FR 2025-06729

The document presents a proposal from the Department of Energy (DOE) to withdraw a previous determination regarding portable electric spas, commonly known as hot tubs. Previously, these products were classified under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) as covered consumer products, which would subject them to federal energy conservation standards. Now, the DOE suggests that this classification is unnecessary to meet the energy conservation goals of EPCA. The proposal invites public comments until May 19, 2025.

Overview and Key Issues

This development raises several significant issues. First, there is a lack of clarity regarding the DOE’s rationale for withdrawing the determination. The decision appears to rely heavily on discretionary language. Such language can be seen as ambiguous, as it does not provide concrete criteria or data to justify the change in classification for portable electric spas.

Additionally, the document extensively references various Executive Orders and regulatory acts. However, it does not clearly spell out how each of these is relevant to or supports the proposed determination. This can be confusing for readers who are not familiar with the legal nuances these references entail.

The instructions provided for submitting comments are detailed but may be overwhelming for the average reader. The submission process is outlined in complex terms, potentially deterring public participation. Moreover, the extensive use of technical and legal jargon throughout the document may make the proposed rule difficult to understand without specialized knowledge.

Public and Stakeholder Impact

The proposal to reclassify portable electric spas could broadly affect the public by removing federal energy conservation standards that might otherwise encourage the production and purchase of more energy-efficient models. This change could halt progress in energy savings in households where such spas are commonly used.

Stakeholders, particularly manufacturers and small businesses in the portable electric spa market, may experience both beneficial and challenging impacts. On one hand, eliminating federal standards could reduce regulatory burdens, potentially lowering costs associated with compliance. On the other hand, this could lead to greater market competition as energy efficiency ceases to be a regulated factor, possibly leading to less innovation in energy-saving technologies within this product category.

The document does not precisely address potential economic impacts on small businesses, despite referencing the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The DOE's initial conclusion that the proposed withdrawal does not have a "significant economic impact" on a substantial number of small entities lacks direct elaboration. This gap could be of concern to those businesses seeking to understand the implications of this regulatory change.

Notably, the lack of clear definitions for terms like "Confidential Business Information" could lead to confusion regarding what can be submitted as part of public comments, and how that information will be protected and utilized by the DOE.

In summary, while the DOE aims to streamline regulations concerning portable electric spas, the document presents its case in a manner that could benefit from greater clarity and simplification. This would aid in demystifying the rulemaking process and ensuring broader, more informed public engagement.

In reviewing the proposed withdrawal of the determination regarding portable electric spas as a covered consumer product under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, there are specific financial references that play a critical role in both the proposal and the broader framework of federal rule-making.

Summary of Financial References

The document underlines the importance of evaluating the financial impact of the proposed rule through the lens of several legislative frameworks and executive orders. A significant focus is placed on the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), which mandates federal agencies to assess the financial implications of their actions, specifically if they may lead to expenditure exceeding $100 million by state, local, and tribal governments, or the private sector in any given year. The document states that DOE found their proposed withdrawal does not trigger this threshold and thus does not require a comprehensive financial statement as per UMRA.

Contextualizing Financial Implications

The absence of a mandate requiring expenses over $100 million represents a key point of evaluation for stakeholders. This determination implies that the proposal to withdraw PESs from being a covered product will not necessitate substantial financial commitment at the state or local levels or from private entities. This consideration aligns with the document’s broader narrative, which tries to assure that the proposal is fiscally prudent and does not place an undue financial burden on public or private sectors. However, there might be ambiguity regarding how potential costs and benefits are assessed, given the reliance on broad discretionary language.

Connection to Identified Issues

The financial references in the document connect to several identified issues, notably the ambiguity around the criteria for keeping portable electric spas as a covered product. The lack of a need for significant financial analysis due to the impact threshold not being met may contribute to concerns about the rigor of the decision-making and analysis processes. Stakeholders, particularly small businesses, who might be wondering about direct financial implications, might find this documentation lacking clear and practical financial impact outlines despite referencing substantial frameworks and orders.

Additionally, there is some complexity regarding terminology and procedural instructions for public participation, alongside references to various legislative acts and executive orders without specifically detailing their financial relevance. The absence of a thorough financial breakdown relating to stakeholder impacts is particularly noteworthy, as the document makes extensive reference to the potential economic implications of the withdrawal but does not elaborate on what these might entail in practice.

In summary, the financial elements discussed within the proposal are integral yet might not fully address stakeholder concerns or provide a clear roadmap of financial impacts resulting from the proposed withdrawal. These aspects are critical for readers seeking to understand the broader financial context and its implications fully.