Rule2026-02935
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 13, 2026
Effective
March 16, 2026
Issuing agencies
Energy Department
Abstract
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended ("EPCA"), prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including metal halide lamp fixtures ("MHLFs"). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") to periodically review its existing standards to determine whether more-stringent standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified and would result in significant energy savings. In this final determination, DOE has determined that more-stringent energy conservation standards for MHLFs would not be cost effective and, therefore, DOE does not need to amend its energy conservation standards for MHLFs.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 30 (Friday, February 13, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 30 (Friday, February 13, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6737-6743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-02935]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2026 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 6737]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2022-BT-STD-0023]
RIN 1904-AF44
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures
AGENCY: Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation, Department
of Energy.
ACTION: Final determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including metal halide
lamp fixtures (``MHLFs''). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of
Energy (``DOE'') to periodically review its existing standards to
determine whether more-stringent standards would be technologically
feasible and economically justified and would result in significant
energy savings. In this final determination, DOE has determined that
more-stringent energy conservation standards for MHLFs would not be
cost effective and, therefore, DOE does not need to amend its energy
conservation standards for MHLFs.
DATES: The effective date of this final determination is March 16,
2026.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. All documents in the
docket are listed in the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> index. However, not all
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0023">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0023</a>. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.
For further information on how to review the docket, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by
email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#92d3e2e2fefbf3fcf1f7c1e6f3fcf6f3e0f6e1c3e7f7e1e6fbfdfce1d2f7f7bcf6fdf7bcf5fde4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="54152424383d353a37310720353a303526302705213127203d3b3a271431317a303b317a333b22">[email protected]</span></a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Critical
Minerals and Energy Innovation, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 994-8232. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1b5a6b6b77727a75787e486f7a757f7a697f684a6e7e686f727475685b7e7e357f747e357c746d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8ccdfcfce0e5ede2efe9dff8ede2e8edfee8ffddf9e9fff8e5e3e2ffcce9e9a2e8e3e9a2ebe3fa">[email protected]</span></a>.
Ms. Kristin Koernig, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4798. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a2e9d0cbd1d6cbcc8cc9cdc7d0cccbc5e2cad38cc6cdc78cc5cdd4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a8e3dac1dbdcc1c686c3c7cddac6c1cfe8c0d986ccc7cd86cfc7de">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Final Determination
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. Current Rulemaking History
III. Rationale of Analysis and Discussion of Related Comments
IV. Final Determination
A. Technological Feasibility
B. Cost-Effectiveness
C. Significant Conservation of Energy
D. Summary
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
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
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
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
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
M. Congressional Notification
N. Review Under Additional Executive Orders and Presidential
Memoranda
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Final Determination
EPCA, Public Law 94-163, as amended,\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate
the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain
industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317, as codified) Title III,
Part B of EPCA \2\ established the Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) These
products include MHLFs, the subject of this final determination. (42
U.S.C. 6292(a)(19))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to EPCA, DOE is required to review its existing energy
conservation standards for covered consumer products no later than 3
years after a determination that standards for the product do not need
to be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B)) Pursuant to that statutory
provision, DOE must publish either a notice of the determination that
standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of
proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') including new proposed energy
conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate).
(Id.) DOE has conducted this review of the energy conservation
standards for MHLFs under EPCA's 3-year-lookback authority in EPCA
following a determination that standards need not be amended.
For this final determination, DOE analyzed MHLFs subject to energy
conservation standards specified in the Code of Federal Regulations
(``CFR'') at 10 CFR 431.322. DOE first analyzed the technological
feasibility of more energy-efficient MHLFs. For those MHLFs for which
DOE determined higher standards to be technologically feasible, DOE
evaluated whether higher standards would be cost effective. Based on
that evaluation, DOE has determined that the market and technology
characteristics of MHLFs are largely similar to those analyzed in the
previous energy conservations standards rulemaking for MHLFs, which
concluded with the publication of a final rule determining not to amend
[[Page 6738]]
standards. See 86 FR 58763 (October 25, 2021) (``October 2021 Final
Determination''). DOE has determined that the conclusions reached in
the October 2021 Final Determination regarding the benefits and burdens
of more stringent standards for MHLFs are still relevant to the MHLF
market today. Hence, DOE has determined that the amended standards for
MHLFs would not be cost effective.
Based on the results of the analyses, summarized in section III of
this document, DOE has determined that current standards for MHLFs do
not need to be amended and is issuing this final determination
accordingly.
II. Introduction
The following sections briefly discuss the statutory authority
underlying this final determination, as well as some of the historical
background relevant to the establishment of energy conservation
standards for MHLFs.
A. Authority
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317, as codified) Title III, Part B of EPCA \3\ established the Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.
These products include MHLFs, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C.
6292(a)(19))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ As noted previously, for editorial reasons, upon
codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws or regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal
preemption in limited circumstances for particular State laws or
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set
forth under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use,
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered products
must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying
to DOE that their product complies with the applicable energy
conservation standards and as the basis for any representations
regarding the energy use or energy efficiency of the product. (42
U.S.C. 6295(s) and 42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these
test procedures to evaluate whether a basic model complies with the
applicable energy conservation standard(s). (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE
test procedures for MHLFs appear at 10 CFR 431.324.
EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for MHLFs (42 U.S.C.
6295(hh)(1)) and directed DOE to conduct future rulemakings to
determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(2)(A)
and (3)(A)) Not later than 3 years after the issuance of a final
determination not to amend standards, DOE must publish either a notice
of determination that standards for the product do not need to be
amended, or a NOPR proposing amended energy conservation standards
(proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B))
DOE must make the analysis on which a notice of determination or NOPR
is based publicly available and provide an opportunity for written
comment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(2))
A determination that amended standards are not needed must be based
on consideration of whether amended standards will result in
significant conservation of energy, are technologically feasible, and
are cost effective. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), an evaluation of cost
effectiveness requires DOE to consider savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the covered products in the
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges,
or maintenance expenses for the covered products that are likely to
result from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II))
Finally, pursuant to the amendments to EPCA contained in the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007, Pub. L. 110-140, any final rule
for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after July
1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and off mode energy use.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for a
covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the criteria
for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate
standby mode and off mode energy use into a single standard, or, if
that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for such energy use for
that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE's current test
procedures for MHLFs address standby mode energy use.\4\ However, DOE
has yet to identify a MHLF on the market that uses energy in standby
mode. Therefore, in the analysis for this final determination, DOE
considered only active mode energy consumption, as standby and off mode
energy use are not applicable to MHLFs at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ DOE determined that it is not possible for MHLFs to meet off
mode criteria because there is no condition in which the components
of an MHLF are connected to the main power source and are not
already in a mode accounted for in either active mode or standby
mode.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is publishing this final determination pursuant to the 3-year-
lookback review requirement in EPCA following a determination that
standards need not be amended.
B. Background
1. Current Standards
Current standards for MHLFs manufactured on or after February 10,
2017, are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 431.326 and are
specified in Table II.1. 10 CFR 431.326(c). Additionally, it is
specified at 10 CFR 431.326 that MHLFs manufactured on or after
February 10, 2017, that operate lamps with rated wattage >500 watts
(``W'') to <=1,000 W must not contain a probe-start metal halide
ballast. 10 CFR 431.326(d). The following MHLFs are not subject to
these regulations: (1) MHLFs with regulated-lag ballasts; (2) MHLFs
that use electronic ballasts that operate at 480 volts; and (3) MHLFs
that use high-frequency electronic ballasts. 10 CFR 431.326(e).
[[Page 6739]]
Table II.1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for MHLFs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designed to be operated with lamps of
the following rated lamp wattage Tested input voltage * Minimum standard equation * %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50 W and <=100 W...................... 480 V...................... (1/(1 + 1.24 x P[supcaret](-0.351)))-
0.020.**
>=50 W and <=100 W...................... All others................. 1/(1 + 1.24 x P[supcaret](-0.351)).
>100 W and <150 W [dagger].............. 480 V...................... (1/(1 + 1.24 x P[supcaret](-0.351)))-
0.020.
>100 W and <150 W [dagger].............. All others................. 1/(1 + 1.24 x P[supcaret](-0.351)).
>=150 W [Dagger] and <=250 W............ 480 V...................... 0.880.
>=150 W [Dagger] and <=250 W............ All others................. For >=150 W and <=200 W: 0.880.
For >200 W and <=250 W: 1/(1 + 0.876 x
P[supcaret](-0.351)).
>250 W and <=500 W...................... 480 V...................... For >250 W and <265 W: 0.880.
For >=265 W and <=500 W: (1/(1 + 0.876 x
P[supcaret](-0.351)))-0.010.
>250 W and <=500 W...................... All others................. 1/(1 + 0.876 x P[supcaret](-0.351)).
>500 W and <=1,000 W.................... 480 V...................... >500 W and <=750 W: 0.900.
>750 W and <=1,000 W: 0.000104 x P +
0.822.
For >500W and <=1,000W: may not utilize a
probe-start ballast.
>500 W and <=1,000 W.................... All others................. For >500 W and <=750W: 0.910.
For >750 W and <=1,000 W: 0.000104 x P +
0.832.
For >500 W and <=1,000 W: may not utilize
a probe-start ballast.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Tested input voltage is specified in 10 CFR 431.324.
** P is defined as the rated wattage of the lamp the fixture is designed to operate.
[dagger] Includes 150W fixtures specified in paragraph (b)(3) of 10 CFR 431.326, that are fixtures rated only
for 150W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the National Fire Protection Association
(``NFPA'') 70, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures
above 50 [deg]C, as specified by Underwriters Laboratory (``UL'') 1029.
[Dagger] Excludes 150W fixtures specified in paragraph (b)(3) of 10 CFR 431.326, that are fixtures rated only
for 150W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the NFPA 70, section 410.4(A); and containing
a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 [deg]C, as specified by UL 1029.
2. Current Rulemaking History
As noted in section II.A of this document, EPCA directed DOE to
conduct two rulemaking cycles to determine whether to amend standards
for MHLFs established by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(2)(A) and (3)(A))
Accordingly, DOE published a final rule amending the standards for
MHLFs on February 10, 2014 (``February 2014 Final Rule''). 79 FR 7746.
These current standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR
431.326 and are specified in Table II.1. DOE completed the second
rulemaking by publishing the October 2021 Final Determination.
In support of the present review of the MHLF energy conservation
standards, on October 6, 2022, DOE published a request for information
(``RFI''), which identified various issues on which DOE sought comment
to inform its determination of whether the standards need to be
amended. 87 FR 60555. After considering comments in response to the
RFI, DOE published a notice of proposed determination (``NOPD'') on
October 3, 2023 (``October 2023 NOPD''), which proposed not to amend
energy conservation standards for MHLFs as amended standards would not
be cost effective. 88 FR 67989.
In the October 2023 NOPD, DOE tentatively determined that, since
the October 2021 Final Determination analysis, there has been no
substantial change in (1) product offerings of MHLFs to warrant a
change in scope of analysis or equipment classes, (2) technologies or
design options that could improve the energy efficiency of MHLFs, (3)
manufacturers and industry structure, (4) shipments, (5) operating
hours, and (6) market and industry trends. Id. at 88 FR 67992.
Additionally, DOE noted that it did not receive any comments in
response to the RFI indicating technological or market changes for
MHLFs. Id. As such, DOE tentatively determined that the analysis
conducted for the October 2021 Final Determination and its conclusion
that amended energy conservation standards for MHLFs would not be cost
effective remained valid. Id.
DOE received two comments in response to the October 2023 NOPD from
the interested parties listed in Table II.2.
Table II.2--Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the October 2023 NOPD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment No. in
Commenter(s) Reference in this NOPD the docket Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Electrical Manufacturers NEMA......................... 5 Trade Association.
Association (``NEMA'').
Anonymous......................... Anonymous.................... 6 Anonymous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket. (Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-
0023, which is maintained at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>). The references
are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number,
page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Rationale of Analysis and Discussion of Related Comments
DOE developed this final determination after a review of the MHLF
market and comments in response to the October 2023 NOPD. In this
analysis for this final determination, DOE relied on the statutory and
regulatory definition for ``MHLF,'' which is defined as a light fixture
for general lighting application designed to be operated with a metal
halide lamp and a ballast for a metal halide lamp. (42 U.S.C.
6291(64)); 10 CFR 431.322. Any equipment meeting the definition of MHLF
is included in DOE's scope of coverage, though not all products within
the scope of coverage are subject to standards.
In the October 2023 NOPD, DOE requested comment on its proposed
[[Page 6740]]
determination that the existing energy conservation standards for MHLFs
do not need to be amended. 88 FR 67989, 67992.
In response to the October 2023 NOPD, NEMA commented that since no
substantive changes have occurred in MHLF technology or in the market,
the analysis conducted for the October 2021 Final Determination and the
conclusion in the October 2021 Final Determination that amended
standards for MHLFs would not be cost effective remain valid. NEMA
stated that DOE should again determine that more stringent amended
standards for MHLFs cannot satisfy the relevant statutory requirements
because such standards would not be cost effective, as required under
EPCA. (NEMA, No. 5 at p. 1)
In response to the October 2023 NOPD, a private citizen stated DOE
should adopt a policy in which products that have declined by more than
50 to 70 percent from peak shipment levels could, after notice and
comment rulemaking, be classified as inactive for the purpose of
efficiency rulemakings and not be subject to every 3-year review under
EPCA. Additionally, the private citizen stated that if product
shipments then increase to at least 50 percent of historical peak
shipment levels, the product can be reinstated as active and DOE can
resume review of efficiency standards. The private citizen stated that,
without such a policy, DOE and stakeholders will be wasting time and
resources on these reviews every 3 years. (Anonymous, No. 6 at p. 1)
In response, DOE notes that it does not have discretion to set its
review schedule as DOE is required to review its existing energy
conservation standards for covered consumer products no later than 3
years after a determination that standards for the product do not need
to be amended under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B)) Pursuant to this
statutory provision, DOE is publishing this final determination
regarding whether to amend the existing energy conservation standards
for MHLFs.
DOE did not receive any other comments in response to the October
2023 NOPD. Based on DOE's analysis and the comments received in
response to the October 2023 NOPR, in this final determination, DOE
maintains the approach in the October 2023 NOPD and finds that the
analysis conducted for the October 2021 Final Determination and its
conclusion that amending energy conservation standards for MHLFs are
not cost effective remains valid.
IV. Final Determination
After carefully considering the comments on the October 2023 NOPD
and the available data and information, DOE has determined that the
energy conservation standards for MHLFs do not need to be amended, for
the reasons explained below.
As required by EPCA, this final determination analyzes whether
amended standards for MHLFs would result in significant conservation of
energy, be technologically feasible, and be cost effective. (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) The criteria considered under 42
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and the additional analysis are discussed below.
Because an analysis of potential cost effectiveness and energy savings
first requires an evaluation of the relevant technology, DOE first
discusses the technological feasibility of amended standards. DOE then
addresses the cost effectiveness and energy savings associated with
potential amended standards for MHLFs.
A. Technological Feasibility
As discussed previously, EPCA mandates that DOE consider whether
amended energy conservation standards for MHLFs would be
technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C.
6295(n)(2)(B)) In the October 2021 Final Determination, DOE concluded
that there are technology options that would improve the efficiency of
MHLFs. Further, DOE concluded that these technology options are being
used in commercially available MHLFs and therefore are technologically
feasible. 86 FR 58763, 58791. In the October 2023 NOPD, DOE tentatively
determined that its conclusions regarding technological feasibility
from that analysis remain valid because there have been no substantive
changes in the MHLF market since the October 2021 Final Determination
analysis. 88 FR 67989, 67992. DOE received no comments or information
to rebut that tentative determination. Hence, DOE has determined that
amended energy conservation standards for MHLFs are technologically
feasible.
B. Cost Effectiveness
EPCA requires DOE to consider whether energy conservation standards
for MHLFs would be cost effective through an evaluation of the savings
in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered
product compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial
charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product which is
likely to result from the imposition of an amended standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(C); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II))
In the October 2021 Final Determination, DOE determined that the
average customer purchasing a representative MHLF would experience an
increase in life-cycle cost (``LCC'') at each evaluated standards case
as compared to the no-new-standards case. 86 FR 58763, 58785-58788. The
simple payback period (``PBP'') for the average MHLF customer at most
efficiency levels (``ELs'') was projected to be generally longer than
the mean lifetime of the equipment, which further indicated that the
increase in installed cost for more efficient MHLFs is not recouped by
their associated operating cost savings. Id. at 86 FR 58788. The
analysis determined that the net present value (``NPV'') benefits at
the trial standard levels (``TSLs'') were also negative across all
equipment classes at 3-percent and 7-percent discount rates. Id. at 86
FR 58790-58791. Hence, in the October 2021 Final Determination, DOE
determined that more stringent amended energy conservation standards
for MHLFs cannot satisfy the relevant statutory requirements because
such standards would not be cost effective as required under EPCA. Id.
at 86 FR 58791. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(II))
In the October 2023 NOPD, DOE stated that because there have been
no substantive changes in the MHLF market that would affect the
conclusions of the October 2021 Final Determination analysis, DOE
tentatively determined that its conclusions regarding the cost
effectiveness of more stringent amended energy conservation standards
for MHLFs remain valid. 88 FR 67989, 67995. DOE received no comments or
information in response to the October 2023 NOPD to show any
substantive changes to the MHLF market to alter the LCC, PBP, and NPV
analyses from the October 2021 Final Determination. Therefore, DOE has
determined that more stringent amended energy conservation standards
for MHLFs cannot satisfy the relevant statutory requirements because
such standards would not be cost effective as required under EPCA.
C. Significant Conservation of Energy
EPCA also mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy
conservation standards for MHLFs would result in significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C.
6295(n)(2)(A))
[[Page 6741]]
In the October 2021 Final Determination, having determined that
amended energy conservation standards for MHLFs would not be cost
effective, DOE did not further evaluate the significance of the amount
of energy conservation under the considered amended standards, because
it had determined that the potential standards would not be cost
effective as required under EPCA. 86 FR 58763, 58791. (See 42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)).
In the October 2023 NOPD, DOE tentatively determined that amended
standards would still not be cost effective and did not evaluate the
significance of the projected energy savings from an amended standard.
88 FR 67989, 67995.
In examining the current market, DOE has found that there have been
no substantive changes in the MHLF market that would affect the
tentative determination in the October 2023 NOPD that amended standards
would still not be cost effective, so an evaluation of significance of
project energy savings is not necessary.
D. Summary
In this final determination, DOE has determined that energy
conservation standards for MHLFs do not need to be amended because
amended standards would not be cost effective.
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1)
propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that
its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory
objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent
practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts;
and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance
objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance
that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user
fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices
can be made by the public. For the reasons stated in the preamble, this
final regulatory action is consistent with these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office of Management and Budget
for review. OIRA has determined that this final regulatory action does
not constitute a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this action was not submitted to
OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.
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 and a final
regulatory flexibility analysis (``FRFA'') for any rule that by law
must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that
the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. As required by E.O. 13272,
``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR
53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on
February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on
small entities are properly considered during the rulemaking process.
68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the
Office of the General Counsel's website (<a href="http://www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel">www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel</a>).
DOE reviewed this final determination under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on
February 19, 2003. Because DOE is not amending standards for MHLFs, the
final determination will not amend any energy conservation standards.
On the basis of the foregoing, DOE certifies that the final
determination will have no significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared an FRFA for
this final determination. DOE has transmitted this certification and
supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
This final determination, which concludes that no amended energy
conservation standards for MHLFs are needed, imposes no new information
or recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not
required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In the October 2023 NOPD, DOE analyzed the proposed determination
in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(``NEPA'') and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021)
in effect at the time of the October 2023 NOPD's publication. In the
October 2023 NOPD, DOE anticipated that the October 2023 NOPD qualified
for a categorical exclusion under appendix A4 to subpart D of part 1021
because the NOPD was an interpretation or ruling with respect to an
existing regulation and otherwise met the requirements for application
of a categorical exclusion. 88 FR 67989, 67995. In July 2025, DOE
revised part 1021 to remove appendix A and, concurrently, DOE issued
Implementing Procedures.\6\ The actions formally identified in appendix
A of subpart D to part 1021 now represent administrative and routine
actions that are excepted from NEPA based on the definition of ``major
Federal action'' in section 111(10) of NEPA. DOE's determination that
current standards for MHLFs do not need to be amended is administrative
and routine; therefore, it is not a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of
NEPA and no further environmental review is needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures June 30, 2025, <a href="https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2025-06-30-DOE-NEPA-Procedures.pdf">https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2025-06-30-DOE-NEPA-Procedures.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
[[Page 6742]]
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this final determination and
has determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on
the States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the
products that are the subject of this final determination. States can
petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and
based on criteria set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42
U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no further action is required by E.O. 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 E.O. 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to
adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a
clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general
standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a),
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation:
(1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3)
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive
effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of
E.O. 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 final determination meets the relevant
standards of E.O. 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a 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 them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published
a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation
under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at
<a href="http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf">www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf</a>.
DOE examined this final determination according to UMRA and its
statement of policy and determined that the final determination does
not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to
require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by State,
local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector. As a result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.
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.
This final determination would not have any financial impact on
families nor any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as
an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary
to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15,
1988), DOE has determined that this final determination would not
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review
most disseminations of information to the public under information
quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452
(Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446
(Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving
Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE
published updated guidelines, which are available at <a href="https://www.energy.gov/cio/department-energy-information-quality-guidelines">https://www.energy.gov/cio/department-energy-information-quality-guidelines</a>.
DOE has reviewed this final determination 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
E.O. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB a
Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action.
A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency
that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final
rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866,
or any successor E.O.; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is
designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action.
For any significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use
should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to
the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution,
and use.
This final determination, which does not amend energy conservation
standards for MHLFs, is not a significant regulatory action under E.O.
12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as
such by the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
Statement of Energy Effects.
[[Page 6743]]
L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of
Science and Technology Policy, issued its Final Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review (``the Bulletin''). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14,
2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The
purpose of the Bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as ``scientific information
the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear
and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector
decisions.'' Id. at 70 FR 2667.
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses
that are typically used and has prepared a peer review report
pertaining to the energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses.\7\
Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented
evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and independent
reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/scientific/business
merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the productivity and
management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. Because available
data, models, and technological understanding have changed since 2007,
DOE has engaged with the National Academy of Sciences to review DOE's
analytical methodologies to ascertain whether modifications are needed
to improve the Department's analyses. DOE is in the process of
evaluating the resulting report.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review
Report.'' 2007. Available at <a href="http://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0">www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0</a> (last accessed Nov. 7, 2022).
\8\ The December 2021 NAS report is available at
<a href="http://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-of-methods-for-setting-building-and-equipment-performance-standards">www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-of-methods-for-setting-building-and-equipment-performance-standards</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of this final determination prior to its effective date.
The report will state that it has been determined that the final
determination is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
N. Review Under Additional Executive Orders and Presidential Memoranda
DOE has examined this final determination and has determined that
it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O.
14154 ``Unleashing American Energy,'' E.O. 14192, ``Unleashing
Prosperity Through Deregulation,'' and Presidential Memorandum,
``Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating
the Cost-of-Living Crisis.'' DOE has determined that more stringent
MHLFs standards would not be cost-effective, and that standards for
MHLFs should not be amended. DOE's final determination effectively
preserves consumer choice. DOE's determination also provides
manufacturers with regulatory certainty, which may allow for market
innovations and a reduction in consumer costs. Accordingly, this final
determination is considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this
notification of final determination.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February 5,
2026, by Audrey Robertson, Assistant Secretary (EERE) for Critical
Minerals and Energy Innovation, pursuant to delegated authority from
the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and
date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on February 11, 2026.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2026-02935 Filed 2-12-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on February 13, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.