Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Classifying Products as Covered Products, 26275-26281 [06-4195]
Download as PDF
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules
release frequency (LERF) have been
introduced and widely used. Our colleagues
seem to believe that there are known critical
values of these surrogate metrics that mark
the point at which a plant meets the QHOs.
We know of no defensible analysis that
establishes such critical values of these
surrogate metrics. We are, of course, quite
aware of very limited analyses considering
only risk during normal operations that
purport to show existing reactors meet the
QHOs. Such limited analyses are simply not
pertinent. They do not meet the exacting
standards required by the definitions of the
QHOs. Should defensible analyses ever be
done, we are sure that they will show the
critical values of the surrogate metrics are
technology dependent. Indeed, more
defensible analyses will show in all
likelihood that better surrogate measures can
be defined for advanced reactor technologies.
Our colleagues are sufficiently enamored
with the existing surrogate metrics that they
recommend these surrogates be enshrined on
a level equivalent to QHOs. More remarkable,
our colleagues want to establish critical
values of the metrics that are a factor of ten
less than the values they assert mark a plant
meeting the rather stringent level of safety
defined by the QHOs. They do this,
apparently, for no other reason than the fact
that clever engineers can design plants
meeting these smaller values at least for a
limited number of operational states. While
we are willing to congratulate the engineers
on their designs, we can see no reason why
such stringent safety requirements should be
made regulatory requirements to be imposed
on the designers’ efforts. Again, we worry
that doing so may create unnecessary
burdens that cause our society to sacrifice for
practical reasons great improvements in
power reactor safety simply because these
improvements fall short of our colleagues
unreasonably high safety expectations.
Though surrogate metrics have been useful,
it is important to remember that they are only
expedients. The full promise of risk-informed
safety assessment will not be realized until
it is possible to do routinely risk assessments
of sufficient scope and depth so it is possible
to dispense with surrogate metrics.
Enshrining these surrogates along with the
QHOs will only delay efforts to reach this
preferred status.
The potential of our colleagues
recommendations have to stifle new
technology and forego improved safety
reaches a crisis when they speak to the
location of modern, safer plants on sites with
older but still adequately safe plants. Our
colleagues have no tolerance for a single
older plant if a newer, safer plant is to be
collocated on the site. They are willing to
tolerate any number of similarly old plants
on a site if a new, safer plant is not added
to this site. We find this remarkable. Our
colleagues’ recommendations give no credit
for experience with a site. They fail to
recognize the finite life of older plants even
when licenses have been renewed. We fear
that our colleagues have failed to assess the
integral safety consequences of their stringent
demands on this matter. A very great concern
is that our colleagues pursuit of ideals in risk
avoidance may well arrest the current,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 May 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
healthy quest for improved safety among
those exploring advanced reactor designs.
References
1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
SECY–05–130,’’ Policy Issues Related to New
Plant Licensing and Status of the Technology
Neutral Framework for New Plant
Licensing,’’ dated July 21, 2005.
2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
‘‘Safety Goals for the Operations of Nuclear
Power Plants, Policy Statement,’’ Federal
Register, Vol. 51, (51 FR 30028), August 4,
1986.
3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
‘‘Commission’s Policy Statement on the
Regulation of Advanced Nuclear Power
Plants,’’ 59 FR 35461, July 12, 1994.
4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
NUREG–1437, Volume 1, ‘‘Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for License
Renewal of Nuclear Plants,’’ May 1996.
[FR Doc. E6–6745 Filed 5–3–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy
10 CFR Part 430
[Docket No. EE–RM–03–630]
RIN 1904–AB52
Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products: Classifying
Products as Covered Products
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
and opportunity for public comment.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Under the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (EPCA or the Act), the
Department of Energy (DOE or the
Department) is proposing to define the
term ‘‘household’’ and related terms.
These definitions would provide a basis
for the Department to determine
whether the household energy use of
products not currently covered by EPCA
meets the levels required for DOE to
classify a product as a ‘‘covered
product’’ under the Act; such a
classification would mean that DOE
potentially could establish energy
conservation requirements for the
covered product. Once the ‘‘household’’
definition is in place, the Secretary may
exercise statutory authority to (1)
classify as covered products additional
qualifying consumer products beyond
the products already specified in EPCA,
and then (2) set test procedures and
efficiency standards for them.
DATES: The Department will accept
written comments, data and information
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
26275
regarding the proposed rule no later
than June 19, 2006. The Department has
determined that a public meeting is
unnecessary under 42 U.S.C. 7191(c)(1),
since no substantial issue of fact or law
exists and this rulemaking is unlikely to
have a substantial impact on the
Nation’s economy or large numbers of
individuals or businesses.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments,
identified by docket number EE–RM–
03–630 and/or RIN 1904–AB52, by any
of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail: coverageconsumerproducts
@ee.doe.gov. Include EE–RM–03–630
and/or RIN 1904–AB52 in the subject
line of the message.
• Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones,
U.S. Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J,
NOPR to Define ‘‘Household’’, EE–RM–
03–630, and/or RIN 1904–AB52, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–2945. Please
submit one signed original paper copy.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda
Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of
Energy, Building Technologies Program,
Room 1J–018, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585–
0121.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory
Information Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see section IV of this document (Public
Participation).
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to the U.S.
Department of Energy, Forrestal
Building, Room 1J–018 (Resource Room
of the Building Technologies Program),
1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC, (202) 586–9127,
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones at
the above telephone number for
additional information regarding
visiting the Resource Room.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Linda Graves, Esq., Project Manager,
Coverage of Consumer Products, Docket
No. EE–RM–03–630, EE–2J/Forrestal
Building, U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Building Technologies, EE–2J,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 586–
1851, E-mail: linda.graves@ee.doe.gov,
or Francine Pinto, Esq., or Thomas
E:\FR\FM\04MYP1.SGM
04MYP1
26276
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules
DePriest, Esq., U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of General Counsel, GC–
72/Forrestal Building, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0103, (202) 586–
9507, E-mail: Francine.Pinto@
hq.doe.gov or Thomas.DePriest@
hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
C. Summary of Proposed Rule
II. Discussion
A. The Proposed Definitions
B. Extent of Reliance on Definitions Used
in the Department’s Residential Energy
Consumption Survey
C. Conclusion
III. Procedural Requirements
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132,
‘‘Federalism’’
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988,
‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630,
‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference
With Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights’’
J. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211,
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use’’
IV. Public Participation
A. Determination Not to Hold Public
Meeting
B. Submission of Written Comments
V. Approval by the Office of the Secretary
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
I. Introduction
A. Authority
Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act sets forth a variety
of provisions that provide for the
‘‘Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products Other than
Automobiles.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309)
The program consists essentially of four
parts: Mandatory testing, labeling, and
energy conservation standards, as well
as certification and enforcement
procedures. DOE implements all parts of
the program except for the labeling
provisions, which are implemented by
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
The Act lists specific types of
consumer products that are subject to
this program, referring to them as
‘‘covered products,’’ and authorizes the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 May 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
Department to add other consumer
products to the program as covered
products. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a) and (b))
The Department may add any type of
consumer product if: (1) ‘‘classifying
products of such type as covered
products is necessary or appropriate to
carry out the purposes’’ of EPCA, and
(2) the annual per household energy use
of such products in the households that
use them is likely to average more than
100 kilowatt-hours. (42 U.S.C. 6292(b))
For purposes of section 6292(b), ‘‘[t]he
term ‘household’ shall be defined under
rules of the Secretary [of Energy].’’ (42
U.S.C. 6292(b)(2)(C)) This notice
proposes a rule that would amend 10
CFR 430.2 to define ‘‘household’’ as
well as four related terms, three of
which are used in defining
‘‘household.’’
The Department may prescribe test
procedures for any product it classifies
as a ‘‘covered product.’’ (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(1)(B)) If the Department
prescribes such test procedures, the FTC
may also prescribe a labeling rule under
EPCA for the product if it determines
that labeling will assist purchasers in
making purchasing decisions and is
economically and technically feasible.
(42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(3)) Finally, the
Department may prescribe energy
conservation standards for a type of
consumer product it classifies as
covered if the product meets certain
additional criteria, such as ‘‘average per
household energy use within the United
States’’ in excess of 150 kilowatt-hours,
and ‘‘aggregate household energy use’’
in excess of 4.2 billion kilowatt-hours,
for any prior 12-month period. (42
U.S.C. 6295(l)(1))
Once the household definition is
finalized through this rulemaking, the
Secretary may exercise statutory
authority (1) to identify as covered
products additional qualifying
consumer products beyond the products
already specified in EPCA, and then
potentially (2) to set test procedures and
efficiency standards for the newly
covered consumer products.
B. Background
Prior to 2006, the Department
annually prepared an analysis of
pending and prospective rulemakings
under its energy conservation program
for consumer products and its
companion program for commercial and
industrial equipment under parts B and
C of Title III of EPCA. DOE used this
analysis to develop priorities and
propose schedules for all rulemakings
under these programs. In its prioritysetting activities beginning in fiscal year
2003, the Department discussed
possible expansion of the programs to
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
include additional consumer products
and commercial and industrial
equipment. However, with the passage
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(EPACT 2005), Public Law 109–58,
several additional products that the
Department had been considering for
coverage (e.g., ceiling fans and
torchieres) became covered products
with prescribed standards.
Since the passage of EPACT 2005, the
Department has re-assessed its
rulemaking procedures and scheduling
decisions. The Department held a public
meeting November 15, 2005, followed
by a 30-day public comment period, to
obtain public input. After considering
the public comments, the Department
released a five-year plan that describes
how DOE will address the appliance
standards rulemaking backlog and meet
all of the statutory requirements
established in EPCA, as amended, and
EPACT 2005. The plan is contained in
the Report to Congress, which was
released January 31, 2006, and is posted
on the DOE Web page at: https://
www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/
2006_schedule_setting.html. The report
focuses on how the Department will
complete rulemakings currently in
process, catch up on a very large
backlog of overdue rulemakings, and
meet all new rulemaking requirements
contained in EPACT 2005 on time.
Those tasks are such a major
undertaking that the Department does
not contemplate expanding the program
to cover additional consumer products
or commercial equipment at this time.
Nonetheless, the Department is
proceeding with this rulemaking
because it has invested substantial work
effort that is now close to the point of
completion. This rulemaking also fills
in a gap in DOE regulations that must
be filled before the Secretary may
exercise statutory authority in the future
as scheduling, priorities, and available
resources permit to expand standards
coverage to appropriate products.
Particularly, as energy efficient
technologies advance in the future, the
results of this rulemaking may be used
to implement the Department’s
authority to consider whether any other
products should be classified as covered
products.
As indicated above, a significant
element of such assessment for each of
these products is whether its annual
‘‘per-household’’ energy use is likely to
exceed 100 kilowatt-hours. The
Department can classify a product as
covered only if it determines that the
product meets this criterion. To address
the criterion, the Department must
define the term ‘‘household,’’ and is
E:\FR\FM\04MYP1.SGM
04MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules
proposing such a definition in this
notice. DOE would apply the definition
to any future evaluations of whether the
Department can classify other consumer
products as covered products. In
addition, the Department would use the
definition as a basis for determining
whether a product meets the perhousehold and aggregate-household
energy-use criteria for setting energy
conservation standards for a product
DOE classifies as covered. (42 U.S.C.
6295(l))
C. Summary of Proposed Rule
The proposed rule defines
‘‘household’’ and three related terms.
Taken together, these definitions in
essence provide that a household is an
individual or group that lives together
in a housing unit that they occupy
separately from any other group or
individual. The content of these
definitions is consistent with the
legislative history of EPCA and with
dictionary definitions of ‘‘household,’’
and is essentially the same as the
relevant definitions that the DOE Energy
Information Administration (EIA) uses
as a basis for its periodic Residential
Energy Consumption Surveys (RECS) of
household energy use, which is
discussed in more detail below in
section II., C. The proposed rule also
defines the term ‘‘energy use of a type
of consumer product which is used by
households,’’ which is virtually
identical to a term used in section
322(b)(2)(A) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C.
6292(b)(2)(A), so as to make clear the
locations at which household energy
consumption can occur and that visitors
to a household can contribute to such
consumption.
II. Discussion
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
A. The Proposed Definitions
As discussed above, DOE is
authorized to add products to its
program under EPCA, if the product is
likely to exceed ‘‘annual per-household
energy use’’ of 100 kilowatt-hours
pursuant to the Department’s definition
of ‘‘household.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6292(a) and
(b))
The Department is proposing a
definition of ‘‘household,’’ and of the
related terms ‘‘housing unit,’’ ‘‘separate
living quarters,’’ and ‘‘group quarters.’’
The definitions of these related terms
serve to clarify the meaning of
‘‘household.’’ ‘‘Housing unit’’ is defined
because the term is used in the
definition of ‘‘household,’’ and
‘‘separate living quarters’’ and ‘‘group
quarters’’ are defined because they are
used in the definition of ‘‘housing unit.’’
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 May 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
The core of the proposed rule is the
definition of ‘‘household’’ as an
individual or group that resides in a
particular housing unit. This conforms
to the general dictionary definition of
the term. The proposed rule, in turn,
defines ‘‘housing unit’’ as ‘‘a house, an
apartment, a group of rooms, or a single
room occupied as separate living
quarters, but [that] does not include
group quarters.’’ ‘‘Separate living
quarters’’ is defined as a place where
people live in a separate space from
others and to which they have access
without going through the living space
of others, and ‘‘group quarters’’ is
defined as living quarters occupied by
an institutional group of 10 or more
unrelated persons. The Department has
incorporated the substance of the RECS
definitions of these last two terms to
assure that ‘‘household’’ refers to a
group that consumes energy as a unit.
See 2001 RECS Report at https://
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/
glossary.html. The cut off of 10 or more
unrelated people would serve to
distinguish a group that acts as a unit
from one that does not.
Under these proposed definitions, the
Department intends to use a broad range
of data, including data generated by the
RECS, in determining whether products
qualify for coverage and the
development of standards under EPCA.
In gathering information as to the
household energy use of any particular
product, DOE will use the best available
data for that product. When RECS data
covers a product, its use will be possible
because the substance of the proposed
definitions is consistent with and quite
similar to the corresponding EIA
definitions. See 2001 RECS Report at
https://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/
glossary/html. Moreover, DOE will
generally prefer to use the RECS data
because generally it is the most
comprehensive and best available
source of information on residential
energy consumption. The RECS,
however, will likely not cover many of
the products the Department is
investigating. By not adhering to all of
the details of the definitions used in the
RECS, today’s proposed definitions
would allow the Department sufficient
flexibility to use other sources of
information as well.
Finally, EPCA defines ‘‘average
annual per-household energy use’’ for a
type of product as being the ‘‘estimated
aggregate annual energy use * * * of
consumer products of such type which
are used by households in the United
States, divided by the number of such
households which use [them].’’ (42
U.S.C. 6292(b)(2)) The Department is
proposing to define ‘‘energy use of a
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
26277
type of consumer product which is used
by households’’ as meaning energy use
by the product both within the interior
space of housing units occupied by
households, as well as on contiguous
property used primarily by the
household occupying the housing unit.
Thus, for example, where a product
consumes energy in a housing unit’s
back yard or outdoor pool or accessory
building(s) or structures, such energy
use would be included in determining
per-household or aggregate-household
energy use. This definition also makes
clear that household energy use
includes all energy consumption, both
by members of each household and their
visitors, at all housing units occupied by
each household.
B. Extent of Reliance on Definitions
Used in the Department’s Residential
Energy Consumption Survey
Since 1978, the EIA has periodically
gathered information about energy
consumption in the residential sector by
conducting a RECS, and in 2004, EIA
posted data on its Web site on the
results of its 2001 RECS at https://
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/ (2001
RECS Report). The RECS provides
information on the use of energy in
residential housing units in the United
States. This information includes: The
physical characteristics of the housing
units surveyed; the appliances in those
units, including space heating and
cooling equipment; demographic
characteristics of the households; the
types of fuels used; and other
information that relates to energy use.
2001 RECS Report at https://
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/
contents.html.
Clearly, ‘‘household’’ energy
consumption behavior is the focus of
the RECS. This behavior is a primary
driver behind purchases and
consumption of energy in the residential
setting. The RECS collects information
focused on the household, and the RECS
Report provides data on energy
consumption and expenditures per
household.
Today’s proposed definitions contain
the same concepts as the RECS
definitions (see 2001 RECS Report at
https://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/
glossary/html), and this is appropriate
for several reasons. First, as a general
matter, the RECS definitions appear to
be reasonable and logical constructions
of the term ‘‘household.’’ In content,
they are very similar to definitions for
household and related terms in the
Census Bureau’s housing survey, e.g.,
Current Housing Reports, U.S. Census
Bureau, Pub. No. H150/01, American
Housing Survey for the United States:
E:\FR\FM\04MYP1.SGM
04MYP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
26278
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules
2001 at Appendix A, A–9—A–11 (2002)
(2002 Housing Survey Report). Second,
the RECS uses ‘‘household’’ and related
terms for purposes very similar to those
for which DOE would use today’s
proposed definitions. The proposed
definitions would provide a basis on
which the Department could estimate
the household energy use of particular
products. The RECS uses the terms for
gathering and presenting precisely this
type of information, although it also
collects information as to household
energy use generally. Finally, DOE has
used RECS data in its rulemakings
concerning energy conservation
standards, and intends to use this data
whenever possible to determine
whether it can classify as covered, and
adopt standards for, consumer products
not listed as covered in EPCA. For
example, DOE used RECS data in
rulemakings concerning efficiency
standards for residential central air
conditioners and heat pumps, and for
residential water heaters. 65 FR 59589,
59595, 59600 (October 5, 2000); 66 FR
4474, 4477, 4478 (January 17, 2001).
As indicated above, today’s proposed
rule would incorporate from the RECS
definitions the concept that a group of
10 or more unrelated people, even if
living in a dwelling that would
otherwise be a single housing unit,
would not be a ‘‘household’’ for
purposes of determining per-household
energy consumption. The Census
Bureau’s Housing Survey uses a similar
approach: It does not treat as a
household a group that occupies living
quarters inhabited by nine or more
unrelated persons. 2001 Housing Survey
Report, App. A at A–10. Although DOE
might possibly use a different numerical
cut off than the RECS uses, or a more
subjective approach to describe groups
that occupy a dwelling and act as a unit,
the Department believes that the
approach in the RECS is reasonable and
wants to be able to rely on the RECS
data to the greatest extent possible to
evaluate household energy consumption
for products it seeks to cover. DOE
emphasizes that it is proposing this
classification only for purposes of
evaluating household energy
consumption under EPCA. The
proposed rule’s definition of
‘‘household’’ is not intended in any way
to address or make a judgment on the
desirability of households of any
particular size or composition.
Although today’s proposed
definitions are essentially the same in
substance as the definitions the RECS
uses for ‘‘household’’ and related terms,
the proposed language is much less
detailed, and differs from the language
of the RECS definitions in a number of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 May 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
respects. The RECS definitions contain
language specifically geared to EIA’s
purposes that is unnecessary for this
rulemaking. Regarding the level of
detail, most significant is that the RECS
definition of ‘‘household’’ identifies
various specific categories of people
who would or would not be considered
household members, whereas today’s
proposed rule does not identify such
categories. The RECS gathers
information as to the characteristics of
the households it surveys, but DOE will
not use today’s proposed definitions as
a basis for obtaining such information.
Therefore, the RECS definition needs to
delineate who is and is not within a
household with much greater precision
than today’s proposed definition.
In addition, today’s proposed
definitions contain many technical and
editorial changes to the RECS
definitions. For example, the RECS
definition of ‘‘household’’ refers to a
person’s residence ‘‘at the time of the
first field contact’’ and to comparison of
the numbers of households and of
occupied housing units ‘‘in the RECS.’’
2001 RECS Report at https://
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/
glossary.html. Such language does not
belong in today’s proposed definition of
household, which would be used to
provide a metric for assessing the energy
use of a product.
Furthermore, because EIA did not
develop the RECS definitions for
inclusion in regulations, they are not in
the form, and sometimes lack the
precision, needed in a regulation. For
example, consecutive sentences of the
RECS definition of ‘‘household’’
describe members of the household as
persons who have their ‘‘usual or
permanent place of residence’’ in the
same housing unit, who ‘‘live in the
housing unit,’’ and who ‘‘usually live in
the household.’’ 2001 RECS Report at
https://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/
glossary.html. These different
descriptions create the potential for
misinterpretation, and use of the word
‘‘household’’ within the definition of
that term makes the definition circular.
In today’s proposed definitions, the
Department has converted the EIA
definitions into language suitable for
use as a regulation, adhering to the
concepts in these definitions while
attempting to reduce the potential for
misinterpretation, vagueness, and
conflicts, as well as unnecessary
wording.
Finally, today’s proposed definition of
‘‘energy use of a type of consumer
product which is used by households’’
reflects how EIA conducts the RECS and
uses its definitions of household and
related terms, although in one
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
significant respect it departs from the
RECS approach. First, the RECS concern
all energy consumption at the housing
unit where the household is located, i.e.,
consumption both by members of a
household and by visitors. 2001 RECS
Report at https://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/
recs/recs2001/questionaire.pdf. The
language of the RECS definitions of
household and related terms, however,
does not clearly provide that household
energy consumption includes
consumption by non-members of the
household. The Department is
proposing to define ‘‘energy use of a
type of consumer product which is used
by households’’ so as to clearly include
such energy consumption.
Second, the RECS often addresses
energy consumption on the grounds and
in buildings belonging to the housing
unit in which the household members
reside, although its definition of
‘‘housing unit’’ does not explicitly
include such areas. For example, the
2001 RECS addressed swimming pool
heaters, well water pumps, and outdoor
gas lighting (2001 RECS Report at Table
HC5–4a), and previous surveys have
addressed products such as electric
lawn mowers. Today’s proposed
definition of ‘‘energy use of a type of
consumer product which is used by
households’’ provides in essence that
energy consumption on the grounds of
housing units occupied by the
household, and in structures on those
grounds, is part of household energy
consumption.
Third, the RECS concerns energy
consumption only at housing units that
households occupy as primary
residences. 2001 RECS Report at https://
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/
append_a.html and https://
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/
questionaire.pdf. Thus, the RECS does
not include information as to household
energy use in secondary residences. The
EIA uses this approach for several
reasons. First, the amount of energy
consumed in secondary residences,
although not negligible, is not large.
Second, by covering a narrower
universe—primary residences rather
than all residences occupied by
households—the sample of households
from which the RECS gathers
information will provide stronger
support for the conclusions reached in
the RECS as to household energy use.
And third, this approach parallels the
Census Bureau’s definition of
‘‘household’’ and its approach to
gathering information in its housing
survey. EPCA’s criteria for determining
whether a consumer product qualifies
for coverage and the adoption of
standards, however, do not limit per-
E:\FR\FM\04MYP1.SGM
04MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
household or aggregate household
energy use to energy use in the primary
residences of households. (42 U.S.C.
6292(b) and 6295(l)) Furthermore, the
Department sees no reason to adopt
such a limitation in evaluating products
for coverage and standards. Therefore,
today’s proposed definitions provide in
effect that household energy use by a
product includes all energy that
households consume in using that
product, at all housing units they
occupy, regardless of whether the
housing units are primary residences.
This would permit the Department to
use data as to household energy
consumption that includes both primary
and secondary residences, if such data
is available. When such data is not
available, the Department would use
data that includes only primary
residences, such as the RECS data.
Energy consumption at primary
residences will always be at least a
constituent element of total household
energy use for consumer products, since
for all or virtually all such products it
appears to represent the most significant
portion of household energy use. Thus,
for products for which the available data
includes energy use only at primary
residences, such as the RECS data, the
Department’s use of such data as a basis
for determining whether the product
qualifies for coverage and the adoption
of standards would provide an accurate
but conservative estimate of perhousehold and aggregate household
energy use under EPCA.
C. Conclusion
In sum, the Department proposes to
adopt definitions of ‘‘household’’ and
related terms, which it would use to
determine whether products not
currently covered under EPCA meet the
EPCA criteria for classification as
‘‘covered products.’’ The Department
would also use these definitions to
determine whether, once a product has
been so classified, it meets the
additional per-household and aggregate
household energy use criteria for setting
energy conservation standards under
EPCA for a product DOE classifies as
covered. EPCA directs DOE to define
‘‘household,’’ and the Department
believes the proposed definitions are
reasonable and consistent with data the
Department intends to use in making its
determinations on household energy
consumption.
III. Procedural Requirements
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs of the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 May 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
determined that today’s regulatory
action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ 58
FR 51735 (October 4, 1993).
Accordingly, this action was not subject
to review under the Executive Order.
B. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation
of an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis for any rule that by law must
be proposed for public comment, unless
the agency certifies that the rule, if
promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. As required by
Executive Order 13272, ‘‘Proper
Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461
(August 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19,
2003, to ensure that the potential
impacts of its draft rules on small
entities are properly considered during
the rulemaking process (68 FR 7990).
DOE has made them available on the
Office of General Counsel’s Web site:
https://www.gc.doe.gov.
DOE has reviewed today’s proposed
rule under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the
procedures and policies published on
February 19, 2003. Today’s proposed
rule neither classifies any product as
covered under the Act, nor includes any
requirement for any product. Thus, the
proposed definitions would not have
any economic impact on any business or
entity. On the basis of the foregoing,
DOE certifies that the proposed rule, if
adopted as a final rule, will not impose
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
regulatory flexibility analysis for this
rulemaking. DOE will transmit the
certification and supporting statement
of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration for review pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act
The Department reviewed today’s
proposed rule under the Paperwork
Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
Today’s proposed rule concerns an
element of the criteria the Department
must use to determine whether it can
regulate and adopt energy conservation
standards for consumer products not
already covered under EPCA. It would
not require any additional reports or
record-keeping. Accordingly, this action
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
26279
is not subject to review under the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act
In this rulemaking, DOE proposes to
adopt definitions that would provide a
basis for the Department to determine
whether products not currently covered
by EPCA meet the requirements for DOE
to classify a product as a ‘‘covered
product’’ under the Act, and to establish
energy conservation requirements for
the product. The definitions will not
affect the quality or distribution of
energy and, therefore, will not result in
any environmental impacts. DOE,
therefore, determined that this rule falls
into a class of actions that are
categorically excluded from review
under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) and the Department’s
implementing regulations at 10 CFR part
1021. More specifically, today’s rule is
covered by the Categorical Exclusion in
paragraph A5 to subpart D, 10 CFR part
1021 (rulemaking that amends an
existing rule without changing the
environmental effect of the rule being
amended). Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement is
required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’
64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes
certain requirements on agencies
formulating and implementing policies
or regulations that preempt State law or
that have federalism implications. The
Executive Order 13132 requires agencies
to examine the constitutional and
statutory authority supporting any
action that would limit the
policymaking discretion of the States
and 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).
The proposed rule published today
would supply an element of the criteria
the Department must use to determine
whether it can regulate and adopt
energy conservation standards for
consumer products not already covered
under EPCA. This proposed rule will
not directly affect state or local
governments. However, it might
ultimately have an indirect impact on
E:\FR\FM\04MYP1.SGM
04MYP1
26280
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
such governments because the rule
could affect which products the
Department covers and adopts standards
for, under EPCA. If the Department
ultimately decides to extend the
coverage of its energy efficiency
program to additional consumer
products, the future application of
coverage criteria could pre-empt state
and local requirements for those newly
covered products. Such impacts would
not be the result of this proposal but
would be the result of later notice—
and—comment rulemakings. Thus
today’s rule, by itself, would not preempt any state or local action.
For these reasons, the Department has
determined that today’s proposed rule
does not preempt State law and 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. Therefore, no
further action is required by Executive
Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
new regulations, section 3(a) of
Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice
Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (February 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; and
(3) provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct rather than a general
standard and promote simplification
and burden reduction. 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 section 3(a) and section
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 Executive Order 12988.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 May 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
G. Review Under Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4)
(UMRA) requires each Federal agency to
assess the effects of Federal regulatory
actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector.
With respect to a proposed regulatory
action 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), section
202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency
to publish estimates of the resulting
costs, benefits, and other effects on the
national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a),(b))
UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit
timely input by elected officers of State,
local, and tribal governments on a
proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental
mandate,’’ and 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 small
governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE
published a statement of policy on its
process for intergovernmental
consultation under UMRA (62 FR
12820) (also available at https://
www.gc.doe.gov).
This proposed rule will not directly
affect any state, local or tribal
government, or the private sector. It
might ultimately have an indirect effect
on state or local governments, and the
private sector, since it could affect
which products the Department covers
and adopts standards for under EPCA.
The Department’s coverage and
adoption of standards for products
could pre-empt state and local
requirements for those products, and
would affect companies that
manufacture and sell them. Such
impacts will not result from adoption of
today’s proposed rule, however, and the
rule would impose no mandates of any
kind.
For these reasons, we have
determined that the action proposed
today does not provide for any Federal
mandate that may result in estimated
costs of $100 million or more.
Therefore, the UMRA does not require
a cost benefit analysis of today’s
proposal.
H. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277), requires
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule
that may affect family well-being.
Today’s proposed rule would not have
any impact on the autonomy or the
integrity of the family as an institution.
Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it
is not necessary to prepare a Family
Policymaking Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
The Department has determined
under Executive Order 12630,
‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988),
that this proposed regulation would not
result in any takings which might
require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
The Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
(44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for
agencies to review most disseminations
of information to the public under
guidelines established by each agency
under general guidelines issued by
OMB. The OMB guidelines were
published in 67 FR 8452 (February 22,
2002), and the DOE guidelines were
published in 67 FR 62446 (October 7,
2002). The Department has reviewed
today’s notice under the OMB and DOE
guidelines, and has concluded that it is
consistent with applicable policies in
those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
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 the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA), Office of Management and
Budget, 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 Administration
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,
E:\FR\FM\04MYP1.SGM
04MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules
and of reasonable alternatives to the
action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
Today’s proposed rule is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it
would not have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. Therefore, it is not significant
energy action, and DOE has not
prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
IV. Public Participation
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
A. Determination Not To Hold Public
Meeting
Under 42 U.S.C. 7191(c)(1), the
Secretary may determine that ‘‘no
substantial issue of fact or law exists
and that such rule * * * is unlikely to
have a substantial impact on the
Nation’s economy or large numbers of
individuals or businesses,’’ and that
‘‘such proposed rule * * * or order may
be promulgated in accordance with
section 553 of title 5.’’ Section 553(c) of
title 5 permits the agency to ‘‘give
interested persons an opportunity to
participate in the rulemaking through
submission of written data, views, or
arguments with or without opportunity
for oral presentation.’’ The Department
has determined that a 45-day public
comment period for written comments
is sufficient and that a public meeting
for oral presentation is unnecessary for
this rulemaking. Since this rulemaking
does not raise any issues of fact or law
and merely provides a definition
necessary for the Secretary to carry out
authority already held by the Secretary
under EPCA, this rulemaking is unlikely
to have a substantial impact on the
Nation’s economy or large numbers of
individuals or businesses.
B. Submission of Written Comments
The Department will accept
comments, data, and information
regarding the proposed rule no later
than the date provided at the beginning
of this notice of proposed rulemaking.
Please submit comments, data, and
information electronically. Send them to
the following e-mail address:
coverageconsumer
products@ee.doe.gov. Submit electronic
comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft
Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format
and avoid the use of special characters
or any form of encryption. Comments in
electronic format should be identified
by the docket number EE–RM–03–630
and/or RIN number 1904–AB52, and
wherever possible carry the electronic
signature of the author. Absent an
electronic signature, comments
submitted electronically must be
followed and authenticated by
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 May 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
submitting the signed original paper
document. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will
be accepted.
According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he
or she believes to be confidential and
exempt by law from public disclosure
should submit two copies: One copy of
the document including all the
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document with the
information believed to be confidential
deleted. The Department of Energy will
make its own determination about the
confidential status of the information
and treat it according to its
determination.
Factors of interest to the Department
when evaluating requests to treat
submitted information as confidential
include: (1) A description of the items;
(2) whether and why such items are
customarily treated as confidential
within the industry; (3) whether the
information is generally known by or
available from other sources; (4)
whether the information has previously
been made available to others without
obligation concerning its
confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the
competitive injury to the submitting
person which would result from public
disclosure; (6) when such information
might lose its confidential character due
to the passage of time; and (7) why
disclosure of the information would be
contrary to the public interest.
V. Approval by the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
issuance of this notice of proposed
rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and
procedure, Energy conservation,
Household appliances.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 17,
2006.
Alexander A. Karsner,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, part 430 of Chapter II of Title
10, Code of Federal Regulations, is
proposed to be amended as set forth
below.
PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION
PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS
type of consumer product which is used
by households,’’ and ‘‘household,’’ in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
§ 430.2
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Energy use of a type of consumer
product which is used by households
means the energy consumed by such
product within housing units occupied
by households (such as energy for space
heating and cooling, water heating, the
operation of appliances, or other
activities of the households), and
includes energy consumed on any
property that is contiguous with a
housing unit and that is used primarily
by the household occupying the housing
unit (such as energy for exterior lights
or heating a pool).
*
*
*
*
*
Household means an entity consisting
of either an individual, a family, or a
group of unrelated individuals, who
reside in a particular housing unit. For
the purpose of this definition:
(1) Group quarters means living
quarters that are occupied by an
institutional group of 10 or more
unrelated persons, such as a nursing
home, military barracks, halfway house,
college dormitory, fraternity or sorority
house, convent, shelter, jail or
correctional institution.
(2) Housing unit means a house, an
apartment, a group of rooms, or a single
room occupied as separate living
quarters, but does not include group
quarters.
(3) Separate living quarters means
living quarters:
(i) To which the occupants have
access either:
(A) Directly from outside of the
building, or
(B) Through a common hall that is
accessible to other living quarters and
that does not go through someone else=s
living quarters, and
(ii) Occupied by one or more persons
who live and eat separately from
occupant(s) of other living quarters, if
any, in the same building.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 06–4195 Filed 5–3–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
1. The authority citation for part 430
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C.
2461 note.
2. Section 430.2 is amended by
adding definitions for ‘‘energy use of a
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
26281
E:\FR\FM\04MYP1.SGM
04MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 86 (Thursday, May 4, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26275-26281]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4195]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
10 CFR Part 430
[Docket No. EE-RM-03-630]
RIN 1904-AB52
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Classifying
Products as Covered Products
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for public
comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA or the
Act), the Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) is proposing to
define the term ``household'' and related terms. These definitions
would provide a basis for the Department to determine whether the
household energy use of products not currently covered by EPCA meets
the levels required for DOE to classify a product as a ``covered
product'' under the Act; such a classification would mean that DOE
potentially could establish energy conservation requirements for the
covered product. Once the ``household'' definition is in place, the
Secretary may exercise statutory authority to (1) classify as covered
products additional qualifying consumer products beyond the products
already specified in EPCA, and then (2) set test procedures and
efficiency standards for them.
DATES: The Department will accept written comments, data and
information regarding the proposed rule no later than June 19, 2006.
The Department has determined that a public meeting is unnecessary
under 42 U.S.C. 7191(c)(1), since no substantial issue of fact or law
exists and this rulemaking is unlikely to have a substantial impact on
the Nation's economy or large numbers of individuals or businesses.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments, identified by docket number EE-RM-
03-630 and/or RIN 1904-AB52, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: coverageconsumerproducts @ee.doe.gov. Include EE-
RM-03-630 and/or RIN 1904-AB52 in the subject line of the message.
Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of Energy,
Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, NOPR to Define
``Household'', EE-RM-03-630, and/or RIN 1904-AB52, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2945.
Please submit one signed original paper copy.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Room 1J-018, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see section IV of
this document (Public Participation).
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal
Building, Room 1J-018 (Resource Room of the Building Technologies
Program), 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, (202) 586-
9127, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones at the above telephone
number for additional information regarding visiting the Resource Room.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Graves, Esq., Project Manager,
Coverage of Consumer Products, Docket No. EE-RM-03-630, EE-2J/Forrestal
Building, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Building Technologies,
EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202)
586-1851, E-mail: linda.graves@ee.doe.gov, or Francine Pinto, Esq., or
Thomas
[[Page 26276]]
DePriest, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel,
GC-72/Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20585-0103, (202) 586-9507, E-mail: Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov or
Thomas.DePriest@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
C. Summary of Proposed Rule
II. Discussion
A. The Proposed Definitions
B. Extent of Reliance on Definitions Used in the Department's
Residential Energy Consumption Survey
C. Conclusion
III. Procedural Requirements
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review''
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform''
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions
and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights''
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or
Use''
IV. Public Participation
A. Determination Not to Hold Public Meeting
B. Submission of Written Comments
V. Approval by the Office of the Secretary
I. Introduction
A. Authority
Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act sets
forth a variety of provisions that provide for the ``Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other than Automobiles.''
(42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) The program consists essentially of four parts:
Mandatory testing, labeling, and energy conservation standards, as well
as certification and enforcement procedures. DOE implements all parts
of the program except for the labeling provisions, which are
implemented by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
The Act lists specific types of consumer products that are subject
to this program, referring to them as ``covered products,'' and
authorizes the Department to add other consumer products to the program
as covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a) and (b)) The Department may add
any type of consumer product if: (1) ``classifying products of such
type as covered products is necessary or appropriate to carry out the
purposes'' of EPCA, and (2) the annual per household energy use of such
products in the households that use them is likely to average more than
100 kilowatt-hours. (42 U.S.C. 6292(b)) For purposes of section
6292(b), ``[t]he term `household' shall be defined under rules of the
Secretary [of Energy].'' (42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(2)(C)) This notice proposes
a rule that would amend 10 CFR 430.2 to define ``household'' as well as
four related terms, three of which are used in defining ``household.''
The Department may prescribe test procedures for any product it
classifies as a ``covered product.'' (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(B)) If the
Department prescribes such test procedures, the FTC may also prescribe
a labeling rule under EPCA for the product if it determines that
labeling will assist purchasers in making purchasing decisions and is
economically and technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(3)) Finally,
the Department may prescribe energy conservation standards for a type
of consumer product it classifies as covered if the product meets
certain additional criteria, such as ``average per household energy use
within the United States'' in excess of 150 kilowatt-hours, and
``aggregate household energy use'' in excess of 4.2 billion kilowatt-
hours, for any prior 12-month period. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1))
Once the household definition is finalized through this rulemaking,
the Secretary may exercise statutory authority (1) to identify as
covered products additional qualifying consumer products beyond the
products already specified in EPCA, and then potentially (2) to set
test procedures and efficiency standards for the newly covered consumer
products.
B. Background
Prior to 2006, the Department annually prepared an analysis of
pending and prospective rulemakings under its energy conservation
program for consumer products and its companion program for commercial
and industrial equipment under parts B and C of Title III of EPCA. DOE
used this analysis to develop priorities and propose schedules for all
rulemakings under these programs. In its priority-setting activities
beginning in fiscal year 2003, the Department discussed possible
expansion of the programs to include additional consumer products and
commercial and industrial equipment. However, with the passage of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005), Public Law 109-58, several
additional products that the Department had been considering for
coverage (e.g., ceiling fans and torchieres) became covered products
with prescribed standards.
Since the passage of EPACT 2005, the Department has re-assessed its
rulemaking procedures and scheduling decisions. The Department held a
public meeting November 15, 2005, followed by a 30-day public comment
period, to obtain public input. After considering the public comments,
the Department released a five-year plan that describes how DOE will
address the appliance standards rulemaking backlog and meet all of the
statutory requirements established in EPCA, as amended, and EPACT 2005.
The plan is contained in the Report to Congress, which was released
January 31, 2006, and is posted on the DOE Web page at: https://
www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/2006_schedule_
setting.html. The report focuses on how the Department will complete
rulemakings currently in process, catch up on a very large backlog of
overdue rulemakings, and meet all new rulemaking requirements contained
in EPACT 2005 on time. Those tasks are such a major undertaking that
the Department does not contemplate expanding the program to cover
additional consumer products or commercial equipment at this time.
Nonetheless, the Department is proceeding with this rulemaking because
it has invested substantial work effort that is now close to the point
of completion. This rulemaking also fills in a gap in DOE regulations
that must be filled before the Secretary may exercise statutory
authority in the future as scheduling, priorities, and available
resources permit to expand standards coverage to appropriate products.
Particularly, as energy efficient technologies advance in the future,
the results of this rulemaking may be used to implement the
Department's authority to consider whether any other products should be
classified as covered products.
As indicated above, a significant element of such assessment for
each of these products is whether its annual ``per-household'' energy
use is likely to exceed 100 kilowatt-hours. The Department can classify
a product as covered only if it determines that the product meets this
criterion. To address the criterion, the Department must define the
term ``household,'' and is
[[Page 26277]]
proposing such a definition in this notice. DOE would apply the
definition to any future evaluations of whether the Department can
classify other consumer products as covered products. In addition, the
Department would use the definition as a basis for determining whether
a product meets the per-household and aggregate-household energy-use
criteria for setting energy conservation standards for a product DOE
classifies as covered. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l))
C. Summary of Proposed Rule
The proposed rule defines ``household'' and three related terms.
Taken together, these definitions in essence provide that a household
is an individual or group that lives together in a housing unit that
they occupy separately from any other group or individual. The content
of these definitions is consistent with the legislative history of EPCA
and with dictionary definitions of ``household,'' and is essentially
the same as the relevant definitions that the DOE Energy Information
Administration (EIA) uses as a basis for its periodic Residential
Energy Consumption Surveys (RECS) of household energy use, which is
discussed in more detail below in section II., C. The proposed rule
also defines the term ``energy use of a type of consumer product which
is used by households,'' which is virtually identical to a term used in
section 322(b)(2)(A) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(2)(A), so as to make
clear the locations at which household energy consumption can occur and
that visitors to a household can contribute to such consumption.
II. Discussion
A. The Proposed Definitions
As discussed above, DOE is authorized to add products to its
program under EPCA, if the product is likely to exceed ``annual per-
household energy use'' of 100 kilowatt-hours pursuant to the
Department's definition of ``household.'' (42 U.S.C. 6292(a) and (b))
The Department is proposing a definition of ``household,'' and of
the related terms ``housing unit,'' ``separate living quarters,'' and
``group quarters.'' The definitions of these related terms serve to
clarify the meaning of ``household.'' ``Housing unit'' is defined
because the term is used in the definition of ``household,'' and
``separate living quarters'' and ``group quarters'' are defined because
they are used in the definition of ``housing unit.''
The core of the proposed rule is the definition of ``household'' as
an individual or group that resides in a particular housing unit. This
conforms to the general dictionary definition of the term. The proposed
rule, in turn, defines ``housing unit'' as ``a house, an apartment, a
group of rooms, or a single room occupied as separate living quarters,
but [that] does not include group quarters.'' ``Separate living
quarters'' is defined as a place where people live in a separate space
from others and to which they have access without going through the
living space of others, and ``group quarters'' is defined as living
quarters occupied by an institutional group of 10 or more unrelated
persons. The Department has incorporated the substance of the RECS
definitions of these last two terms to assure that ``household'' refers
to a group that consumes energy as a unit. See 2001 RECS Report at
https://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/glossary.html. The cut off of 10 or
more unrelated people would serve to distinguish a group that acts as a
unit from one that does not.
Under these proposed definitions, the Department intends to use a
broad range of data, including data generated by the RECS, in
determining whether products qualify for coverage and the development
of standards under EPCA. In gathering information as to the household
energy use of any particular product, DOE will use the best available
data for that product. When RECS data covers a product, its use will be
possible because the substance of the proposed definitions is
consistent with and quite similar to the corresponding EIA definitions.
See 2001 RECS Report at https://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/ glossary/
html. Moreover, DOE will generally prefer to use the RECS data because
generally it is the most comprehensive and best available source of
information on residential energy consumption. The RECS, however, will
likely not cover many of the products the Department is investigating.
By not adhering to all of the details of the definitions used in the
RECS, today's proposed definitions would allow the Department
sufficient flexibility to use other sources of information as well.
Finally, EPCA defines ``average annual per-household energy use''
for a type of product as being the ``estimated aggregate annual energy
use * * * of consumer products of such type which are used by
households in the United States, divided by the number of such
households which use [them].'' (42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(2)) The Department is
proposing to define ``energy use of a type of consumer product which is
used by households'' as meaning energy use by the product both within
the interior space of housing units occupied by households, as well as
on contiguous property used primarily by the household occupying the
housing unit. Thus, for example, where a product consumes energy in a
housing unit's back yard or outdoor pool or accessory building(s) or
structures, such energy use would be included in determining per-
household or aggregate-household energy use. This definition also makes
clear that household energy use includes all energy consumption, both
by members of each household and their visitors, at all housing units
occupied by each household.
B. Extent of Reliance on Definitions Used in the Department's
Residential Energy Consumption Survey
Since 1978, the EIA has periodically gathered information about
energy consumption in the residential sector by conducting a RECS, and
in 2004, EIA posted data on its Web site on the results of its 2001
RECS at https://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/ (2001 RECS Report). The RECS
provides information on the use of energy in residential housing units
in the United States. This information includes: The physical
characteristics of the housing units surveyed; the appliances in those
units, including space heating and cooling equipment; demographic
characteristics of the households; the types of fuels used; and other
information that relates to energy use. 2001 RECS Report at https://
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/contents.html.
Clearly, ``household'' energy consumption behavior is the focus of
the RECS. This behavior is a primary driver behind purchases and
consumption of energy in the residential setting. The RECS collects
information focused on the household, and the RECS Report provides data
on energy consumption and expenditures per household.
Today's proposed definitions contain the same concepts as the RECS
definitions (see 2001 RECS Report at https://www.eia.doe.gov/ emeu/recs/
glossary/html), and this is appropriate for several reasons. First, as
a general matter, the RECS definitions appear to be reasonable and
logical constructions of the term ``household.'' In content, they are
very similar to definitions for household and related terms in the
Census Bureau's housing survey, e.g., Current Housing Reports, U.S.
Census Bureau, Pub. No. H150/01, American Housing Survey for the United
States:
[[Page 26278]]
2001 at Appendix A, A-9--A-11 (2002) (2002 Housing Survey Report).
Second, the RECS uses ``household'' and related terms for purposes very
similar to those for which DOE would use today's proposed definitions.
The proposed definitions would provide a basis on which the Department
could estimate the household energy use of particular products. The
RECS uses the terms for gathering and presenting precisely this type of
information, although it also collects information as to household
energy use generally. Finally, DOE has used RECS data in its
rulemakings concerning energy conservation standards, and intends to
use this data whenever possible to determine whether it can classify as
covered, and adopt standards for, consumer products not listed as
covered in EPCA. For example, DOE used RECS data in rulemakings
concerning efficiency standards for residential central air
conditioners and heat pumps, and for residential water heaters. 65 FR
59589, 59595, 59600 (October 5, 2000); 66 FR 4474, 4477, 4478 (January
17, 2001).
As indicated above, today's proposed rule would incorporate from
the RECS definitions the concept that a group of 10 or more unrelated
people, even if living in a dwelling that would otherwise be a single
housing unit, would not be a ``household'' for purposes of determining
per-household energy consumption. The Census Bureau's Housing Survey
uses a similar approach: It does not treat as a household a group that
occupies living quarters inhabited by nine or more unrelated persons.
2001 Housing Survey Report, App. A at A-10. Although DOE might possibly
use a different numerical cut off than the RECS uses, or a more
subjective approach to describe groups that occupy a dwelling and act
as a unit, the Department believes that the approach in the RECS is
reasonable and wants to be able to rely on the RECS data to the
greatest extent possible to evaluate household energy consumption for
products it seeks to cover. DOE emphasizes that it is proposing this
classification only for purposes of evaluating household energy
consumption under EPCA. The proposed rule's definition of ``household''
is not intended in any way to address or make a judgment on the
desirability of households of any particular size or composition.
Although today's proposed definitions are essentially the same in
substance as the definitions the RECS uses for ``household'' and
related terms, the proposed language is much less detailed, and differs
from the language of the RECS definitions in a number of respects. The
RECS definitions contain language specifically geared to EIA's purposes
that is unnecessary for this rulemaking. Regarding the level of detail,
most significant is that the RECS definition of ``household''
identifies various specific categories of people who would or would not
be considered household members, whereas today's proposed rule does not
identify such categories. The RECS gathers information as to the
characteristics of the households it surveys, but DOE will not use
today's proposed definitions as a basis for obtaining such information.
Therefore, the RECS definition needs to delineate who is and is not
within a household with much greater precision than today's proposed
definition.
In addition, today's proposed definitions contain many technical
and editorial changes to the RECS definitions. For example, the RECS
definition of ``household'' refers to a person's residence ``at the
time of the first field contact'' and to comparison of the numbers of
households and of occupied housing units ``in the RECS.'' 2001 RECS
Report at https://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/glossary.html. Such
language does not belong in today's proposed definition of household,
which would be used to provide a metric for assessing the energy use of
a product.
Furthermore, because EIA did not develop the RECS definitions for
inclusion in regulations, they are not in the form, and sometimes lack
the precision, needed in a regulation. For example, consecutive
sentences of the RECS definition of ``household'' describe members of
the household as persons who have their ``usual or permanent place of
residence'' in the same housing unit, who ``live in the housing unit,''
and who ``usually live in the household.'' 2001 RECS Report at https://
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/glossary.html. These different descriptions
create the potential for misinterpretation, and use of the word
``household'' within the definition of that term makes the definition
circular. In today's proposed definitions, the Department has converted
the EIA definitions into language suitable for use as a regulation,
adhering to the concepts in these definitions while attempting to
reduce the potential for misinterpretation, vagueness, and conflicts,
as well as unnecessary wording.
Finally, today's proposed definition of ``energy use of a type of
consumer product which is used by households'' reflects how EIA
conducts the RECS and uses its definitions of household and related
terms, although in one significant respect it departs from the RECS
approach. First, the RECS concern all energy consumption at the housing
unit where the household is located, i.e., consumption both by members
of a household and by visitors. 2001 RECS Report at https://
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/questionaire.pdf. The language of
the RECS definitions of household and related terms, however, does not
clearly provide that household energy consumption includes consumption
by non-members of the household. The Department is proposing to define
``energy use of a type of consumer product which is used by
households'' so as to clearly include such energy consumption.
Second, the RECS often addresses energy consumption on the grounds
and in buildings belonging to the housing unit in which the household
members reside, although its definition of ``housing unit'' does not
explicitly include such areas. For example, the 2001 RECS addressed
swimming pool heaters, well water pumps, and outdoor gas lighting (2001
RECS Report at Table HC5-4a), and previous surveys have addressed
products such as electric lawn mowers. Today's proposed definition of
``energy use of a type of consumer product which is used by
households'' provides in essence that energy consumption on the grounds
of housing units occupied by the household, and in structures on those
grounds, is part of household energy consumption.
Third, the RECS concerns energy consumption only at housing units
that households occupy as primary residences. 2001 RECS Report at
https://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/append_a.html and https://
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/questionaire.pdf. Thus, the RECS
does not include information as to household energy use in secondary
residences. The EIA uses this approach for several reasons. First, the
amount of energy consumed in secondary residences, although not
negligible, is not large. Second, by covering a narrower universe--
primary residences rather than all residences occupied by households--
the sample of households from which the RECS gathers information will
provide stronger support for the conclusions reached in the RECS as to
household energy use. And third, this approach parallels the Census
Bureau's definition of ``household'' and its approach to gathering
information in its housing survey. EPCA's criteria for determining
whether a consumer product qualifies for coverage and the adoption of
standards, however, do not limit per-
[[Page 26279]]
household or aggregate household energy use to energy use in the
primary residences of households. (42 U.S.C. 6292(b) and 6295(l))
Furthermore, the Department sees no reason to adopt such a limitation
in evaluating products for coverage and standards. Therefore, today's
proposed definitions provide in effect that household energy use by a
product includes all energy that households consume in using that
product, at all housing units they occupy, regardless of whether the
housing units are primary residences. This would permit the Department
to use data as to household energy consumption that includes both
primary and secondary residences, if such data is available. When such
data is not available, the Department would use data that includes only
primary residences, such as the RECS data. Energy consumption at
primary residences will always be at least a constituent element of
total household energy use for consumer products, since for all or
virtually all such products it appears to represent the most
significant portion of household energy use. Thus, for products for
which the available data includes energy use only at primary
residences, such as the RECS data, the Department's use of such data as
a basis for determining whether the product qualifies for coverage and
the adoption of standards would provide an accurate but conservative
estimate of per-household and aggregate household energy use under
EPCA.
C. Conclusion
In sum, the Department proposes to adopt definitions of
``household'' and related terms, which it would use to determine
whether products not currently covered under EPCA meet the EPCA
criteria for classification as ``covered products.'' The Department
would also use these definitions to determine whether, once a product
has been so classified, it meets the additional per-household and
aggregate household energy use criteria for setting energy conservation
standards under EPCA for a product DOE classifies as covered. EPCA
directs DOE to define ``household,'' and the Department believes the
proposed definitions are reasonable and consistent with data the
Department intends to use in making its determinations on household
energy consumption.
III. Procedural Requirements
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that today's regulatory
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (October 4,
1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the
Executive Order.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required
by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the
potential impacts of its draft rules on small entities are properly
considered during the rulemaking process (68 FR 7990). DOE has made
them available on the Office of General Counsel's Web site: https://
www.gc.doe.gov.
DOE has reviewed today's proposed rule under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on
February 19, 2003. Today's proposed rule neither classifies any product
as covered under the Act, nor includes any requirement for any product.
Thus, the proposed definitions would not have any economic impact on
any business or entity. On the basis of the foregoing, DOE certifies
that the proposed rule, if adopted as a final rule, will not impose a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for
this rulemaking. DOE will transmit the certification and supporting
statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration for review pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
The Department reviewed today's proposed rule under the Paperwork
Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) Today's proposed rule concerns
an element of the criteria the Department must use to determine whether
it can regulate and adopt energy conservation standards for consumer
products not already covered under EPCA. It would not require any
additional reports or record-keeping. Accordingly, this action is not
subject to review under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
In this rulemaking, DOE proposes to adopt definitions that would
provide a basis for the Department to determine whether products not
currently covered by EPCA meet the requirements for DOE to classify a
product as a ``covered product'' under the Act, and to establish energy
conservation requirements for the product. The definitions will not
affect the quality or distribution of energy and, therefore, will not
result in any environmental impacts. DOE, therefore, determined that
this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded
from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the Department's implementing regulations at
10 CFR part 1021. More specifically, today's rule is covered by the
Categorical Exclusion in paragraph A5 to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021
(rulemaking that amends an existing rule without changing the
environmental effect of the rule being amended). Accordingly, neither
an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999)
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. The Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to examine
the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that
would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and 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).
The proposed rule published today would supply an element of the
criteria the Department must use to determine whether it can regulate
and adopt energy conservation standards for consumer products not
already covered under EPCA. This proposed rule will not directly affect
state or local governments. However, it might ultimately have an
indirect impact on
[[Page 26280]]
such governments because the rule could affect which products the
Department covers and adopts standards for, under EPCA. If the
Department ultimately decides to extend the coverage of its energy
efficiency program to additional consumer products, the future
application of coverage criteria could pre-empt state and local
requirements for those newly covered products. Such impacts would not
be the result of this proposal but would be the result of later
notice--and--comment rulemakings. Thus today's rule, by itself, would
not pre-empt any state or local action.
For these reasons, the Department has determined that today's
proposed rule does not preempt State law and 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. Therefore,
no further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988,
``Civil Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (February 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; and (3) provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and
promote simplification and burden reduction. 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 section 3(a) and section 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
Executive Order 12988.
G. Review Under Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the
private sector. With respect to a proposed regulatory action 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), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish estimates of the resulting costs, benefits,
and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a),(b)) UMRA
also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to
permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and tribal
governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate,''
and 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 small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement
of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA
(62 FR 12820) (also available at https://www.gc.doe.gov).
This proposed rule will not directly affect any state, local or
tribal government, or the private sector. It might ultimately have an
indirect effect on state or local governments, and the private sector,
since it could affect which products the Department covers and adopts
standards for under EPCA. The Department's coverage and adoption of
standards for products could pre-empt state and local requirements for
those products, and would affect companies that manufacture and sell
them. Such impacts will not result from adoption of today's proposed
rule, however, and the rule would impose no mandates of any kind.
For these reasons, we have determined that the action proposed
today does not provide for any Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more. Therefore, the UMRA does not
require a cost benefit analysis of today's proposal.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
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. Today's proposed rule would not have any impact on the
autonomy or the integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly,
DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family
Policymaking Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
The Department has determined under Executive Order 12630,
``Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this proposed
regulation would not result in any takings which might require
compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44
U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations
of information to the public under guidelines established by each
agency under general guidelines issued by OMB. The OMB guidelines were
published in 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and the DOE guidelines
were published in 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). The Department has
reviewed today's notice under the OMB and DOE guidelines, and has
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
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 the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of
Management and Budget, 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
Administration 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,
[[Page 26281]]
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. Today's proposed rule
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, it is not significant energy
action, and DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
IV. Public Participation
A. Determination Not To Hold Public Meeting
Under 42 U.S.C. 7191(c)(1), the Secretary may determine that ``no
substantial issue of fact or law exists and that such rule * * * is
unlikely to have a substantial impact on the Nation's economy or large
numbers of individuals or businesses,'' and that ``such proposed rule *
* * or order may be promulgated in accordance with section 553 of title
5.'' Section 553(c) of title 5 permits the agency to ``give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking through
submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without
opportunity for oral presentation.'' The Department has determined that
a 45-day public comment period for written comments is sufficient and
that a public meeting for oral presentation is unnecessary for this
rulemaking. Since this rulemaking does not raise any issues of fact or
law and merely provides a definition necessary for the Secretary to
carry out authority already held by the Secretary under EPCA, this
rulemaking is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the Nation's
economy or large numbers of individuals or businesses.
B. Submission of Written Comments
The Department will accept comments, data, and information
regarding the proposed rule no later than the date provided at the
beginning of this notice of proposed rulemaking. Please submit
comments, data, and information electronically. Send them to the
following e-mail address: coverageconsumer products@ee.doe.gov. Submit
electronic comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or text
(ASCII) file format and avoid the use of special characters or any form
of encryption. Comments in electronic format should be identified by
the docket number EE-RM-03-630 and/or RIN number 1904-AB52, and
wherever possible carry the electronic signature of the author. Absent
an electronic signature, comments submitted electronically must be
followed and authenticated by submitting the signed original paper
document. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that
he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public
disclosure should submit two copies: One copy of the document including
all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the
document with the information believed to be confidential deleted. The
Department of Energy will make its own determination about the
confidential status of the information and treat it according to its
determination.
Factors of interest to the Department when evaluating requests to
treat submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description
of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is
generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the
information has previously been made available to others without
obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from
public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its
confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
V. Approval by the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved issuance of this notice of
proposed rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Energy conservation,
Household appliances.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 17, 2006.
Alexander A. Karsner,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 430 of Chapter II
of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, is proposed to be amended as
set forth below.
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
2. Section 430.2 is amended by adding definitions for ``energy use
of a type of consumer product which is used by households,'' and
``household,'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 430.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Energy use of a type of consumer product which is used by
households means the energy consumed by such product within housing
units occupied by households (such as energy for space heating and
cooling, water heating, the operation of appliances, or other
activities of the households), and includes energy consumed on any
property that is contiguous with a housing unit and that is used
primarily by the household occupying the housing unit (such as energy
for exterior lights or heating a pool).
* * * * *
Household means an entity consisting of either an individual, a
family, or a group of unrelated individuals, who reside in a particular
housing unit. For the purpose of this definition:
(1) Group quarters means living quarters that are occupied by an
institutional group of 10 or more unrelated persons, such as a nursing
home, military barracks, halfway house, college dormitory, fraternity
or sorority house, convent, shelter, jail or correctional institution.
(2) Housing unit means a house, an apartment, a group of rooms, or
a single room occupied as separate living quarters, but does not
include group quarters.
(3) Separate living quarters means living quarters:
(i) To which the occupants have access either:
(A) Directly from outside of the building, or
(B) Through a common hall that is accessible to other living
quarters and that does not go through someone else=s living quarters,
and
(ii) Occupied by one or more persons who live and eat separately
from occupant(s) of other living quarters, if any, in the same
building.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-4195 Filed 5-3-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P