81.4 percent of NWGF shipments and 57.5 percent of MHGF shipments to be sold at condensing levels, requiring the industry to expand its production of secondary heat exchangers. Capital conversion costs would increase from $39.6 million at TSL 2 to $47.1 million at TSL 3 as manufacturers increase secondary heat exchanger production line capacity. Manufacturers would also incur product conversion costs driven by the development necessary to create compliant, cost-competitive products. Total industry conversion costs could reach $73.6 million at TSL 3.
TSL 4 represents a regional standard set at 95-percent AFUE for products sold in the North and 80-percent AFUE for products sold in the Rest of Country. TSL 4 does not have a small furnace capacity threshold. At TSL 4, DOE estimates the change in INPV to range from −$285.2 million to −$16.2 million, or a change in INPV of −20.2 percent to -1.1 percent. At this level, free cash flow is estimated to decrease to $45.1 million, or a decrease of 47.5 percent compared to the no-new-standards case value of $85.8 million in the year 2028.
In the year before the standard goes into effect, DOE expects that the North region will account for approximately 57.3 percent of consumer furnace shipments, with the remaining shipments attributable to the Rest of Country region. Once the standard goes into effect, consumer furnaces sold in the North must achieve 95-percent AFUE. At TSL 4, DOE expects 72.7 percent of NWGFs and 69.0 percent of MHGFs would be sold at condensing levels in 2029. Capital conversion costs are expected to reach $58.3 million as manufacturers increase secondary heat exchanger production line capacity. Product conversion costs reach $41.2 million, as manufacturers develop cost-optimized 95-percent AFUE furnaces that are competitive at reduced markups. Total industry conversion costs would be expected to reach $99.6 million at TSL 4.
For products sold in the North that must achieve 95-percent AFUE, the industry faces a noticeable compression of markups. In the no-new-standards case, 95-percent AFUE products garner a higher markup than baseline products. At TSL 4, 95-percent AFUE products become the minimum AFUE efficiency offering and would no longer command the same premium manufacturer markup in the North. However, at this level, manufacturers can still differentiate products and offer multiple markup tiers based on “comfort” features, such as two-stage or modulating combustion technology. DOE models the industry maintaining three manufacturer markup tiers (“good, better, best”) but at a compressed range of manufacturer markup values. This approach accounts for manufacturers' continued ability to differentiate products based on combustion system technology while recognizing that manufacturer markups (and profitability) for high-efficiency products in the North may be reduced due to the higher AFUE standard.
TSL 5 represents a standard set at 92-percent AFUE for large furnaces, while small furnaces remain at the current Federal minimum of 80-percent AFUE. Small furnaces are defined as NWGFs and MHGFs with input capacities of 55 kBtu/h or less. At TSL 5, DOE estimates the change in INPV to range from −$161.2 million to −$17.6 million, or a change in INPV of −11.4 percent to −1.2 percent. At this level, free cash flow is estimated to decrease to $52.2 million, or a decrease of 39.2 percent compared to the no-new-standards case value of $85.8 million in the year 2028.
Small furnaces with input capacities of 55 kBtu/h or less account for approximately 11.2 percent of NWGFs and 21.8 percent of MHGFs in the year before the standard goes into effect. At TSL 5, 84.6 percent of NWGF shipments and 70.0 percent of MHGF shipments would be sold at condensing levels when the standard goes into effect, requiring the industry to expand its production of secondary heat exchangers. Capital conversion costs would increase from $47.1 million at TSL 3, the previous TSL with a separate standard level for small furnaces, to $53.9 million at TSL 5. Manufacturers will also incur product conversion costs driven by the development necessary to create compliant, cost-competitive products. DOE estimates total industry conversion costs could reach $80.5 million at TSL 5.
TSLs 6, 8, and 9 represent national standards for all covered NWGFs and MHGFs. At these TSLs, there is no separate standard level based on furnace input capacity. As the TSL increases from 6 to 8 to 9, the national standard increases and DOE models a compression of markups in the tiered markup scenario. Compressed markups are a significant driver of negative impacts to INPV in the tiered markup scenario, particularly at TSL 9 for NWGFs, when neither efficiency nor combustion system technology (
TSL 6 represents a national 92-percent AFUE standard for all covered NWGFs and MHGFs. TSL 6 does not have a small furnace capacity threshold. At this level, DOE estimates the change in INPV to range from −$174.4 million to −$34.5 million, or a change in INPV of −12.4 percent to −2.4 percent. At this level, free cash flow is estimated to decrease to $44.9 million, or a decrease of 47.7 percent compared to the no-new-standards case value of $85.8 million in the year 2028.
At TSL 6, all shipments of the covered product would be at a condensing level once the standard goes into effect. Manufacturer markups at TSL 6 are slightly reduced, but the industry is still able to maintain three tiers of markups. Manufacturers would incur product conversion costs of $26.6 million at TSL 6, as manufacturers develop 92-percent AFUE furnaces that are competitive at reduced markups. Capital conversion costs would total $70.2 million, as manufacturers add production capacity to have secondary heat exchangers for all NWGF and MHGF shipments sold into the domestic market. Total conversion costs could reach $96.8 million for the industry.
TSL 7 represents a 95-percent AFUE standard for large furnaces, while small furnaces remain at the current Federal minimum of 80-percent AFUE. At TSL 7, small furnaces are defined as NWGFs and MHGFs with input capacities of 55 kBtu/h or less. DOE estimates the change in INPV to range from −$344.4 million to −$15.0 million, or a change in INPV of −24.4 percent to −1.1 percent. At this level, free cash flow is estimated to decrease to $34.0 million, or a decrease of 60.4 percent compared to the no-new-standards case value of $85.8 million in the year 2028.
Small furnaces with input capacities of 55 kBtu/h or less account for approximately 11.2 percent of NWGF shipments and 21.8 percent of MHGF shipments before the standard goes into effect. At this level, 84.6 percent of
For large NWGFs and MHGFs, industry faces a noticeable compression of markups due to their limited ability to differentiate products purely based on AFUE. However, as with TSL 4, manufacturers can still differentiate products subject to the 95-percent standard based on “comfort” features, such as two-stage or modulating combustion technology. DOE models the industry as maintaining three markup tiers (“good, better, best”) but at a compressed range of tiers where max-tech products do not command the same premium as they did in the no-new-standards case. This approach accounts for manufacturers' continued ability to differentiate large NWGFs and MHGFs based on combustion systems while recognizing that markups (and profitability) for high-efficiency products may be reduced for large furnaces due to the 95-percent AFUE standard. While manufacturers would not experience a compression of markups for small capacity products, most shipments qualify as large furnaces at this capacity cutoff. The reduction in premium product offerings and deterioration of markups for the majority of furnace shipments coupled with increased conversion costs are expected to result in a negative change in INPV at TSL 7.
TSL 8 represents a national 95-percent AFUE standard for all covered NWGFs and MHGFs. TSL 8 does not have a small capacity threshold. At TSL 8, DOE estimates the change in INPV to range from −$380.3 million to −$30.5 million, or a change in INPV of −26.9 percent to −2.2 percent. At this level, free cash flow is estimated to decrease to $22.8 million, or a decrease of 73.4 percent compared to the no-new-standards case value of $85.8 million in the year 2028.
DOE estimates that approximately 39.3 percent of the annual NWGF shipments and approximately 14.9 percent of the annual MHGF shipments currently meet or exceed the efficiencies required at TSL 8. At TSL 8, all covered furnaces would be condensing after the standard goes into effect. DOE estimates capital conversion costs would increase to $107.8 million at TSL 8, as manufacturers add production capacity to have secondary heat exchangers for all NWGF and MHGF shipments sold into the domestic market. Product conversion costs would total $41.2 million, as manufacturers develop cost-optimized 95-percent AFUE NWGF and MHGF models that are competitive at reduced markups. Total industry conversion costs could reach $149.0 million.
With a national standard of 95-percent AFUE, industry faces a noticeable compression of markups due to their limited ability to differentiate products purely based on AFUE. As with TSL 4 and TSL 7, manufacturers can still differentiate products based on “comfort” features such as the combustion systems. At TSL 8, DOE models the industry as maintaining three markup tiers (“good, better, best”) but at a compressed range of manufacturer markup values where max-tech products do not command the same premium as they did in the no-new-standards case. This approach accounts for manufacturers' continued ability to differentiate NWGFs and MHGFs based on combustion systems while recognizing that markups (and profitability) for high-efficiency products may be reduced due to the 95-percent AFUE standard. The compression of markups and a reduction in product offerings, coupled with increased conversion costs are expected to result in INPV losses at TSL 8.
TSL 9 represents a national max-tech standard, where NWGF products must achieve 98-percent AFUE and MHGF products must achieve 96-percent AFUE. At TSL 9, DOE estimates the change in INPV to range from −$683.8 million to $9.0 million, or a change in INPV of −48.4 percent to 0.6 percent. At this level, the large conversion costs result in a free cash flow dropping below zero in the years before the standard year. The negative free cash flow calculation indicates manufacturers may need to access cash reserves or outside capital to finance conversion efforts.
At TSL 9, approximately 1.8 percent of NWGFs and 0.8 percent of MHGFs are sold at this level today. Manufacturers would incur $79.9 million in product conversion costs as they develop cost-optimized, high-efficiency NWGF models that can compete in a market where efficiency and combustion systems are no longer viable options for product differentiation and MHGF models that can compete in a market where efficiency is no longer a means for product differentiation. More than half of all NWGF and MHGF OEMs do not currently offer any models that meet the efficiency levels required by TSL 9. Manufacturers would also incur capital conversion costs of $221.6 million as manufacturers add the production capacity necessary to produce all NWGFs and MHGFs sold into the domestic market at 98-percent and 96-percent AFUE, respectively. Total conversion costs would be expected to reach $301.6 million for the industry.
Some manufacturers expressed great concern about the state of technology at max-tech. Specifically, those manufacturers' noted uncertainty about the ability to deliver cost-effective products for their customers. They also cited high conversion costs and large investments in R&D to produce all products at this level. Many OEMs do not currently manufacture any models that meet these efficiency levels. These OEMs would likely have more technical challenges in designing new models that meet max-tech levels. Furthermore, NWGF manufacturers would lose efficiency and combustion systems as differentiators between baseline and premium product offerings. The extent of conversion costs, the compression of markups, and the reduced ability to differentiate products would likely alter the consumer furnace competitive landscape.
DOE seeks comments, information, and data on the capital conversion costs and product conversion costs estimated for each AFUE standard TSL.
Table V.20 presents the financial impacts of standby mode and off mode standards on NWGF and MHGF manufacturers. These impacts are represented by changes in INPV and free cash flow in the year before the standard (2028) as well as by the conversion costs that DOE estimates NWGF and MHGF manufacturers would incur at each TSL. The impacts of standby mode and off mode features were analyzed for the same product classes as the amended AFUE standards, but at different efficiency levels, which correspond to a different set of technology options for reducing standby mode and off mode energy consumption. Therefore, the TSLs in the standby mode and off mode
DOE considered the impacts of standby mode and off mode features under two markup scenarios to represent the upper and lower bounds of industry impacts: (1) a preservation of gross margin percentage scenario, and (2) a preservation of operating profit scenario. The preservation of gross margin percentage scenario represents the upper bound of impacts (less severe), while the preservation of operating profit scenario represents the lower bound of impacts (more severe).
At TSL 1, DOE estimates the impacts on INPV for NWGF and MHGF manufacturers to change by less than 0.1 percent in both markup scenarios (preservation of gross margin percentage and preservation of operating profit). At this potential standard level, industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by 0.5 percent compared to the no-new-standards case value of $85.8 million in 2028. DOE expects industry conversion costs for standby mode and off mode to be $1.2 million.
At TSL 2, DOE estimates the impacts on INPV for NWGF and MHGF manufacturers to change by less than 0.1 percent in both markup scenarios (preservation of gross margin percentage and preservation of operating profit). At this potential standard level, industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by 0.5 percent compared to the no-new-standards case value of $85.8 million in 2028. DOE expects industry conversion costs for standby mode and off mode to be $1.2 million.
At TSL 3, DOE estimates the impacts on INPV for NWGF and MHGF manufacturers to range from a decrease of 0.1 percent to an increase of 0.4 percent. At this potential standard level, industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by 0.6 percent compared to the no-new-standards case value of $85.8 million in 2028. DOE expects industry conversion costs for standby mode and off mode to be $1.6 million.
DOE seeks comments, information, and data on the capital conversion costs and product conversion costs estimated for each standby mode and off mode TSL.
To quantitatively assess the potential impacts of amended energy conservation standards on direct employment in the NWGF and MHGF industry, DOE used the GRIM to estimate the domestic labor expenditures and number of direct employees in the no-new-standards case and in each of the AFUE standards cases during the analysis period. DOE calculated these values using statistical data from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2019 ASM,
Labor expenditures related to product manufacturing depend on the labor intensity of the product, the sales volume, and an assumption that wages remain fixed in real terms over time. The total labor expenditures in each year are calculated by multiplying the total MPCs by the labor percentage of MPCs. The total labor expenditures in the GRIM were then converted to domestic production employment levels by dividing production labor expenditures by the average fully burdened wage multiplied by the average number of hours worked per year per production worker. To do this, DOE relied on the ASM inputs Production Workers Annual Wages, Production Workers Annual Hours, Production Workers Average for Year, and Number of Employees. DOE also relied on the BLS employee compensation data to determine the fully burdened wage ratio. The fully burdened wage ratio factors in paid leave, supplemental pay, insurance, retirement and savings, and legally required benefits.
Total production employees is then multiplied by the U.S. labor percentage to convert total production employment to total domestic production employment. The U.S. labor percentage represents the industry fraction of domestic manufacturing production capacity for the covered product. This value is derived from manufacturer interviews, product database analysis, and publicly available information. DOE estimates that 45 percent of gas-fired consumer furnaces are produced domestically.
The domestic production employees estimate covers production line workers, including line supervisors, who are directly involved in fabricating, processing, or assembling products within the OEM facility. Workers performing services that are closely associated with production operations, such as handling materials using forklifts, are also included as production labor.
Non-production workers account for the remainder of the direct employment figure. The non-production employees covers domestic workers who are not directly involved in the production process, such as sales, engineering, human resources, management, etc. Using the amount of domestic production workers calculated above, non-production domestic employees are extrapolated by multiplying the ratio of non-production workers in the industry compared to production employees. DOE assumes that this employee distribution ratio remains constant between the no-standards case and standards cases.
The direct employment impacts shown in Table V.23 represent the potential domestic employment changes that could result following the compliance date for the NWGF and MHGF product classes in this proposal. The upper end of the range estimates an increase in the number of domestic workers producing NWGFs and MHGFs after implementation of an amended energy conservation standard at each TSL. This upper bound assumes manufacturers would continue to produce the same scope of covered products within the United States and would require additional labor to produce more-efficient products. The lower bound of the range represents the estimated maximum decrease in the total number of U.S. domestic workers if production moved to lower labor-cost countries or manufacturers left the market. Some large manufacturers are currently producing covered products in countries with lower labor costs, and an amended standard that necessitates large increases in labor content or large expenditures to re-tool facilities could cause manufacturers to re-evaluate domestic production siting options.
The impacts in the direct employment analysis are based on the analysis of amended AFUE energy conservation standards only. Standby mode and off mode technology options considered in the engineering analysis would result in component swaps, which would not make the product significantly more complex. While some product development effort would be required, the standby mode and off mode standard would not significantly affect the amount of labor required in production. Therefore, DOE did not conduct a quantitative domestic manufacturing employment impact analysis for the proposed standby mode and off mode standards.
Additional detail on the analysis of direct employment can be found in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. Additionally, the employment impacts discussed in this section are independent of the employment impacts from the broader U.S. economy, which are documented in chapter 15 of the NOPR TSD.
According to manufacturer feedback, production facilities are not currently equipped to supply the entire NWGF and MHGF market with condensing products. However, most manufacturers would be able to add capacity and adjust product designs in the 5-year period between the announcement year of the standard and the compliance year of the standard. DOE interviewed manufacturers representing over 65 percent of industry shipments. None of the interviewed manufacturers expressed concern over the industry's ability increase the capacity of production lines that meet required efficiency levels at TSLs 1 through 8 to meet consumer demand. At TSL 9, technical uncertainty was expressed by manufacturers that do not offer max-tech efficiency products today, as they were unsure of what production lines changes would be needed to meet an amended standard set at max-tech.
Using average cost assumptions to develop an industry cash-flow estimate is not adequate for assessing differential impacts among subgroups of manufacturers. Small manufacturers, niche players, or manufacturers exhibiting a cost structure that differs substantially from the industry average could be affected disproportionately. DOE used the results of the industry characterization to group manufacturers exhibiting similar characteristics. Specifically, DOE identified small businesses as a manufacturer subgroup that it believes could be disproportionally impacted by energy conservation standards and would require a separate analysis in the MIA. DOE did not identify any other adversely impacted manufacturer subgroups for this rulemaking based on the results of the industry characterization.
DOE analyzes the impacts on small businesses in a separate analysis in
One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves examining the cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. While any one regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the combined effects of several recent or impending regulations may have serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single regulation may overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect manufacturers' financial operations. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to appliance efficiency.
For the cumulative regulatory burden analysis, DOE examines Federal, product-specific regulations that could affect NWGF and MHGF manufacturers that take effect approximately three years before or after the 2029 compliance date. Table V.22 presents the DOE energy conservation standards that would impact manufacturers of NWGF and MHGF products in the 2026 to 2032 timeframe.
This section presents DOE's estimates of the national energy savings and the NPV of consumer benefits that would result from each of the TSLs considered as potential amended AFUE standards and new standby mode and off mode standards.
To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential amended and new standards for NWGFs and MHGFs, DOE compared their energy consumption under the no-new-standards case to their anticipated energy consumption under each TSL. The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of anticipated compliance with amended standards (2029-2058). Table V.23 presents DOE's projections of the national energy savings for each AFUE TSL considered for NWGFs and MHGFs. The savings were calculated using the approach described in section IV.H.2 of this document.
For the proposed standards (TSL 8), the FFC energy savings of 5.48 quads are the FFC natural gas savings minus the increase in FFC energy use associated with higher electricity use due primarily to switching to electric heating.
The previously results reflect the use of the reference product switching scenario and repair vs. replace trend for NWGFs and MHGFs (as described in section IV.F.12 of this document). DOE also conducted a sensitivity analysis that considered scenarios with lower and higher rates of product switching, as compared to the default case. The results of these alternative cases are presented in appendix 10E of the NOPR TSD.
Table V.24 presents DOE's projections of the primary and FFC national energy savings for each standby mode and off mode TSL considered for NWGFs and MHGFs. National energy savings were calculated using the approach described in section IV.H.2 of this NOPR.
OMB Circular A-4
DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of the total costs and savings for consumers that would result from the TSLs considered for NWGFs and MHGFs. In accordance with OMB's guidelines on regulatory analysis,
The above results reflect the use of the default product switching trend for NWGFs (as described in section IV.F.12 of this document). As previously discussed, DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis assuming higher and lower levels of product switching for NWGFs. The results of these alternative cases are presented in appendix 10 E of the NOPR TSD.
Table V.28 shows the consumer NPV results for standby mode and off mode standards with impacts counted over the lifetime of products purchased in 2029-2058.
The NPV results for AFUE standards based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical period are presented in Table V.29 for AFUE standards and Table V.30 for standby and off mode standards.
The previous results reflect the use of a default trend to estimate the change in price for NWGFs and MHGFs over the analysis period (see section IV.F.2 of this document). DOE also conducted a sensitivity analysis that considered one scenario with a lower rate of price decline than the reference case and one scenario with a higher rate of price decline than the reference case. The results of these alternative cases are presented in appendix 10C of the NOPR TSD. In the high-price-decline case, the NPV of consumer benefits is higher than in the default case. In the low-price-decline case, the NPV of consumer benefits is lower than in the default case.
It is estimated that amended energy conservation standards for NWGFs and MHGFs will reduce energy expenditures for consumers of those products, with the resulting net savings being redirected to other forms of economic activity. These expected shifts in spending and economic activity could affect the demand for labor. As described in section IV.N of this document, DOE used an input/output model of the U.S. economy to estimate indirect employment impacts of the TSLs that DOE considered. There are uncertainties involved in projecting employment impacts, especially changes in the later years of the analysis. Therefore, DOE generated results for near-term timeframes (2029-2034), where these uncertainties are reduced.
The results suggest that the proposed standards are likely to have a negligible impact on the net demand for labor in the economy. The net change in jobs is so small that it would be imperceptible in national labor statistics and might be offset by other, unanticipated effects on employment. Chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD presents detailed results regarding anticipated indirect employment impacts.
As discussed in section III.E.1.d of this document, DOE has initially concluded that the standards proposed in this NOPR would not lessen the utility or performance of the NWGFs and MHGFs under consideration in this rulemaking. Manufacturers of these products currently offer units that meet or exceed the proposed standards.
DOE considered any lessening of competition that would be likely to result from new or amended standards. As discussed in section III.E.1.e of this document, EPCA directs the Attorney General of the United States (“Attorney General”) to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination in writing to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. DOE has also provided DOJ with copies of this NOPR and the accompanying TSD for review. DOE will consider DOJ's comments on the proposed rule in determining whether to proceed to a final rule. DOE will publish and respond to DOJ's comments in that document. DOE invites comment from the public regarding the competitive impacts that are likely to result from this proposed rule. In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments separately to DOJ regarding these potential impacts. See the
Enhanced energy efficiency, where economically justified, improves the Nation's energy security, strengthens the economy, and reduces the environmental impacts (costs) of energy production. Chapter 15 in the NOPR TSD presents the estimated impacts on electricity generating capacity, relative to the no-new-standards case, for the TSLs that DOE considered in this rulemaking.
Energy conservation resulting from potential energy conservation standards for NWGFs and MHGFs is expected to yield environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of certain air pollutants and greenhouse gases. Table V.31 provides DOE's estimate of cumulative emissions reductions expected to result from the AFUE TSLs considered in this rulemaking. The increase in emissions of SO
As part of the analysis for this rulemaking, DOE estimated monetary benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO
Table V.33 presents the present value of the CO
As discussed in section IV.L.1.b of this document, DOE estimated monetary benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of methane and N
DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the contribution of CO
DOE also estimated the monetary value of the economic impacts associated with changes in SO
DOE also estimated the monetary value of the economic benefits associated with NO
The benefits of reduced CO
The Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is economically justified, may consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) No other factors were considered in this analysis.
Table V.43 and Table V.44 present the NPV values that result from adding the monetized estimates of the potential economic, climate, and health net benefits resulting from GHG, SO
When considering new or amended energy conservation standards, the standards that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by, to the greatest extent practicable, considering the seven statutory factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or amended standard must also result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
In this NOPR, DOE considered the impacts of amended and new standards for NWGFs and MHGFs at each TSL, beginning with the maximum technologically feasible level, to determine whether that level was economically justified. Where the max-tech level was not justified, DOE then considered the next most efficient level and undertook the same evaluation until it reached the highest efficiency level that is both technologically feasible and economically justified and saves a significant amount of energy.
To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL, tables in this section present a summary of the results of DOE's quantitative analysis for each TSL. In addition to the quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also considers other burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. These include the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers who may be disproportionately affected by a national standard and impacts on employment.
DOE also notes that the economics literature provides a wide-ranging discussion of how consumers trade off upfront costs and energy savings in the absence of government intervention. Much of this literature attempts to explain why consumers appear to undervalue energy efficiency improvements. There is evidence that consumers undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of information; (2) a lack of sufficient salience of the long-term or aggregate benefits; (3) a lack of sufficient savings to warrant delaying or altering purchases; (4) excessive focus on the short term, in the form of inconsistent weighting of future energy cost savings relative to available returns on other investments; (5) computational or other difficulties associated with the evaluation of relevant tradeoffs; and (6) a divergence in incentives (for example, between renters and owners, or builders and purchasers). Having less than perfect foresight and a high degree of uncertainty about the future, consumers may trade off these types of investments at a higher than expected rate between current consumption and uncertain future energy cost savings.
In DOE's current regulatory analysis, potential changes in the benefits and costs of a regulation due to changes in consumer purchase decisions are included in two ways. First, if consumers forego the purchase of a product in the standards case, this decreases sales for product manufacturers, and the impact on manufacturers attributed to lost revenue is included in the MIA. Second, DOE accounts for energy savings attributable only to products actually used by consumers in the standards case; if a standard decreases the number of products purchased by consumers, this decreases the potential energy savings from an energy conservation standard. DOE provides estimates of shipments and changes in the volume of product purchases in chapter 9 of the SNOPR TSD. However, DOE's current analysis does not explicitly control for heterogeneity in consumer preferences, preferences across subcategories of products or specific features, or consumer price sensitivity variation according to household income.
Table V.45 and Table V.46 summarize the quantitative impacts estimated for each AFUE TSL for NWGFs and MHGFs. The national impacts are measured over the lifetime of NWGFs and MHGFs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with amended standards (2029-2058). The energy savings and emissions reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle results. The efficiency levels contained in each TSL are described further in section V.A of this document.
DOE first considered the AFUE standards at TSL 9, which represents the max-tech efficiency levels and which includes the highest efficiency commercially available for both non-weatherized gas furnaces and mobile furnaces (
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 9 are 502 Mt of CO
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, health benefits from SO
At TSL 9, the average LCC impact on affected consumers is a savings of $254 for NWGFs and $414 for MHGFs. The simple payback period is 9.1 years for NWGFs and 12.6 years for MHGFs. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 52.4 percent for NWGFs and 38.0 percent for MHGFs. The fraction of low-income consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 34.8 percent for NWGFs and 23.3 percent for MHGFs.
At TSL 9, the projected changes in INPV range from a decrease of $683.8 million to an increase of 9.0 million. If the more severe end of this range is realized, TSL 9 could result in a net loss of 48.4 percent in INPV. Industry conversion costs could reach $301.6 million at this TSL.
At TSL 9, manufacturers would need to significantly restructure their product offerings. Currently, less than half of consumer furnace manufacturers offer a product that meets the max-tech efficiencies. The models available at these efficiencies are not produced in high volumes. DOE estimates that approximately 1.8 percent of NWGF shipments and 0.8 percent of MHGF shipments are currently sold at the max-tech levels, 98-percent AFUE and 96-percent AFUE, respectively. The NWGF industry would incur significant product conversion costs to develop cost-optimized NWGF models for a marketplace where efficiency and combustion system technology are no longer viable options for product differentiation. Similarly, the MHGF industry would incur significant product conversion costs to develop cost-optimized models for a marketplace where efficiency is no longer a means for product differentiation. As noted in section IV.J.2.d of this document, manufacturers currently maintain multiple tiers of product lines, which have varying levels of profitability. DOE models the industry operating with three manufacturer markup tiers (“good, better, best”) that are primarily differentiated on AFUE and combustion system technology (
Based upon the above considerations, the Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 9 for NWGFs and MHGFs AFUE standards, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the health benefits of emissions reductions would be outweighed by the economic burden on many consumers, especially low-income consumers, as well as the impacts on manufacturers, including the large potential reduction in INPV. In
DOE then considered the AFUE standards at TSL 8, which consists of intermediate condensing efficiency levels at 95-percent AFUE for both NWGFs and MHGFs across the Nation. TSL 8 would save 5.48 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 8, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $6.2 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $21.6 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 8 would be expected to be 363 Mt of CO
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, health benefits from SO
At TSL 8, the average LCC impact on affected consumers is a savings of $464 for NWGFs and $526 for MHGFs. The simple payback period is 7.2 years for NWGFs and 7.5 years for MHGFs. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 16.6 percent for NWGFs and 21.5 percent for MHGFs. The fraction of low-income consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 13.7 percent for NWGFs and 12.6 percent for MHGFs.
At TSL 8, the projected changes in INPV range from a decrease of $380.3 million to a decrease of $30.5 million. If the more severe end of this range is realized, TSL 8 could result in a net loss of 26.9 percent in INPV. Industry conversion costs would reach $149.0 million as manufacturers expand secondary heat exchanger capacity and redesign products to meet the standard.
At TSL 8, manufacturers would incur conversion costs to develop cost-optimized model offerings at the new minimum 95-percent AFUE and to expand secondary heat exchanger production capacity. However, the conversion costs at TSL 8 are substantially lower than those at TSL 9. Ninety percent of manufacturers currently have a range of compliant offerings at TSL 8. DOE estimates that approximately 39.3 percent of the annual NWGF shipments and approximately 14.9 percent of the annual MHGF shipments are already at this level. Furthermore, manufacturers would not be making the upfront investments with same level of profitability risk noted at TSL 9. With a national standard of 95-percent AFUE, both NWGF and MHGF manufacturers would maintain the ability to differentiate products based on efficiency and combustion system technology. With these options available, industry can continue to operate with three markup tiers (“good, better, best”) that enable greater industry profitability. However, the range of manufacturer markups are compressed, as max-tech products would not be expected to command the same premium as they did in the no-new-standards case.
After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and burdens, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that an AFUE standard set at TSL 8 for NWGFs and MHGFs would be economically justified. At this TSL, the average LCC savings for both NWGF and MHGF consumers are positive. An estimated 16.6 percent of NWGF consumers and 21.5 percent of MHGF consumers experience a net cost. The reduction in the percentage of consumers experiencing a net cost at TSL 8 compared to TSL 9 is largely due to the market share of consumers already with a furnace at 95-percent AFUE (see section IV.F.9 of this document). These consumers are not impacted by a standard set at TSL 8. For the remaining consumers that are impacted, the lower incremental cost above baseline for a 95-percent AFUE furnace compared to a max-tech furnace (see section IV.C.2 of this document), particularly for NWGFs, results in fewer consumers experiencing a net cost as compared to TSL 9. The FFC national energy savings at TSL 8 are significant and the NPV of consumer benefits is positive using both a 3-percent and 7-percent discount rate. Notably, the benefits to consumers vastly outweigh the cost to manufacturers. At TSL 8, the NPV of consumer benefits, even measured at the more conservative discount rate of 7 percent is over 15 times higher than the maximum estimated manufacturers' loss in INPV. The shipment-weighted average LCC savings are more than 80 percent larger than at TSL 9. The standard levels at TSL 8 are economically justified even without weighing the estimated monetary value of the health benefits of emissions reductions. When those emissions reductions are included—representing $16.2 billion in climate benefits (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate), and $19.3 billion (using a 3-percent discount rate) or $5.9 billion (using a 7-percent discount rate) in health benefits—the rationale becomes stronger still.
DOE further notes that there have been regulations in Canada requiring condensing furnaces with at least 90-percent AFUE for over ten years and requiring at least 95-precent AFUE since July 2019 (see section II.B.3 of this NOPR). The proposed standard levels for NWGFs at TSL 8 align with the Canadian regulations. As discussed in the 2016 SNOPR (since withdrawn), some stakeholders noted that Canada has required condensing furnaces for years and stated that neither Natural Resources Canada nor its mortgage agency found any significant implementation issues. 81 FR 65720,
DOE acknowledges that an estimated 13.7 percent of low-income NWGF and 12.6 percent of low-income MHGF consumers experience a net cost at TSL 8, whereas an estimated 5.0 percent of low-income NWGF and 1.5 percent of low-income MHGF consumers experience a net cost at TSL 7. (TSL 7 is an AFUE standard at the same level as TSL 8 but for NWGFs and MHGFs greater than 55 kBtu/h only.) The majority of negatively impacted low-income consumers at TSL 8 have smaller capacity NWGFs or MHGFs below 55 kBtu/h and, therefore, would not be impacted by a standard set at TSL 7, since the standards for NWGFs and MHGFs below 55 kBtu/h would remain at 80-percent AFUE. However, compared to TSL 7, it is estimated that TSL 8 would result in additional FFC national energy savings of 0.78 quads and additional health benefits of $4.1 billion (using a 3-percent discount rate) or $1.3 billion (using a 7-percent discount rate). The national consumer NPV similarly increases at TSL 8, compared to TSL 7, by $1.3 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $4.6 billion using a 3-percent discount rate. These additional savings and benefits at TSL 8 are significant. DOE considers these impacts to be, as a whole, economically justified at TSL 8, but will continue to evaluate the impacts on low-income consumers relative to all consumers. If DOE were to conclude that the costs of TSL 8 outweighed the benefits of TSL 8, then DOE could consider factors in TSL 7 such as the national energy savings of 4.70 quads, the NPV of consumer benefit of $4.9 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent and $17.0 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent, and CO
Accordingly, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 8 would offer the maximum improvement in efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified and would result in the significant conservation of energy. Although results are presented here in terms of TSLs, DOE analyzes and evaluates all possible ELs for each product class in its analysis. For both NWGFs and MHGFs, TSL 8 is comprised of the highest efficiency level below max-tech. For NWGFs and MHGFs, the max-tech efficiency level results in a large percentage of consumers that experience a net LCC cost, in addition to significant manufacturer impacts. The ELs one level below max-tech, representing the proposed standard levels, result in positive LCC savings for both classes, significantly reduce the number of consumers experiencing a net cost, and reduce the decrease in INPV and conversion costs to the point where DOE has tentatively concluded they are economically justified, as discussed for TSL 8 in the preceding paragraphs. However, DOE acknowledges the potential impacts to low-income consumers and seeks additional information for further consideration.
Therefore, based on the above considerations, DOE proposes the AFUE energy conservation standards for NWGFs and MHGFs at TSL 8. The proposed energy conservation standards for NWGFs and MHGFs, which are expressed as AFUE, are shown in Table V.47.
Table V.48 and Table V.49 summarize the quantitative impacts estimated for each standby mode and off mode TSL for NWGFs and MHGFs. The national impacts are measured over the lifetime of NWGFs and MHGFs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with amended standards (2029-2058). The energy savings and emissions reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle results. The efficiency levels contained in each TSL are described in section V.A of this document.
DOE first considered TSL 3, which represents the max-tech efficiency levels. TSL 3 would save 0.28 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $1.1 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $3.4 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 9.6 Mt of CO
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, health benefits from reduced SO
At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a savings of $26 for NWGFs and $27 for MHGFs. The simple payback period is 2.0 years for NWGFs and 1.7 years for MHGFs. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 3.5 percent for NWGFs and 1.6 percent for MHGFs.
At TSL 3, the change in INPV is projected to range from a decrease of $2.1 million to an increase of $5.0 million, which corresponds to a 0.1 percent decrease and 0.4 percent increase, respectively. The more negative INPV results are driven by the conversion costs, which could reach $1.6 million, and the model's lower bound assumption that manufacturers would not be able to pass these costs onto consumers. These changes have less than a one percent impact on free cash flow in 2028.
After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and burdens, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that standby and off mode standards set at TSL 3 for NWGFs and MHGFs would be economically justified. At this TSL, the average LCC savings for both NWGF and MHGF consumers are expected to be positive. Only an estimated 3.5 percent of NWGF consumers and 1.6 percent of MHGF consumers are expected to experience a net cost. The FFC national energy savings are significant and the NPV of consumer benefits is positive using both a 3-percent and 7-percent discount rate. Notably, the national benefits vastly outweigh the costs. The positive LCC savings—a different way of quantifying consumer benefits—reinforces this conclusion. The shipment-weighted average LCC savings are largest at TSL 3. The standard levels at TSL 3 are economically justified even without weighing the estimated monetary value of emissions reductions. When those emissions reductions are included—representing $0.4 billion in climate benefits (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate), and $0.6 billion (using a 3-percent discount rate) or $0.2 billion (using a 7-percent discount rate) in health benefits—the rationale becomes stronger still.
Accordingly, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 3 would offer the maximum improvement in efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in the significant conservation of energy. Although results are presented here in terms of TSLs, DOE analyzes and evaluates all possible ELs for each product class in its analysis. For both NWGFs and MHGFs, TSL 3 is comprised of the max-tech efficiency level. The ELs representing the proposed standard levels result in positive LCC savings for both classes, a small percentage of consumers experiencing a net cost, and a small decrease in INPV to the point where DOE has tentatively concluded they are economically justified, as discussed for TSL 3 in the preceding paragraphs.
Therefore, based on the above considerations, DOE proposes the standby mode and off mode energy conservation standards for NWGFs and MHGFs at TSL 3. The proposed energy conservation standards for NWGFs and MHGFs, which are expressed as watts, are shown in Table V.50.
The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is (1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2020$) of the benefits from operating products that meet the proposed standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus increases in product purchase costs), and (2) the annualized monetary value of the climate and health benefits from emission reductions.
Table V.51 shows the annualized values for NWGFs and MHGFs AFUE standards under TSL 8, expressed in
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from SO
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed AFUE standards for NWGFs and MHGFs is $511 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits would be $1,865 million in reduced operating costs, $1,015 million in climate benefits, and $1,213 million in health benefits (accounting for reduced NO
Table V.52 shows the annualized values for NWGFs and MHGFs standby mode and off mode standards under TSL 3, expressed in 2020$. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from reduced SO
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standby mode and off mode standards for NWGFs and MHGFs is $12.4 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits would be $224 million in reduced operating costs, $23 million in climate benefits, and $40 million in health benefits. In this case, the net
DOE considers and evaluates these standards independently under EPCA and the analytical process outlined in DOE's Process Rule (as amended). However, DOE is also presenting the combined effects of these standards for the benefit of the public and in compliance with E.O. 12866. To provide a complete picture of the overall impacts of this NOPR, the following combines and summarizes the benefits and costs for both the amended AFUE standards and the proposed standby mode and off mode standards for NWGFs and MHGFs. Table V.53 shows the combined annualized benefit and cost values for the proposed AFUE standards and the standby mode and off mode standards for NWGFs and MHGFs.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from SO
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards in this rule is $524 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits would be $2,089 million in reduced operating costs, $1,038 million in climate benefits, and $1,253 million in health benefits (accounting for reduced NO
Executive Order (“E.O.”) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) in the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, this proposed regulatory action is consistent with these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to OIRA for review. OIRA has determined that this proposed regulatory action constitutes an economically significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, pursuant to section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866, DOE has provided to OIRA an assessment, including the underlying analysis, of benefits and costs anticipated from the proposed regulatory action, together with, to the extent feasible, a quantification of those costs; and an assessment, including the underlying
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
For manufacturers of NWGFs and MHGFs, the SBA has set a size threshold, which defines those entities classified as “small businesses” for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to determine whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. (
DOE is proposing amended energy conservation standards and new standby mode and off mode energy standards for NWGFs and MHGFs. EPCA specifically provides that DOE must conduct two rounds of energy conservation standard rulemakings for
Amendments to EPCA in the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA; Pub. L. 100-12) established EPCA's original energy conservation standards for furnaces, consisting of the minimum AFUE levels described above for mobile home furnaces and for all other furnaces except “small” gas furnaces. (42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(1)-(2)) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(1)(B), in November 1989, DOE adopted a mandatory minimum AFUE level for “small” furnaces. 54 FR 47916 (Nov. 17, 1989). The standards established by NAECA and the November 1989 final rule for “small” gas furnaces are still in effect for mobile home oil-fired furnaces, weatherized oil-fired furnaces.
Under EPCA, DOE was required to conduct two rounds of rulemaking to consider amended energy conservation standards for furnaces. (42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(B) and (C)) In satisfaction of this first round of amended standards rulemaking under 42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(B), as noted previously, DOE published a final rule in the
Following DOE's adoption of the November 2007 final rule, several parties jointly sued DOE in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit), seeking to invalidate the rule. Petition for Review,
On June 27, 2011, DOE published in the
As noted earlier, following DOE's adoption of the June 2011 DFR, APGA filed a petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, seeking to invalidate the DOE rule as it pertained to NWGFs. Petition for Review,
DOE reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. 68 FR 7990. DOE conducted a market survey to identify potential small manufacturers of the covered products. DOE began its assessment by reviewing DOE's CCMS database,
DOE initially identified 15 OEMs that sell NWGFs and/or MHGFs in the United States. Of the 15 OEMs identified, DOE tentatively determined that four companies qualify as small businesses and are not foreign-owned or operated.
In response to the withdrawn September 2016 SNOPR IRFA, AHRI and Mortex Products, Inc. (“Mortex”) raised concerns that DOE's methodology of using model counts to scale industry-level conversion costs down to a company level do not fully characterize the impacts on small manufacturers. (AHRI, No. 303 at p. 12; Mortex, No. 305 at p. 4) They were concerned that this methodology understates the cost impact to small manufacturers, with particular concern about “the small manufacturer whose primary product is marketed for manufactured homes does not make a single product that meets the lofty 92% AFUE.” (AHRI, No. 303 at p. 12) As noted by Mortex, “we do not manufacture condensing mobile home gas furnaces.” (Mortex, No. 305 at p. 1)
In response to these stakeholder comments, DOE updated its conversion cost methodology. Specifically, DOE updated its analysis to give special consideration to Mortex. In the withdrawn September 2016 SNOPR IRFA, DOE's small business compliance costs were based on data collected during the 2014 manufacturer interviews. However, unlike the MHGF manufacturers that DOE interviewed, Mortex does not currently offer condensing products. As a result, Mortex's conversion cost were not well reflected in the withdrawn September 2016 SNOPR IRFA since Mortex would need to make a different set of investments than the rest of the MHGF industry. In this Notice's IRFA, DOE estimates the cost for Mortex to set up a production line capable of manufacturing condensing furnaces. Mortex's conversion costs are analyzed separately from the rest of the MHGF industry.
Of the four small domestic OEMs identified, two manufacture NWGFs, one manufactures MHGFs, and one manufactures both NWGFs and MHGFs. DOE considered the impact of today's rule on the four manufacturers.
One of the small NWGF manufacturers sells a niche product in the NWGF market. The company offers three basic models of a through-the-wall furnace marketed for multi-family construction. The three models have identical dimensions and share many components. One model is rated at 80-percent AFUE, one model is rated at 93-percent AFUE, and the other model is rated at 95-percent AFUE. Given the product similarities and low volume of sales, DOE expects the manufacturer would likely discontinue the non-compliant models. DOE does not expect the small manufacturer would incur conversion costs due to the proposed standard, as the company currently offers their niche product at 95-percent AFUE.
The other small NWGF manufacturer does not currently certify any models of the covered product in DOE's CCMS. DOE identified this small business through its review of the California Energy Commission's MAEDbS and the withdrawn September 2016 SNOPR. DOE reviewed the company's website and available product literature to determine the range of products offered by this small manufacturer. According to the company's website, they offer condensing and non-condensing NWGFs, including models that meet the 95-percent AFUE required by the proposed standard. However, detailed product information is scarce, and the company's 2021 Product Catalog does not include gas-fired consumer furnaces. The limited product information and lack of legally compliant products indicate that the company may no longer produce covered NWGFs. If the company still manufactures NWGFs, DOE expects the manufacturer would likely discontinue the non-compliant models given the low volume of sales. As with the other small NWGF manufacturer, DOE does not expect this company would incur conversion costs as they currently offer a product at 95-percent AFUE.
The small MHGF manufacturer, Mortex, sells non-condensing furnaces into the manufactured housing replacement market. DOE identified this small business through its review of the withdrawn September 2016 SNOPR. Of the seven MHGF OEMs identified, Mortex is the only company that does not offer a condensing product. DOE analyzed the conversion costs for Mortex separately from other MHGF manufacturers since Mortex would need to make a different set of investments than the rest of the MHGF industry.
To offer condensing MHGFs, Mortex would need to either source secondary heat exchangers from a vendor or setup its own manufacturing line to produce secondary heat exchangers. Setting up in-house production is the significantly more capital-intensive option. For this IRFA, DOE estimated the investments required for the company to setup in-house production. Based on DOE's engineering analysis, the main driver of additional capital conversion costs would be the production of secondary heat exchangers. Including equipment, tooling, and conveyer, DOE estimates upfront capital investments of $4.1 million to setup manufacturing of condensing MHGFs. Additionally, the design and product development of condensing products could run as high as $1.4 million. If the company has less than 15 percent market share in the MHGF market, as suggested by the percentage of industry model offerings, the cost recovery period for this investment would be in excess of 10 years. Unlike other MHGF manufacturers, which can leverage their investments in secondary heat exchanger production across other heating products, DOE is not aware of any other heating product from Mortex that could make use of the secondary heat exchanger production capacity. The total conversion costs of $5.5 million are approximately 2 percent of company revenues over the 5-year conversion period and are considered significant.
Given the high upfront investment and long cost recovery period, the small manufacturer would likely seek options other than investing in secondary heat exchanger production capabilities. The company could source the secondary heat exchanger, which would reduce the need for capital conversion costs but would also increase the per-unit cost of the final product. DOE estimates that the secondary heat exchanger accounts for approximately 14 percent of the total manufacturer production cost. Sourcing the heat exchanger could put the company at a pricing disadvantage relative to manufacturers that produce
The small domestic manufacturer of NWGFs and MHGFs is one of the six MHGF companies that offer condensing products. Of these six companies with condensing MHGFs, one manufacturer only offers products at or above the proposed AFUE standard and would, therefore, likely incur no conversion costs. The remaining five manufacturers, which includes the small manufacturer of NWGFs and MHGFs, have some products that do not meet the standard. All MHGF conversion costs that are not directly attributed to Mortex would be borne by these five manufacturers. The small domestic business has two MHGF models that would require redesign or retirement, which is an estimated 2.6 percent of the 76 MHGF models in CCMS with an AFUE below 95-percent.
DOE estimated industry conversion costs of $2.8 million for the MHGF AFUE standard when excluding the conversion costs attributable to Mortex. For the purposes of this IRFA analysis, DOE assumes the $2.8 million in conversion costs are evenly allocated across the five companies that may incur MHGF conversion costs. The MHGF-related conversion costs are approximately $0.6 million per company. DOE believes this even allocation of capital and product conversion costs avoids under-estimating the investment requirements on the small, domestic manufacturer, given that this manufacturer has a small market share. For the small manufacturer, total conversion costs are approximately 0.1 percent of company revenue over the 5-year conversion period.
As noted earlier, this small domestic manufacturer also produces NWGFs. The company offers four NWGF models, out of over 2,200 NWGFs in CCMS. All four of their NWGF offerings are at or above the proposed AFUE standard and would not likely incur conversion costs due to the AFUE standard. Therefore, the small manufacturer that produces both MHGFs and NWGFs is expected to only incur conversion costs relating to their MHGF products at TSL 8, the proposed standard level.
The engineering analysis suggests that the design paths required to meet the standby mode and off mode requirements consist of relatively straight-forward component swaps. Additionally, the INPV and short-term cash flow impacts of the standby mode and off mode requirements are dwarfed by the impacts of the AFUE standard. In general, the impacts of the standby and off mode standard are significantly smaller than the impacts of the AFUE standard. For this reason, the IRFA focuses on the impacts of the AFUE standard.
DOE seeks comments, information, and data on the number of small businesses in the industry, the names of those small businesses, and their market shares by product class. DOE also requests comment on the potential impacts of the proposed AFUE standards and standby mode and off mode standards on small manufacturers.
DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
The discussion in the previous section analyzes impacts on small businesses that would result from DOE's proposed rule, represented by TSL 8. In reviewing alternatives to the proposed rule, DOE examined a range of different efficiency levels and their respective impacts to both manufacturers and consumers. Representative of lower efficiency levels, TSL 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 would reduce the impact on small business manufacturers but at the expense of a reduction in energy savings. TSL 9 was also analyzed, but it was determined those levels would lead to greater costs to manufacturers.
Based on the presented discussion, DOE believes that TSL 8 would deliver the highest energy savings while mitigating the potential burdens placed on NWGF and MHGF manufacturers, including small business manufacturers. Accordingly, DOE does not propose one of the other TSLs considered in the analysis, or the other policy alternatives as part of the regulatory impact analysis and included in chapter 17 of the NOPR TSD.
In reviewing alternatives to the proposed standards, DOE examined energy conservation standards set at both lower and higher efficiency levels than the proposed levels. At TSL 9, the conversion costs were higher for small businesses and for industry overall. At TSLs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, the impacts on small manufacturers would have been potentially lower. Those changes would have would come at the expense of reduced consumer benefits and a reduction in energy savings. In general, the consumer benefits were an order of magnitude greater than the cost to industry, and multiple orders of magnitude greater than the conversion costs to small manufacturers. DOE believes that establishing standards at the proposed level, TSL 8, balances the benefits of energy savings with the potential burdens placed on manufacturers of covered products, including small business manufacturers.
Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may apply for an exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final rule establishing the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) Additionally, manufacturers subject to DOE's energy efficiency standards may apply to DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals for exception relief under certain circumstances. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details.
Manufacturers of NWGFs and MHGFs must certify to DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards in terms of AFUE.
In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products according to the DOE test procedures for NWGFs and MHGFs, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including NWGFs and MHGFs.
Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. For covered equipment, relevant provisions of the Act include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
DOE's certification and compliance activities ensure accurate and comprehensive information about the energy and water use characteristics of covered products and covered equipment sold in the United States. Manufacturers of all covered products and covered equipment must submit a certification report before a basic model is distributed in commerce, annually thereafter, and if the basic model is redesigned in such a manner to increase the consumption or decrease the efficiency of the basic model such that the certified rating is no longer supported by the test data. Additionally, manufacturers must report when production of a basic model has ceased and is no longer offered for sale as part of the next annual certification report following such cessation. DOE requires the manufacturer of any covered product or covered equipment to establish, maintain, and retain the records of certification reports, of the underlying test data for all certification testing, and of any other testing conducted to satisfy the requirements of part 429, part and part 431. Certification reports provide DOE and consumers with comprehensive, up-to date efficiency information and support effective enforcement.
DOE requires manufacturers or their party representatives to prepare and submit certification reports and compliance statements using DOE's electronic Web-based tool, the CCMS, which is the primary mechanism for submitting certification reports to DOE. CCMS currently has product and equipment specific templates which manufacturers are required to use when submitting certification data to DOE. DOE believes the availability of electronic filing through the CCMS system reduces reporting burdens, streamlines the process, and provides DOE with needed information in a standardized, more accessible form. This electronic filing system also ensures that records are recorded in a permanent, systematic way.
DOE is not proposing to amend the existing reporting requirements or establish new DOE reporting requirements. Were DOE to establish amended and new energy conservation standards as proposed in this NOPR, DOE would consider associated reporting and certification requirements in a future rulemaking. Therefore, DOE has tentatively concluded that amended energy conservation standards for NWGFs and MHGFs would not impose additional costs for manufacturers related to reporting and certification.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
DOE is analyzing this proposed regulation in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”) and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include a categorical exclusion for rulemakings that establish energy conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment. 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix B5.1. DOE anticipates that this rulemaking qualifies for categorical exclusion B5.1 because it is a rulemaking that establishes amended energy conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment, none of the exceptions identified in categorical exclusion B5.1(b) apply, no extraordinary circumstances exist that require further environmental analysis, and it otherwise meets the requirements for application of a categorical exclusion.
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. The Executive Order 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. The Executive order 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 proposed rule 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 proposed rule. 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(d)) Therefore, no further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), 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. Regarding the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 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 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) 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 proposed rule meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.
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 104-4, section 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. 1532(a), (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 “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at
This proposed rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by the private sector. As a result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), DOE has determined that this proposed rule would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, “Improving Implementation of the Information Quality Act” (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which are available at:
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
DOE has tentatively concluded that this regulatory action, which proposes new and amended energy conservation standards for NWGFs and MHGFs, is not a significant energy action because the proposed standards are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects on this proposed rule.
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (“OSTP”), issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (“the Bulletin”). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The purpose of the Bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses are “influential scientific information,” which the Bulletin defines as “scientific information the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector decisions.” 70 FR 2664, 2667 (Jan. 14, 2005).
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses that are typically used and prepared a report describing that peer review.
The time and date of the webinar meeting are listed in the
Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this proposed rule, or who is representative of a group or class of persons that has an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to make an oral presentation at the public meeting webinar. Such persons may submit requests to speak via email to the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program at:
Persons requesting to speak should briefly describe the nature of their interest in this rulemaking and provide a telephone number for contact. DOE requests persons selected to make an oral presentation to submit an advance copy of their statements at least two weeks before the public meeting webinar. At its discretion, DOE may permit persons who cannot supply an advance copy of their statement to participate, if those persons have made advance alternative arrangements with the Building Technologies Office. As necessary, requests to give an oral presentation should ask for such alternative arrangements.
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar/public meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of the webinar/public meeting. There shall not be discussion of proprietary information, costs or prices, market share, or other commercial matters regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After the webinar/public meeting and until the end of the comment period, interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings and any aspect of the rulemaking.
The public meeting webinar will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE will present summaries of comments received before the webinar, allow time for prepared general statements by participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will allow, as time permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on statements made by others. Participants should be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the public meeting webinar will accept additional comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or modification of the above procedures that may be needed for the proper conduct of the public meeting webinar.
A transcript of the public meeting webinar will be included in the docket, which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning of this NOPR. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the transcript from the transcribing reporter.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposed rule before or after the public meeting webinar, but no later than the date provided in the
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. If this instruction is followed, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to
DOE processes submissions made through
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. No telefacsimiles (“faxes”) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties concerning the following issues:
(1) DOE requests data and information on the price trend for condensing NWGFs as compared to the trend for non-condensing NWGFs.
(2) DOE seeks comments, information, and data on the number of small businesses in the industry, the names of those small businesses, and their market shares by product class. DOE also requests comment on the potential impacts of the proposed AFUE standards and standby mode and off mode standards on small manufacturers.
(3) DOE seeks comment on the feasibility of integrating LL-LTX designs and whether significant changes would need to be made to integrate them.
(4) DOE seeks further comment on its estimates for the MPC of consumer furnaces under each standards scenario.
(5) DOE seeks further comment on the designs of the secondary heat exchanger, including on any recent design changes. DOE also seeks additional feedback on the cost of AL29-4C stainless steel.
(6) DOE seeks comments, information, and data on the capital conversion costs and product conversion costs estimated for each AFUE standard TSL.
(7) DOE seeks comments, information, and data on the capital conversion costs and product conversion costs estimated for each standby mode and off mode TSL.
(8) DOE seeks comments, information, and data on the number of small businesses in the industry, the names of those small businesses, and their market shares by product class. DOE also requests comment on the potential impacts of the proposed AFUE standards and standby mode and off mode standards on small manufacturers.
(9) DOE welcomes comments on how to more fully assess the potential impact of energy conservation standards on consumer choice and affordability and how to quantify this impact in its regulatory analysis in this and future rulemakings.
(10) DOE requests data and information on the price trend for condensing NWGFs as compared to the trend for non-condensing NWGFs.
(11) DOE requests comment on its approach to monetizing the impact of the rebound effect in standards cases.
(12) DOE welcomes any additional comments on the approach for conducting the emissions analysis for furnaces.
Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the conduct of this rulemaking that may not specifically be identified in this document.
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comment.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on June 10, 2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend part 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The AFUE for non-weatherized gas furnaces (not including mobile home gas furnaces) manufactured on or after November 19, 2015, but before [
(iii) The AFUE for non-weatherized gas (not including mobile home gas furnaces) manufactured on and after [
(iv) Furnaces manufactured on and after the compliance date listed in the table below shall have an electrical standby mode power consumption (“P