```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 16 (Monday, January 26, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4041-4153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00317]

[[Page 4041]]

Vol. 80

Monday,

No. 16

January 26, 2015

Part II

Department of Energy

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

10 CFR Part 430

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for General 
Service Fluorescent Lamps and Incandescent Reflector Lamps; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 4042]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket Number EERE-2011-BT-STD-0006]
RIN 1904-AC43

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
General Service Fluorescent Lamps and Incandescent Reflector Lamps

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as 
amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer 
products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including 
general service fluorescent lamps (GSFLs) and incandescent reflector 
lamps (IRLs). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to 
determine whether more-stringent standards would be technologically 
feasible and economically justified, and would save a significant 
amount of energy. In this final rule, DOE is adopting more-stringent 
energy conservation standards for GSFLs. It has determined that the 
amended energy conservation standards for these products would result 
in significant conservation of energy, and are technologically feasible 
and economically justified. DOE concluded in this final rule that 
amending energy conservation standards for IRLs would not be 
economically justified.

DATES:  The effective date of this rule is March 27, 2015. Compliance 
with the amended standards established for GSFLs and IRLs in this final 
rule is January 26, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public 
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials, is available for review at regulations.gov. All 
documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. 
However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing 
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly 
available.
    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: 
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/24. The regulations.gov Web page will contain simple 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket.
    For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. 
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: 
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1604. Email: 
General_Service_Fluorescent_Lamps@ee.doe.gov.
    Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 
General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7796. Email: 
Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits
    A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
    B. Impact on Manufacturers
    C. National Benefits
    D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. Current Standards
    2. Corrections to Codified Standards
    3. History of Standards Rulemaking for General Service 
Fluorescent Lamps and Incandescent Reflector Lamps
    4. Test Procedure
    a. Standby and Off Mode Energy Consumption
III. General Discussion
    A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
    B. Technological Feasibility
    1. General
    2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    C. Energy Savings
    1. Determination of Savings
    2. Significance of Savings
    D. Economic Justification
    1. Specific Criteria
    a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
    b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price
    c. Energy Savings
    d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    f. Need for National Energy Conservation
    g. Other Factors
    2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Issues Affecting Rulemaking Schedule
V. Issues Affecting Scope
    A. Clarifications of General Service Fluorescent Lamp Definition
    B. General Service Fluorescent Lamp Scope of Coverage
    1. Additional General Service Fluorescent Lamp Types
    2. Additional General Service Fluorescent Lamp Wattages
    C. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Scope of Coverage
    1. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Types
    2. Incandescent Reflector Wattages
    D. Summary of Scope of Coverage
VI. Methodology and Discussion
    A. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. General Service Fluorescent Lamp Technology Options
    a. Highly Emissive Coatings
    b. Higher Efficiency Lamp Fill Gas Composition
    c. Higher Efficiency Phosphors
    d. Summary of GSFL Technology Options
    2. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Technology Options
    a. Thinner Filaments
    b. Efficient Filament Coiling
    c. Efficient Filament Orientation
    d. Higher Efficiency Inert Fill Gas
    e. Higher Pressure Tungsten-Halogen Lamps
    f. Infrared Glass Coatings
    g. Efficient Filament Placement
    h. Integrally Ballasted Low Voltage Lamps
    i. Summary of IRL Technology Options
    B. Screening Analysis
    1. General Service Fluorescent Lamp Design Options
    2. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Design Options
    a. Higher Temperature Operation
    b. Thinner Filaments
    c. Higher Efficiency Reflector Coatings
    d. Higher Pressure Tungsten-Halogen Lamps
    C. Product Classes
    1. General Service Fluorescent Lamp Product Classes
    a. Two-Foot U-Shaped Lamps
    b. Long-Life Lamps
    c. Summary of GSFL Product Classes
    2. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Product Classes
    a. Rated Voltage
    b. Modified Spectrum
    c. Summary of IRL Product Classes
    D. Engineering Analysis
    1. General Approach
    2. General Service Fluorescent Lamp Engineering
    a. Data Approach
    b. Representative Product Classes
    c. Baseline Lamps
    d. More Efficacious Substitutes
    e. General Service Fluorescent Lamp Systems
    f. Max Tech
    g. Efficacy Levels
    h. Scaling to Other Product Classes
    i. Rare Earth Phosphors
    3. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Engineering
    a. Representative Product Classes
    b. Baseline Lamps
    c. More Efficacious Substitutes
    d. Max Tech
    e. Efficacy Levels
    f. Scaling to Other Product Classes
    g. Xenon
    h. Proprietary Technology
    E. Product Pricing Determination
    F. Energy Use
    1. Operating Hours
    2. Lighting Controls
    a. General Service Fluorescent Lamp Lighting Controls
    b. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Lighting Controls

[[Page 4043]]

    G. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis and Payback Period Analysis
    1. Consumer Product Price
    2. Sales Tax
    3. Installation Cost
    4. Annual Energy Use
    5. Product Energy Consumption Rate
    6. Electricity Prices
    7. Electricity Price Projections
    8. Replacement and Disposal Costs
    9. Lamp Purchase Events
    10. Product Lifetime
    a. Lamp Lifetime
    b. Ballast Lifetime
    11. Discount Rates
    12. Analysis Period
    13. Compliance Date of Standards
    14. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Life-Cycle Cost Results in the 
NOPR
    H. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    I. Shipments Analysis
    J. National Impact Analysis--National Energy Savings and Net 
Present Value Analysis
    1. National Energy Savings
    2. Net Present Value of Consumer Benefit
    a. Total Annual Installed Cost
    b. Total Annual Operating Cost Savings
    K. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
    1. Manufacturer Production Costs
    2. Shipment Projections
    3. Markup Scenarios
    4. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
    5. Other Comments From Interested Parties
    a. High Cost to Manufacturers versus Relatively Low Energy 
Savings
    b. Impacts on Competition
    c. Impact of GSFL and IRL Standards on Alternative Lighting 
Technologies
    6. Manufacturer Interviews
    L. Emissions Analysis
    M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts
    1. Social Cost of Carbon
    a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon Values
    c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions
    2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions
    N. Utility Impact Analysis
    O. Employment Impact Analysis
    P. Proposed Standards in April 2014 NOPR
    1. GSFLs Proposed Standards
    2. IRL Proposed Standards
VII. Analytical Results
    A. Trial Standard Levels
    B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
    1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
    a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
    b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    c. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback
    2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
    a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results
    b. Impacts on Employment
    c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
    d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
    e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    3. National Impact Analysis
    a. Significance of Energy Savings
    b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
    c. Alternative Scenario Analyses
    d. Indirect Impacts on Employment
    4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Equipment
    5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy
    7. Summary of National Economic Impacts
    C. Conclusions
    1. Benefits and Burdens of Trial Standard Levels Considered for 
General Service Fluorescent Lamps
    2. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Adopted 
Standards for General Service Fluorescent Lamps
    3. Benefits and Burdens of Trial Standard Levels Considered for 
Incandescent Reflector Lamps
VIII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    a. Methodology for Estimating the Number of Small Entities
    b. Manufacturer Participation
    c. GSFL Industry Structure and Nature of Competition
    d. Comparison Between Large and Small Entities
    2. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
    3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and 
Regulations
    4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    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
IX. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits

    Title III, Part B \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 
1975 (EPCA or the Act), Pub. L. 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as 
codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 
Products Other Than Automobiles.\2\ These products include GSFLs and 
IRLs, the subject of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
    \2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical 
Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Pub. L. 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard 
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new 
or amended standard must result in significant conservation of energy. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In accordance with these and other statutory 
provisions discussed in this rule, DOE is adopting amended energy 
conservation standards for GSFLs. The amended standards, which are the 
minimum lumen output per watt of a lamp, are shown in Table I.1. These 
amended standards apply to all products listed in Table I.1, and 
manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or after 
January 26, 2018. For IRLs, DOE considered an efficacy level (EL) as a 
means of increasing energy savings. However, based on the analyses 
presented in this final rule, DOE concluded that standards for IRLs are 
not economically justified and therefore, is not amending IRL 
standards. On July 14, 2009, DOE published a final rule in the Federal 
Register, which prescribed the current energy conservation standards 
for GSFLs and IRLs manufactured on or after July 14, 2012. 74 FR 34080.

                 Table I.1--Energy Conservation Standards for General Service Fluorescent Lamps
                                     [Compliance starting January 26, 2018]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Percent
                                                             Correlated color      Adopted level   increase over
             Lamp type                Covered wattages W    temperature Kelvin        lm/W *          current
                                                                                                     standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-Foot Medium Bipin................  >=25 W.............  4,500 K and =25 W.............  4,500 K and =49 W.............  4,500 K and 4,500 K and =25 W.............  4,500 K and =44 W.............  4,500 K and 2), 650 thousand tons of methane, 140 thousand 
tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), 230 thousand tons of nitrogen 
oxides (NOX), 2.0 thousand tons of nitrous oxide 
(N2O), and 0.43 tons of mercury (Hg).\6\ The cumulative 
reduction in CO2 emissions through 2030 amounts to 90 Mt, 
which is

[[Page 4045]]

equivalent to the emissions associated with annual electricity use of 
approximately 12 million homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for 
NOX and Hg are presented in short tons.
    \6\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the Annual 
Energy Outlook (AEO) 2014 Reference case, which generally represents 
current legislation and environmental regulations for which 
implementing regulations were available as of October 31, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The value of the CO2 reductions is calculated using a 
range of values per metric ton of CO2 (otherwise known as 
the Social Cost of Carbon, or SCC) developed by a recent Federal 
interagency process.\7\ The derivation of the SCC values is discussed 
in section VI.M.1. Using discount rates appropriate for each set of SCC 
values, DOE estimates that the net present monetary value of the 
CO2 emissions reductions for GSFLs is between $1.36 billion 
and $17.6 billion, with a value of $5.72 billion using the central SCC 
case represented by $40.5/t in 2015.\8\ DOE also estimates that the net 
present monetary value of the NOX emissions reductions is 
$400 million at a 3-percent discount rate, and $240 million at a 7-
percent discount rate.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory 
Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Interagency Working 
Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government. May 2013; 
revised November 2013. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf.
    \8\ The values only include CO2 emissions, not 
CO2 equivalent emissions; other gases with global warming 
potential are not included.
    \9\ DOE is currently investigating valuation of avoided Hg and 
SO2 emissions for future rule makings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table I.3 summarizes the national economic costs and benefits 
expected to result from these standards for GSFLs.

  Table I.3--Summary of National Economic Benefits and Costs of Amended
  Energy Conservation Standards for General Service Fluorescent Lamps *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Present value      Discount rate
             Category                 Billion 2013$           (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Cost Savings............               11.2                  7
                                                 18.9                  3
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value                     1.3                  5
 ($12.0/t case) **................
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value                    5.72                  3
 ($40.5/t case) **................
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value                    8.92                2.5
 ($62.4/t case) **................
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value                    17.6                  3
 ($119/t case) **.................
NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at                0.24                  7
 $2,684/ton)......................               0.40                  3
Total Benefits [dagger]...........               17.1                  7
                                                 25.1                  3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental Installed Costs                      9.17                  7
 [Dagger].........................               13.5                  3
Including Emissions Reduction                    7.96                  7
 Monetized Value [dagger].........               11.6                  3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table presents the costs and benefits associated with GSFLs
  shipped in 2018-2047. These results include impacts on consumers that
  accrue after 2047 from the products purchased in 2018-2047. The
  results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred
  by manufacturers due to the standard, some of which may be incurred in
  preparation for the rule.
** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in
  2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The
  first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated
  using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case
  represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated
  using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series incorporate an
  escalation factor.
[dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using
  the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount rate
  ($40.5/t case).

    The benefits and costs of these standards, for products sold in 
2018-2047, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The 
annualized monetary values are the sum of (1) the annualized national 
economic value of the benefits from operating the product that meets 
the amended standard (consisting primarily of operating cost savings 
from using less energy, minus increases in product purchase prices and 
installation costs), which is another way of representing consumer NPV, 
and (2) the annualized monetary value of the benefits of emission 
reductions, including CO2 emission reductions.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2014, the year 
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. 
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with 
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur 
(e.g., 2020 or 2030), and then discounted the present value from 
each year to 2014. The calculation uses discount rates of 3 and 7 
percent for all costs and benefits except for the value of 
CO2 reductions, for which DOE used case-specific discount 
rates. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual 
payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance year, that 
yields the same present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although adding the value of consumer savings to the values of 
emission reductions provides a valuable perspective, two issues should 
be considered. First, the national operating cost savings are domestic 
U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of market 
transactions, whereas the value of CO2 reductions is based 
on a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost savings 
and CO2 savings are performed with different methods that 
use different time frames for analysis. The national operating cost 
savings is measured for the lifetime of GSFLs shipped in 2018-2047. The 
SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present value of all future 
climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of one metric ton 
of carbon dioxide in each year. These impacts continue well beyond 
2100.
    Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of these standards for 
GSFLs are shown in Table I.4. The results under the primary estimate 
are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs 
other than CO2 reduction, for which DOE used a 3-percent 
discount rate along with the SCC series that has a value of $40.5/t in 
2015, the cost of the standards in this rule is $841 million per year 
in increased equipment costs, while the

[[Page 4046]]

benefits are $1,030 million per year in reduced equipment operating 
costs, $310 million in CO2 reductions, and $22.4 million in 
reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts 
to $516 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 
benefits and costs and the SCC series that has a value of $40.5/t in 
2015, the cost of the standards in this rule is $724 million per year 
in increased equipment costs, while the benefits are $1,020 million per 
year in reduced operating costs, $310 million in CO2 
reductions, and $21.6 million in reduced NOX emissions. In 
this case, the net benefit amounts to $627 million per year.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The annualized consumer operating cost savings, 
NOX reduction monetized value, and consumer incremental 
product costs are higher with a 7-percent discount rate than with a 
3-percent discount rate. This is in contrast to the present values 
in Table I.3. Under certain conditions, different present values may 
lead to similar annualized values when calculated with different 
discount rates. In this case, the combined effects of (a) projecting 
to 2018 the present values that DOE calculated in 2014, and (b) 
annualizing the projected values with 3 percent and 7 percent 
discount rates over the 30-year analysis period, lead to similar 
annualized values. For consumer incremental product costs, the 
effect is more pronounced because the time series covers only 30 
years, instead of the longer period covered for operating cost 
savings and NOX reduction monetized value.

      Table I.4--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Amended Energy Conservation Standards for General Service
                                               Fluorescent Lamps *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             million 2013$/year
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                         Discount rate                         LowNet benefits  HighNet benefits
                                                            Primary estimate      estimate          estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings....  7%...................             1,030             1,010             1,050
                                     3%...................             1,020             1,000             1,050
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value        5%...................              97.5              97.1              97.5
 ($12.0/t case) **.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value        3%...................               310               308               310
 ($40.5/t case) **.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value        2.5%.................               448               446               448
 ($62.4/t case) **.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($119/ 3%...................               950               946               950
 t case) **.
NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at    7%...................              22.4              22.3              22.4
 $2,684/ton) **.                     3%...................              21.6              21.5              21.6
Total Benefits [dagger]............  7% plus CO2 range....    1,150 to 2,000    1,130 to 1,980    1,170 to 2,030
                                     7%...................             1,360             1,340             1,390
                                     3% plus CO2 range....    1,140 to 2,000    1,120 to 1,970    1,170 to 2,030
                                     3%...................             1,360             1,330             1,390
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Product Costs.  7%...................               841               882               841
                                     3%...................               724               763               724
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Net Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total [dagger].....................  7% plus CO2 range....      300 to 1,160      241 to 1,090      328 to 1,180
                                     7%...................               516               452               540
                                     3% plus CO2 range....      415 to 1,270      350 to 1,200      443 to 1,300
                                     3%...................               627               561               655
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with GSFLs shipped in 2018-2047. These
  results include benefits to consumers that accrue after 2047 from the products purchased in 2018-2047. The
  results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the standard,
  some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The Primary Benefits Estimate assumes the Reference
  case energy prices from AEO 2014 and decreasing incremental product cost, due to price learning. The Low
  Benefits Estimate uses the Low Economic Growth energy prices from AEO 2014 and constant real product prices.
  The High Benefits Estimate assumes the Low Economic Growth energy price estimates from AEO 2014 and the same
  decreasing incremental product costs as in the Primary Benefits Estimate.
** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the
  updated SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and
  2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution
  calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporate an escalation factor. The
  value for NOX is the average of the low and high values used in DOE's analysis.
[dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to the average
  SCC with 3-percent discount rate ($40.5/t case). In the rows labeled ``7% plus CO2 range'' and ``3% plus CO2
  range,'' the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values
  are added to the full range of CO2 values.

D. Conclusion

    Based on the analyses culminating in this final rule, DOE found 
that for GSFLs the benefits to the nation of the standards (energy 
savings, consumer LCC savings, positive NPV of consumer benefit, and 
emission reductions) outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV and LCC 
increases for some users of these products). DOE has concluded that the 
standards in this rule represent the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, 
and would result in significant conservation of energy.

II. Introduction

    The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority 
underlying this rule, as well as some of the relevant historical 
background related to the establishment of existing standards for GSFLs 
and IRLs.

A. Authority

    Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 
(EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified) 
established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other 
Than Automobiles, a program covering most major household appliances 
(collectively referred to as ``covered products''), which includes the 
types of GSFLs and IRLs that are the subject of this rulemaking. (42 
U.S.C. 6292(a)(14))

[[Page 4047]]

EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for these products (42 
U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)), and directed DOE to conduct further rulemakings to 
determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3)-(5)) 
On July 14, 2009, DOE published a final rule in the Federal Register, 
which completed the first rulemaking cycle to amend energy conservation 
standards for GSFLs and IRLs (hereafter the ``2009 Lamps Rule''). 74 FR 
34080. That rule adopted standards for additional GSFLs, amended the 
definition of ``colored fluorescent lamp'' and ``rated wattage,'' and 
also adopted test procedures applicable to the newly covered GSFLs. 
Information regarding the 2009 Lamps Rule can be found on 
regulations.gov, docket number EERE-2006-STD-0131 at 
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2006-STD-0131.
    This rulemaking encompasses DOE's second cycle of review to 
determine whether the standards in effect for GSFLs and IRLs should be 
amended, including whether the standards should be applicable to 
additional GSFLs. (DOE notes that under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), the agency 
must periodically review its already established energy conservation 
standards for a covered product. Under this requirement, the next 
review that DOE would need to conduct must occur no later than six 
years from the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a 
standard for a covered product.)
    Pursuant to EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program for covered 
products consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; 
(3) the establishment of federal energy conservation standards; and (4) 
certification and enforcement procedures. The Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC) is primarily responsible for labeling, and DOE implements the 
remainder of the program. 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. 6293) Manufacturers of covered products 
must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying 
to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy 
conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making 
representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of 
those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use 
these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with 
standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. Id. The DOE test procedures for 
GSFLs and IRLs currently appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part 430, subpart B, appendix R.
    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing amended 
standards for covered products. As indicated above, any amended 
standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum 
improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may 
not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant 
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) Moreover, DOE may not 
prescribe a standard: (1) For certain products, including GSFLs and 
IRLs, if no test procedure has been established for the product, or (2) 
if DOE determines by rule that the amended standard is not 
technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether an amended standard is 
economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the 
standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make 
this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, 
and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following 
seven statutory factors:
    1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and 
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
    2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average 
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any 
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the 
covered products that are likely to result from the imposition of the 
standard;
    3. The total projected amount of energy, or as applicable, water, 
savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard;
    4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered 
products likely to result from the imposition of the standard;
    5. The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
imposition of the standard;
    6. The need for national energy and water conservation; and
    7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers 
relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
    EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing 
any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy 
use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered 
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe 
an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in 
the unavailability in the United States of any covered product type (or 
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), 
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the 
same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(4))
    Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption 
that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that 
the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying 
with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three 
times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the 
consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under 
the applicable test procedure. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii).
    Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) specifies requirements when 
promulgating a standard for a type or class of covered product that has 
two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level 
than that which applies generally to such type or class of products for 
any group of covered products that have the same function or intended 
use if DOE determines that products within such group (A) consume a 
different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products 
within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other 
performance-related feature which other products within such type (or 
class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower 
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, 
DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a 
feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any rule 
prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on 
which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(q)(2))
    Federal energy conservation requirements 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 for particular state laws or regulations, in 
accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under 42 
U.S.C. 6297(d)).
    Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in section 310(3) of 
the Energy Independence and Security Act

[[Page 4048]]

of 2007 (EISA 2007), any final rule for new or amended energy 
conservation standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, are 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 the 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 has determined that standby mode and off 
mode do not apply to GSFLs and IRLs and that their energy use is 
accounted for entirely in the active mode. Therefore, DOE is not 
addressing standby and off modes, and will only address active mode in 
this rulemaking.
    DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 
(E.O.) 13563, issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281, Jan. 21, 2011). 
E.O. 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in 
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 
(Oct. 4, 1993). To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required 
by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation only 
upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs 
(recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); 
(2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, 
among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of 
cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative 
regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits 
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, 
and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the 
extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying 
the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must 
adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the 
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing 
information upon which choices can be made by the public.
    DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies 
to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present 
and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its 
guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has 
emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future 
compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or 
anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, 
DOE believes that this rule is consistent with these principles, 
including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, 
benefits justify costs and that net benefits are maximized. Consistent 
with E.O. 13563, and the range of impacts analyzed in this rulemaking, 
the energy-efficiency standard adopted herein by DOE achieves maximum 
net benefits. For further discussion of how this rulemaking achieves 
maximum net benefits, see section VII.

B. Background

1. Current Standards
    In the 2009 Lamps Rule, DOE prescribed the current energy 
conservation standards for GSFLs and IRLs manufactured on or after July 
14, 2012 (hereafter the ``July 2012 standards''). 74 FR 34080. The 
current standards are set forth in Table II.1 and Table II.2.

  Table II.1--July 2012 Standards for General Service Fluorescent Lamps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Minimum
           Lamp type                 Correlated color      average lamp
                                       temperature         efficacy lm/W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four-Foot Medium Bipin.........  4,500 K and 4,500 K and 4,500 K and 4,500 K and 4,500 K and 4,500 K and 
                                                               inches                                  W
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40-205...................  Standard Spectrum...........               >2.5            >=125 V        6.8*P\0.27\
                                                                                       =125 V        5.7*P\0.27\
                                                                                       2.5       \12\ >=125 V        5.8*P\0.27\
                                                                                       =125 V        4.9*P\0.27\
                                                                                       W), the rated 
wattage should be less than or equal to 65 W, not greater than 65 W. 
The revised table will read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Shown correctly in this table; erroneously written as 
``W
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-foot medium bipin..................           >35 W              69            75.0  Nov. 1, 1995.
                                               35 W              69            68.0  Nov. 1, 1995.
                                               65 W              69            80.0  May 1, 1994.
                                               100 W              69            80.0  May 1, 1994.
                                              
                                                               inches                                  W
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40-205.........................  Standard Spectrum.....               >2.5            >=125 V          6.8*P0.27
                                                                                       =125 V          5.7*P0.27
                                                                                       2.5            >=125 V          5.8*P0.27
                                                                                       =125 V          4.9*P0.27
                                                                                       regulations.gov 
under docket number EERE-2011-BT-STD-0006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE issued the preliminary analysis for this rulemaking on February 
20, 2013 and published it in the Federal Register on February 28, 2013. 
78 FR 13563 (February 28, 2013). DOE posted the preliminary analysis, 
as well as the complete preliminary technical support document (TSD), 
on its Web site. The preliminary TSD included the results of the 
following preliminary analyses: (1) Market and technology assessment; 
(2) screening analysis; (3) engineering analysis; (4) energy-use 
characterization; (5) product price determinations; (6) LCC and PBP 
analyses; (7) shipments analysis; and (8) national impact analysis 
(NIA). In the preliminary analysis, DOE described and sought comment on 
the analytical framework, models, and tools (e.g., LCC and national 
energy savings [NES] spreadsheets) DOE used to analyze the impacts of 
energy conservation standards for GSFLs and IRLs. DOE held a public 
meeting on April 9, 2013, to present the methodologies and results for 
the preliminary analyses. Manufacturers, trade associations, and 
environmental advocates attended the meeting. The participants 
discussed multiple issues, including the methodology and results of the 
market and technology assessment, screening analysis, engineering 
analysis, product price determination, energy use, LCC analysis, 
shipments analysis, and NIA.
    In April 2014, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) 
in the Federal Register proposing new and amended energy conservation 
standards for GSFLs and IRLs. 79 FR 24068 (April 29, 2014). In 
conjunction with the NOPR, DOE also published on its Web site the 
complete TSD for the proposed rule.\14\ The NOPR TSD included updated 
results of the analyses conducted in the preliminary analysis stage as 
well as the following additional analyses: 1) LCC subgroup analysis, 2) 
manufacturer impact analysis (MIA), 3) employment impact analysis, 4) 
utility impact analysis, 5) emissions analysis, 6) monetization of 
emission reduction benefits, and 7) regulatory impact analysis (RIA). 
The NOPR TSD was accompanied by the LCC spreadsheet, the NIA 
spreadsheet, and the MIA spreadsheet--all of which are available on 
regulations.gov.\15\ In the NOPR DOE invited comment on these analyses 
and related issues. DOE held a NOPR public meeting on May 1, 2014, to 
hear oral comments on and solicit information relevant to the proposed 
rule (hereafter the NOPR public meeting). DOE considered the comments 
received in response to the NOPR after its publication and at the NOPR 
public meeting when developing this final rule, and responds to these 
comments in this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The NOPR TSD is available at regulations.gov under docket 
number EERE-2011-BT-STD-0006.
    \15\ Supporting spreadsheets for the NOPR TSD are available at 
regulations.gov under docket number EERE-2011-BT-STD-0006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Test Procedure
    EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for 
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293) 
Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to 
certify to DOE that their product complies with EPCA energy 
conservation standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. 
Similarly, DOE uses the test procedure to determine compliance with 
energy conservation standards. DOE's test procedures for fluorescent 
and incandescent reflector lamps are set forth in title 10 of the CFR, 
part 430, subpart B, appendix R. These test procedures provide 
instructions for measuring GSFL and IRL performance, largely by 
incorporating industry standards. The test procedures were updated in a 
final rule published in July 2009. 74 FR 31829 (July 6, 2009). The rule 
updated citations to industry standards and made several other 
modifications. DOE further amended the test procedures to update 
references to industry standards for GSFLs in a final rule published in 
January 2012. 77 FR 4203 (January 27, 2012).
a. Standby and Off Mode Energy Consumption
    EPCA requires energy conservation standards adopted for a covered 
product after July 1, 2010 to address standby mode and off mode energy 
use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) EPCA defines active mode as the condition 
in which an energy-using piece of equipment is connected to a main 
power source, has been activated, and provides one or more main 
functions. (42 U.S.C. 6295)(gg)(1)(A)) Standby mode is defined as the 
condition in which an energy-using piece of equipment is connected to a 
main power source and offers one or more of the following user-oriented 
or protective functions: Facilitating the activation or

[[Page 4051]]

deactivation of other functions (including active mode) by remote 
switch (including remote control), internal sensor, or timer; or 
providing continuous functions, including information or status 
displays (including clocks) or sensor-based functions. Id. Off mode is 
defined as the condition in which an energy-using piece of equipment is 
connected to a main power source, and is not providing any standby or 
active mode function. Id.
    To satisfy the EPCA definitions of standby mode and off mode (42 
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)), the lamp must not be providing any active mode 
function (i.e., emitting light). However, to reach such a state, the 
lamp must be entirely disconnected from the main power source (i.e., 
switched off), thereby not satisfying the requirements of operating in 
off mode or standby mode. Further, neither GSFLs nor IRLs covered under 
this rulemaking provide any secondary user-oriented or protection 
functions or continuous standby mode functions. Thus, these lamps do 
not satisfy the EPCA definition of standby mode. While EPCA allows DOE 
to amend the mode definitions (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(B)), DOE believes 
that the energy use of GSFLs and IRLs is accounted for entirely in the 
active mode. Therefore, DOE is not addressing lamp operation in the 
standby and off modes in this rulemaking.

III. General Discussion

A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage

    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE 
divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy 
used or by capacity or other performance-related features that 
justifies a different standard. In making a determination whether a 
performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must 
consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and 
other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) For 
further details on the scope of coverage for this rulemaking, see 
section V. For further details on product classes, see section VI.C and 
chapter 3 of the final rule TSD.

B. Technological Feasibility

1. General
    In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a 
screening analysis based on information gathered on all current 
technology options and prototype designs that could improve the 
efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the 
rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list 
of technology options for consideration in consultation with 
manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then 
determines which of those means for improving efficiency are 
technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in 
commercially available products or in working prototypes to be 
technologically feasible. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 
section 4(a)(4)(i).
    After DOE has determined that particular technology options are 
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option 
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) 
Practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse 
impacts on product utility or availability; and (3) adverse impacts on 
health or safety. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 
4(a)(4)(ii)-(iv). Section VI.B of this notice discusses the results of 
the screening analysis for GSFLs and IRLs, particularly the designs DOE 
considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the 
trial standard levels (TSLs) in this rulemaking. For further details on 
the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the final 
rule TSD.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class 
of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically 
feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the 
engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically 
feasible (``max-tech'') improvements in energy efficacy for GSFLs and 
IRLs, using the design parameters for the most efficient products 
available on the market or in working prototypes. (See chapter 5 of the 
final rule TSD.) The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this 
rulemaking are described in section VI.D.2.f and VI.D.3.d, respectively 
for GSFLs and IRLs, of this final rule.

C. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
    For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from the products that 
are the subject of this rulemaking purchased in the 30-year period that 
begins in the year of compliance with amended standards (2018-
2047).\16\ The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of 
products purchased in the 30-year analysis period.\17\ DOE quantified 
the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy 
consumption between each standards case and the base case. The base 
case represents a projection of energy consumption in the absence of 
amended mandatory efficiency standards and the standards case 
represents a projection of energy consumption if amended standards take 
effect. As described in section VI.I of this notice, the projections 
start from the current efficiency distribution on the market and 
consider various market forces, in addition to amended standards, that 
may affect future demand for more efficient products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers 
impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
    \17\ In the past DOE presented energy savings results for only 
the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance. In the 
calculation of economic impacts, however, DOE considered operating 
cost savings measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased 
in the 30-year period. DOE has chosen to modify its presentation of 
national energy savings to be consistent with the approach used for 
its national economic analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE used its NIA spreadsheet model to estimate energy savings from 
amended standards for the products that are the subject of this 
rulemaking. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section VI.J of 
this notice) calculates energy savings in site energy, which is the 
energy directly consumed by products at the locations where they are 
used. For electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms of 
the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the 
site electricity. For electricity and natural gas and oil, DOE also 
calculates full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings. As discussed in DOE's 
statement of policy and notice of policy amendment, the FFC metric 
includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and 
transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), 
and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy-
efficiency standards. 76 FR 51281 (August 18, 2011), as amended at 77 
FR 49701 (August 17, 2012).
    To calculate this quantity, DOE derives annual conversion factors 
from the model used to prepare the Energy Information Administration's 
(EIA) most recent Annual Energy Outlook (AEO). For FFC energy savings, 
DOE's approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for the 
electricity used by covered products or equipment. For more 
information, see section VI.L.

[[Page 4052]]

2. Significance of Savings
    To adopt standards for a covered product, DOE must determine that 
such action would result in ``significant'' energy savings. 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(B). Although the term ``significant'' is not defined in the 
Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. 
Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), indicated that 
Congress intended ``significant'' energy savings in the context of EPCA 
to be savings that were not ``genuinely trivial.'' The energy savings 
for these adopted standards of 2.5 quads over a 30-year product 
purchase period (presented in section VII.B.3) are nontrivial, and, 
therefore, DOE considers them ``significant'' within the meaning of 
section 325 of EPCA.

D. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
    EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether 
a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The following sections discuss how DOE has 
addressed each of those seven factors in this rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
    In determining the impacts of a potential amended standard on 
manufacturers, DOE conducts a MIA, as discussed in section VI.K. DOE 
first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine the quantitative 
impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment--based on the 
cost and capital requirements during the period between when a 
regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the 
regulation--and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period. The 
industry-wide impacts analyzed include INPV, which values the industry 
based on expected future cash flows; cash flows by year; changes in 
revenue and income; and other measures of impact, as appropriate. 
Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of 
manufacturers, including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE 
considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment 
and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to 
result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE 
takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and 
other regulatory requirements on manufacturers.
    For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the 
changes in LCC and payback period (PBP) associated with new or amended 
standards. These measures are discussed further in the following 
section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the 
national net present value of the economic impacts applicable to a 
particular rulemaking. DOE also evaluates the LCC impacts of potential 
standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected 
disproportionately by a national standard.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price
    EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs 
throughout the estimated average life of the covered product compared 
to any increase in the price of the covered product that are likely to 
result from the imposition of the standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP 
analysis.
    The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including 
its installation) and the operating expense (including energy, 
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of 
the product. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific 
inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a 
distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value. For 
its analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the covered 
products in the first year of compliance with amended standards.
    The LCC savings and the PBP for the considered efficacy levels are 
calculated relative to the baseline. DOE's LCC and PBP analysis is 
discussed in further detail in section VI.G.
c. Energy Savings
    Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory 
requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires 
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to 
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result 
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As 
discussed in section VI.J, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet to project 
national site energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    In establishing classes of products, and in evaluating design 
options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates 
standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the 
considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data 
available to DOE, the standards adopted in this rule would not reduce 
the utility or performance of the products under consideration in this 
rulemaking.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of 
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is 
likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) It also directs the Attorney General to determine 
the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result 
from a standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary 
within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an 
analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE transmitted a copy of its proposed rule to the 
Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (DOJ) 
provide its determination on this issue. DOJ's response, that the 
proposed energy conservation standards are unlikely to have a 
significant adverse impact on competition, is reprinted at the end of 
this notice.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
    In evaluating the need for national energy conservation, DOE 
expects that the energy savings from amended standards are likely to 
provide improvements to the security and reliability of the nation's 
energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result 
in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the nation's 
electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate 
how standards may affect the nation's needed power generation capacity.
    The amended standards also are likely to result in environmental 
benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and 
greenhouse gases primarily associated with fossil-fuel based energy 
production. DOE reports the emissions impacts from these standards, and 
from each TSL it considered, in section VII.B.6 of this notice. DOE 
also reports estimates of the economic value of emissions reductions 
resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section VII.B.7.
g. Other Factors
    EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a 
standard is economically justified, to consider any other factors that 
the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII))

[[Page 4053]]

2. Rebuttable Presumption
    As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a 
rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is 
economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a 
product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of 
the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as 
calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP 
analyses generate values used to calculate the effect potential amended 
energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for 
consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year 
payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In 
addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers 
the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the nation, and 
the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The 
results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the 
economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby 
supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of 
economic justification). The rebuttable-presumption payback calculation 
is discussed in section VII.B.1.a of this final rule.

IV. Issues Affecting Rulemaking Schedule

    DOE received several comments on the rulemaking schedule. Appliance 
Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) and the Energy Efficiency 
Organizations (EEOs) supported the rulemaking schedule as presented in 
the NOPR. However, ASAP noted that DOE missed the legally required 
legislative deadline and urged DOE not to push the rulemaking any later 
than planned. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 29; \18\ 
EEOs, No. 55 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ A notation in this form provides a reference for 
information that is in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop 
energy conservation standards for GSFLs and IRLs (Docket No. EERE-
2011-BT-STD-0006), which is maintained at www.regulations.gov. This 
notation indicates that the statement preceding the reference is 
document number 49 in the docket for the GSFL and IRL energy 
conservation standards rulemaking, and appears at page 29 of that 
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sofie E. Miller commented that the 2009 Lamps Rule required 
compliance on July 14, 2012 and for certain GSFL product classes, many 
manufacturers were granted a stay of enforcement, which is still in 
effect. Therefore, the full impact of the 2009 Lamps Rule on the 
lighting market is unknown. Further, Miller noted that manufacturers 
have expressed concern that the short period between the rulemakings 
will have a severe and negative impact on manufacturers, who may not be 
able to recover investments in new technologies or to develop products 
meeting even higher standards than those in the 2009 Lamps Rule. While 
DOE is statutorily required to make a determination about whether to 
update these standards, it may make the most sense for DOE to delay 
proposing new standards until the full effect of its previous standards 
is known, and DOE should initiate that process by conducting a 
retrospective review of the 2009 Lamps Rule. (Miller, No. 50 at p. 10)
    DOE is conducting this rulemaking to satisfy the EPCA requirement 
for a second review of the GSFL and IRL standards that were finalized 
in the 2009 Lamps Rule and required compliance July 2012. DOE 
understands that Office of Hearing and Appeals (OHA) has granted 16 
manufacturers 2-year waivers from standards for their 700 series T8 
products that expire in 2014. Because standards from this rulemaking 
would become effective after these waivers granted to individual 
manfacturers have expired and the products granted waivers would be 
subject to standards, DOE has conducted its analysis assuming that the 
waivers will not be in place. Further, at the time of the analysis of 
the final rule, most of the waivers had expired and not been renewed.
    Regarding this rulemaking assessing the full impact of the 2009 
Lamps Rule, the analysis in this final rule was updated and finalized 
almost two years after the July 2012 standards required compliance, 
reflecting the most recent data available. DOE conducted a survey of 
product offerings for this final rule and identified a few new covered 
products since the NOPR analysis which were included in this final rule 
analysis. Therefore, DOE finds that the analysis in this final rule 
adequately assesses and captures the impacts of the July 2012 standards 
for these products and sees no reason to delay in adopting the 
appropriate standards resulting from it and requiring compliance three 
years after the publication of the final rule.

V. Issues Affecting Scope

A. Clarifications of General Service Fluorescent Lamp Definition

    The scope of this rulemaking for GSFLs is defined by the terms 
``fluorescent lamp'' and ``general service fluorescent lamp.'' 10 CFR 
430.2 The definition of general service fluorescent lamp includes 
certain exemptions. DOE has received several questions on the 
application of these exemptions. Therefore, DOE evaluated each 
exemption and determined that the following exemption categories could 
be further clarified: ``impact-resistant fluorescent lamps,'' 
``reflectorized or aperture lamps,'' ``fluorescent lamps designed for 
use in reprographic equipment,'' and ``lamps primarily designed to 
produce radiation in the ultraviolet region of the spectrum.'' For 
these exemption categories, the terminology was either not defined 
elsewhere or the application of the exemption could be further 
clarified. Using product literature and industry reference sources, DOE 
proposed clarifications of these exemptions in the NOPR. DOE did not 
receive any comments on the proposed clarifications. However, the 
National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) did state that 
they support all existing exemptions for fluorescent products. (NEMA, 
No. 54 at p. 11) DOE therefore is maintaining the clarifications to the 
exemption definitions.
    Additionally, DOE proposed clarifications of the terms ``designed'' 
and ``marketed'' as applied to definitions of lighting products covered 
under DOE standards. These terms are generally used to ensure that 
exemptions from applicable standards apply only to lamps used in 
certain intended applications and/or functions. Therefore, DOE 
considered the terms ``designed,'' ``designated,'' ``designation,'' 
``designated and marketed,'' and ``designed and marketed,'' for covered 
lighting products to mean that manufacturers explicitly state the 
intended application of the lamp in a publicly available document 
(e.g., product literature, catalogs, packaging labels, and labels on 
the product itself). In the NOPR DOE had specified the lamp types to 
which the proposed definition should apply as follows: Fluorescent lamp 
ballasts; fluorescent lamps; general service fluorescent lamps; general 
service incandescent lamps; incandescent lamps; incandescent reflector 
lamps; medium base compact fluorescent lamps; and specialty application 
mercury vapor lamp ballasts. In this final rule, in addition to these 
lamp types, the definition will also apply to ``general service lamps'' 
which are also a lamp type covered by DOE.
    The term ``designed and marketed'' is also used in the general 
service fluorescent lamp definition which specifies that all lamp types 
exempted must be ``designed and marketed'' for the nongeneral 
application they are

[[Page 4054]]

intended to serve. One of these exemptions is lamps with a CRI of 87 or 
greater (hereafter ``high CRI lamps'').
    The California Investor Owned Utilities (CA IOUs) commented that 
the definition of ``designed and marketed'' should relate to the way 
products are represented in the marketplace and might be utilized. (CA 
IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 28) EEOs predicted that 
DOE's method of adding a definition of ``designed and marketed,'' as 
proposed in the NOPR, would do nothing to prevent or dissuade 
manufacturers from continuing to sell high CRI lamps as inexpensive, 
extremely inefficient alternatives to GSFLs subject to federal 
standards. (EEOs, No. 55 at pp. 2-4) EEOs and the National Energy 
Efficiency Partnership (NEEP) commented that the exemption for high CRI 
GSFLs is a loophole that is undercutting the current federal standards 
and, if not addressed, would undercut the standards ultimately adopted 
by this rulemaking. EEOs, NEEP, and Earthjustice reported that they 
have encountered numerous examples of high CRI lamps that are being 
marketed as suitable general service lamps. NEEP noted that the market 
responded to the 2009 Lamps Rule by increased offerings of high CRI T12 
lamps. These products offer no energy savings and in the case of full-
wattage 40 W lamps, actually increase energy usage. EEOs found that 
almost all of the 4ft T12 bipin GSFLs sold online were high CRI, 
costing as little as $1.50 per lamp when sold in multi-packs and having 
efficacy ratings as low as 54 lm/W. Compared to the 92.4 lm/W proposed 
in the NOPR for lamps at or below a correlated color temperature (CCT) 
of 4,500 K, EEOs calculated that a single high CRI 2600 lumen lamp, 
with an average rated life of 36,000 hours, could use 720 kWh more than 
a regulated lamp over the course of its life. (EEOs, No. 55 at pp. 2-4; 
NEEP, No. 57 at pp. 2-3; Earthjustice, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
49 at p. 27; Earthjustice, No. 52 at pp. 1-3)
    ASAP commented that DOE consider what modifications to the high CRI 
definition could be made to address the use of high CRI lamps in 
general service applications. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 
at pp. 28-29) Earthjustice also noted that a high CRI lamp marketed for 
general lighting applications but fails to meet federal minimum 
efficacy levels would be violating energy conservation standards and 
the marketing claims may constitute an unfair or deceptive act or 
practice in violation of section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade 
Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1). Earthjustice stated that DOE should 
work with the Federal Trade Commission to develop guidance on the 
appropriate marketing of high CRI fluorescent lamps. Earthjustice 
suggested that DOE should also investigate whether high CRI lamps meet 
EPCA's thresholds for coverage and energy conservation standards. 
(Earthjustice, No. 52 at pp. 3-4)
    The definition of ``designed and marketed'' adopted in this rule 
refers to how the lamp is represented in the market and should be 
utilized by consumers. DOE believes that within the scope of this 
rulemaking it is implementing the appropriate changes in the CFR to 
clarify the exemption of high CRI products. It is not within the scope 
of DOE's authority in this rulemaking to modify the thresholds set by 
the current CRI exemptions for GSFLs.
    Earthjustice commented the proposed definition of ``designed and 
marketed'' states that the intended application must be specified in a 
public document rather than all public documents. Earthjustice noted 
this as a problem specifically for high CRI lamps as it would allow 
manufacturers to explain the high CRI application in one document while 
still marketing the product as for general lighting applications in 
other documents. Earthjustice suggested, and EEOs concurred, that DOE 
should revise the definition of ``designed and marketed'' to provide 
that ``the intended application of the lamp is clearly and 
conspicuously stated in all publicly available documents (e.g., product 
literature, catalogs, packaging labels, and labels on the product 
itself).'' (Earthjustice, No. 52 at pp. 3-4; EEOs, No. 55 at pp. 2-4)
    DOE agrees that the definition proposed in the NOPR for ``designed 
and marketed'' can be strengthened and therefore, in this final rule 
will add the word ``clearly,'' and specify ``all publicly available 
documents'' so it reads ``means that the intended application of the 
lamp is clearly stated in all publicly available documents (e.g., 
product literature, catalogs, and packaging labels).'' DOE believes 
that it is important that all public disclsures be consistent about the 
intended use or application of the lamp. In addition, DOE notes that 
the Federal Trade Commision prescribes certain energy-related labels 
for lighting products, such as general service fluorescent lamps and 
DOE will also consider those labels along with any other voluntary 
marking the manufacturers currently put on their lamps when determining 
whether a particular lamp is ``designed'' and ``marketed'' for a 
specific application. DOE reiterates that it is not adopting any new 
labeling requirements for lamps covered by this rulemaking.

B. General Service Fluorescent Lamp Scope of Coverage

1. Additional General Service Fluorescent Lamp Types
    In this rulemaking, DOE evaluated energy-efficiency standards for 
additional GSFLs beyond those for which standards have already been 
established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5)) Any additional GSFLs considered for 
coverage under standards must meet the definition of a fluorescent lamp 
in 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(A); satisfy the majority of fluorescent lighting 
applications; not be within the exclusions specified in 42 U.S.C. 
6291(30)(B); and not already be subject to energy conservation 
standards. 73 FR 13620, 13629 (March 13, 2008). For each additional 
GSFL that meets these criteria, DOE then assessed whether standards 
could result in significant energy savings and are technologically 
feasible and economically justified. Standards for any applicable 
additional GSFLs are adopted based on the same criteria used to set new 
or amended standards for products pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
    Using these criteria, DOE evaluated whether the following GSFL 
types warranted coverage under standards: 1) pin base compact 
fluorescent lamps (CFLs); 2) non-linear fluorescent lamps (e.g., 
circline); and 3) fluorescent lamps with alternate lengths (e.g., 2-, 
3-, and 5-foot lamps).
    For pin base CFLs, DOE determined that these lamp types fall within 
the definition of ``general service lamps,'' which excludes GSFLs. (42 
U.S.C. 6291(30)(BB)) Therefore, these lamp types cannot be considered 
under this rulemaking. DOE is evaluating these lamp types in the 
rulemaking for general service lamps. Documents related to this 
rulemaking can be found on regulations.gov, docket number EERE-2013-BT-
STD-0051.
    For non-linear fluorescent lamps, DOE considered circline 
fluorescent lamps, the primary shape not currently covered under 
standards. Using the miscellaneous category of fluorescent lamps 
reported by the 2010 U.S. Lighting Market Characterization \19\ (2010 
LMC), DOE determined that the market share and energy consumption for 
these lamps was not substantive. The 2010 LMC's miscellaneous category 
composed 2.1 percent of lighting and

[[Page 4055]]

consumed 4 terrawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity in 2010. Circline lamps 
are only a portion of the miscellaneous category, which also includes 
all fluorescents other than T5 linear and T8 and T12 linear and U-
shaped lamps, as well as fluorescent lamps with unknown 
characteristics. Interviews with manufacturers also confirmed the low 
market share of these lamp types. Therefore, DOE concluded that 
coverage should not be expanded to non-linear fluorescent lamps as 
standards would not likely result in significant energy savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ U.S. Department of Energy. 2010 U.S. Lighting Market 
Characterization. January 2012. Available at http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/2010-lmc-final-jan-2012.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For linear lengths not already covered by standards, DOE focused on 
linear medium bipin (MBP) fluorescent lamps ranging from 1 to 6 feet, 
with the exception of the 4-foot MBP, which is already subject to 
standards. DOE's analysis showed that 5- and 6-foot lengths comprise a 
very low percentage of the linear MBP product offerings. For the T8 MBP 
lamps with lengths less than 4 feet, according to the 2010 LMC, these 
lamps comprised about 0.7 percent of the linear fluorescent lamp market 
and 0.2 percent of all installed lighting and consumed 1 TWh of 
electricity in 2010. Feedback from manufacturers also indicated a low 
market share for these lamp types.
    NEMA supported DOE's decision not to include additional lamp types, 
such as 2-foot linear lamps, in the scope of the regulation agreeing 
that such lamps have low sales volume and low energy use. (NEMA, No. 54 
at p. 11) ASAP stated it understood DOE's reasoning for not covering 2-
foot linear fluorescent lamps based on the 2010 LMC. However, ASAP 
noted and CA IOUs concurred that 2-foot lamps is a growing market and 
that DOE should address this in the final rule. (ASAP, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 19-20; CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 49 at p. 20)
    EEOs and CA IOUs commented that DOE should include and set efficacy 
standards for 2-foot linear lamps as part of the rulemaking, finding 
DOE's assertion that linear fluorescent lamps shorter than 4 feet do 
not comprise a sufficiently large share of annual lamp sales and energy 
use to warrant coverage unconvincing. EEOs argued that DOE used 
outdated shipment data from the 2010 LMC, which was not specific to 2-
foot linear GSFLs, to estimate sales and energy savings potential. EEOs 
and CA IOUS stated as this data was gathered prior to the effective 
date of the last round of GSFL standards it does not include the market 
impact from these standards. Further, EEOs and CA IOUs voiced concern 
over DOE's continued use of the 2010 LMC data instead of the newer 
shipment data from Vermont and California. CA IOUs noted that in 
Vermont study (2011 Vermont Market Characterization and Assessment 
Study \20\), 2-foot lamps were by far the most common lamp length 
behind 4-foot lamps, and more common than many of the other product 
classes currently being covered by standards. While EEOs recognized 
that this data only represents a small portion of the overall lighting 
market, EEOs stated that using the field survey is better than relying 
on unreliable and outdated information from the 2010 LMC. (EEOs, No. 55 
at pp. 5-6; CA IOUs, No. 56 at p. 4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Navigant Consulting, Inc. 2011 Vermont Market 
Characterization and Assessment Study. October 2012. Available at 
http://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/psd/files/Topics/Energy_Efficiency/EVT_Performance_Eval/VT%20CI%20Existing%20Buildings%20Market%20Assessment%20and%20Characterization_2012-10-6_FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE found using the 2010 LMC data to determine whether the 2-foot 
linear fluorescent lamps have a substantial market share and could 
result in significant energy savings is more accurate than relying on 
data from the Vermont study. The Vermont study is specific to a region 
and states that it was intended to develop the baseline data that 
characterizes the existing building and equipment stock in the Vermont 
business sector and covers the period of July 2011 to July 2012.\21\ 
The study uses on-site surveys of 120 existing buildings for its 
primary data.\22\ The 2010 LMC study captures all lighting installed in 
the U.S. in stationary applications during 2010.\23\ The 2010 LMC 
groups linear fluorescent lamps by shape and length, and DOE used the 
T8 lamps with lengths less than 4 feet category to assess the 2-foot 
linear fluorescent market. Therefore, because this category includes 
more than just the 2-feet lengths, DOE's market estimates for the 2-
foot linear fluorescent lamps are likely conservative. Further, the 
2009 Lamps Rule became effective September 14, 2009 and required 
compliance July 14, 2012. Therefore, the Vermont study that was 
executed before compliance was required does not offer any added 
benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 2011 Vermont Study, 1.
    \22\ 2011 Vermont Study, 3.
    \23\ 2010 LMC Study, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CA IOUs noted that when using the 2010 LMC data, DOE excluded 2-
foot T12 lamps from its total on the premise that the market will 
likely shift away from T12s due to strengthened ballast standards. CA 
IOUs agreed that the market will shift away from T12s, however, they 
predicted that all of these lamp sales would likely become 2-foot T8 
sales. DOE therefore should have counted 2-foot T12 shipments towards 
the total 2-foot lamp estimates. (CA IOUs, No. 56 at p. 4)
    DOE excluded T12 lamps from this analysis to reflect future market 
trends. The 2011 final rule amending energy conservation standards for 
fluorescent lamp ballasts (hereafter the ``2011 Ballast Rule''), which 
will require compliance on November 14, 2014, set standards difficult 
for T12 ballasts to meet.\24\ 76 FR 70548 (Nov. 14, 2011). Due to these 
standards and because historical shipments of most T12 lamps have been 
decreasing steadily, a trend confirmed in manufacturer feedback from 
interviews, DOE determined the market will likely shift away from T12 
lamps. However, even if there were a shift from 2-foot linear T12 to 2-
foot linear T8 lamps it would not be significant, as the T12 lamps with 
lengths less than 4 feet comprise only 0.6 percent of the linear 
fluorescent market and 0.2 percent of all installed lighting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The full text and all related documents of the 2011 Ballast 
Rule can be found on regulations.gov, docket number EERE-2007-BT-
STD-0016 at www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-
0016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EEOs reflected further on DOE's argument that 2-foot linear GSFLs 
are uncommon and not a large percentage of the lighting market. While 
EEOs agreed it is undoubtedly true that 2-foot linear GSFLs sell in 
much smaller volumes than 4-foot GSFLs, EEOs contended and CA IOUs 
agreed that regulating 2-foot linear GSFLs sales that are a small 
fraction of the volume of the 4-foot GSFLs lamps could still yield 
significant energy savings, especially as the baseline 2-foot linear 
lamps are extremely inefficient. Specifically, for 2-foot linear 
fluorescent lamps, EEOs found efficacies of 58 lm/W for T12 lamps, 77 
lm/W for standard T8 lamps, and 88 lm/W for more efficient T8 lamps. By 
comparison, 2-foot U-shaped GSFLs which are subject to current 
standards have efficacies that range from 85 to 94 lm/W. (EEOs, No. 55 
at pp. 5-6; CA IOUs, No. 56 at p. 4) EEOs noted that in interviews, 
manufacturers told DOE that 2-foot linear GSFLs are used in kitchens, 
bathrooms, vanity lighting, hospitality applications, cabinets, and to 
round out edges of ceilings in commercial spaces, and the Edison 
Electric Institute had noted that these lamps are used in task 
lighting. EEOs and CA IOUs additionally argued that many 2x2 fixtures 
are retrofitted to 2-foot linear lamps, replacing existing U-bend 
lamps. EEOs also cautioned that following the exemption of certain ER 
and BR IRLs from standards, the sales of

[[Page 4056]]

ER, BR lamps increased. EEOs suggested that DOE may be making the same 
mistake by not covering 2-foot linear GSFLs. (EEOs, No. 55 at pp. 5-6)
    In order to extend the scope to an additional lamp type, DOE must 
consider the potential energy savings that would result from regulating 
the lamp type under consideration. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)) Based on its 
assessment of market share, trends, and product offerings, DOE does not 
find that significant energy savings will result from a standard for 2-
foot linear fluorescent lamps.
    DOE's review of 2-foot fluorescent lamp product offerings indicated 
that the majority of T8 products are offered in 17 W with minimal 
reduced wattage options and the T12 products are offered in 20 W. 
Therefore, any likely savings from standards would come from more 
efficacious T8 systems replacing T12 systems. However, as noted 
previously, the 2011 Ballast Rule enacts standards that will be 
difficult for T12 ballasts to meet and likely result in a shift away 
from T12 products.
    As mentioned, using the relevant data in the 2010 LMC and observing 
the limited product offerings, DOE determined that the market share for 
2-foot linear fluorescents is very low. Additionally, DOE compared the 
market share reported for the less than 4 feet T8 lamps in 2000 LMC 
compared to the 2010 LMC. From 2000 to 2010 the market of less than 4 
feet T8 lamps declined from 1.5 to 0.7 percent of the linear 
fluorescent market and 0.5 to 0.2 percent of the entire lighting 
market. Further, the inventory of less than 4 feet T8 lamps declined by 
about 52 percent from 2000 to 2010 based on the LMC reports for those 
years. Therefore, DOE finds that the 2-foot linear lamps not only 
currently comprise a low market share but will likely not experience 
growth and therefore, will not result in significant energy savings.
    Regarding a potential shift to the 2-foot linear lamps, while 
manufacturer feedback noted the applications in which 2-foot linear 
lamps can be utilized, it also indicated that the market share of the 
2-foot linear fluorescent lamps was not likely to increase. Further, 
the noted applications such as cabinets or hospitality lighting 
indicate that this lamp type is used in specific spaces and therefore 
would likely have limited growth in market share.
    Therefore, DOE maintains its conclusion not to include the 2-foot 
linear fluorescent lamp type in the scope of this rulemaking.
2. Additional General Service Fluorescent Lamp Wattages
    DOE specifies a certain minimum wattage for lamp types included in 
the definition of ``fluorescent lamp.'' In this rulemaking, DOE also 
evaluates whether coverage should be extended to additional wattages of 
these lamp types. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5)) As part of this assessment, 
DOE reviewed product offerings for covered lamp types to determine if 
any new, lower wattage products had been introduced since publication 
of the 2009 Lamps Rule. In the NOPR, DOE proposed extending coverage to 
the following reduced wattage lamps: 49 W, 50 W, 51 W 8-foot SP 
slimline, 25 W 4-foot T5 MiniBP standard output (SO), and 44 W, 47 W 4-
foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps. 79 FR at 24085 (April 29, 2014) DOE currently 
covers 8-foot SP slimline lamps with wattages of 52 W or more; 4-foot 
T5 MiniBP SO lamps with wattages of 26 W or more; and 4-foot T5 MiniBP 
HO lamps with wattages of 49 W or more. These reduced wattage lamps are 
generally more efficacious than their full-wattage counterparts are and 
offer the potential for increased energy savings. DOE did not receive 
any comments regarding the proposed additional wattages for inclusion 
in GSFL scope in response to the NOPR.
    Therefore, DOE is extending coverage to the following GSFLs in the 
final rule:
     8-foot SP slimline lamps with wattages >= 49 W and  4-foot T5 MiniBP SO lamps with wattages >= 25 W and  4-foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps with wattages >= 44 W and regulations.gov under docket ID EERE-2010-BT-STD-0005 at 
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0005. DOE has 
suspended activity on this rulemaking as a result of section 322 of 
Public Law (Pub. L.) 113-76 (January 17, 2014) (hereafter, 
``Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014''), which prohibits DOE from 
using appropriated funds to implement or enforce standards for ER, BR, 
and BPAR IRLs. DOE received several comments on the exclusion of the 
certain R, ER, BR lamps from this rulemaking and DOE's interpretation 
of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014.
    NEMA stated its support for all existing exemptions for IRL 
products and agreed with DOE's approach to address exempted BR lamps in 
a separate rulemaking when funding is available. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 
10-11) Earthjustice, however, commented DOE is obligated to include the 
certain R, ER, and BR IRLs in this rulemaking. Earthjustice remarked 
that DOE's determination that these IRLs are covered by the directive 
in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3) to amend EPCA's standards should extend to 42 
U.S.C. 6295(i)(4) under which this rulemaking is being concluded. 
Therefore, the exempt lamps should be a part of this rulemaking. 
(Earthjustice, No. 52 at p. 4) Earthjustice further commented that 
because the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 is clearly 
inapplicable to R20 IRLs rated 45 W or less, DOE should adopt standards 
for those lamps. (Earthjustice, No. 52 at p. 5)
    DOE is not including the certain R, ER, and BR IRLs in this 
rulemaking as it has commenced another rulemaking to address standards 
for these lamps. At the time DOE determined that it has the authority 
under EPCA to adopt standards for these R, ER, and BR IRLs, as they are 
covered by the directive in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3), the first cycle of 
rulemaking to amend standards for IRLs per 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3) was 
already underway. Therefore, DOE initiated a separate rulemaking for 
the R, ER, and BR IRLs which included publishing a framework document 
and holding a public meeting, prior to the initiation of this 
rulemaking. Additionally, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 
precludes DOE from engaging in a rulemaking involving certain ER, and 
BR IRLs. While DOE agrees that implementation or enforcement of 
standards for R IRLs are not prohibited by the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2014, the R20 IRLs rated 45 W or less are already 
the subject of a separate rulemaking. Due to the progress of that 
rulemaking, DOE did not find it appropriate to remove the R20 IRLs 
rated 45 W or less from the scope of that rulemaking.
    CA IOUs, NEEP, Earthjustice and EEOs noted that they do not agree 
with DOE's interpretation of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 
and urged DOE to include all covered IRLs in this rulemaking, including 
the ER, BR, and BPAR lamps noted in the Act. (CA IOUs, No. 56 at p. 5; 
NEEP, No. 57 at

[[Page 4057]]

p. 1; EEOs, No. 55 at p.7; Earthjustice, No. 52 at p. 5) Earthjustice 
commented that nothing in the text of the Act prevents DOE from using 
appropriated funds to adopt standards that are different from those 
shown in the tables in section 325(i)(1)(B). Earthjustice stated that 
even if DOE believes that adopting standards stronger than those in the 
tables would implicitly also apply standard levels blocked by the Act 
(in that DOE would be applying standards to remove from the market 
lamps that Congress allegedly sought to protect), DOE could certainly 
adopt standards weaker than those applied in EPAct 1992. Such standards 
would still represent a significant improvement in efficacy, and under 
the current funding constraints, may represent the maximum improvement 
in energy efficiency that is feasible. (Earthjustice, No. 52 at p. 5)
    EEOs stated that the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 only 
prevents DOE from using funds to implement or enforce standards 
contained in the tables in section 325(i)(1)(B) and not from 
implementing or enforcing standards developed in response to a separate 
congressionally required rulemaking. (EEOs, No. 55 at p. 7) CA IOUs 
stated that EISA 2007 requires DOE to consider revising standards for 
these products. (CA IOUs, No. 56 at p. 5)
    CA IOUs also noted that by omitting these products, the total 
savings potential from IRL standards is greatly minimized as standards 
for covered IRLs may result in more expensive, higher performing 
covered products and low cost, low efficacy unregulated products. CA 
IOUs and NEEP commented that these unregulated lamps would result in 
major loopholes as consumers could be incented to utilize less 
efficient IRLs, ultimately sacrificing significant energy savings to 
the country. (CA IOUs, No. 56 at p. 5; NEEP, No. 57 at p. 1) ASAP 
stated and was supported by CA IOUs that consumers currently have a 
choice between a very efficient light-emitting diode (LED), a very 
efficient incandescent covered lamp or a very inefficient 65 W BR or 
equivalent lamp. Therefore, addressing this loophole could lead to 
annual savings of half a billion dollars. (ASAP, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 16-17)
    The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 prohibits expenditure of 
funds appropriated by that law to implement or enforce standards for 
BPAR, BR, and ER IRLs. Thus, DOE is not considering these specific 
lamps in this rulemaking.
2. Incandescent Reflector Wattages
    In this rulemaking, DOE also did not consider IRLs with wattages 
lower than 40. EPCA defines an incandescent reflector lamp as a lamp 
that ``has a rated wattage that is 40 watts or higher.'' (42 U.S.C. 
6291(30)(C), (C)(ii), and (F)) Additionally, while the definition of 
IRLs does not provide an upper wattage limit, DOE did not assess 
covered IRLs higher than 205 W in the NOPR. DOE research indicated that 
wattages greater than 205 W comprise a very small portion of the market 
and are typically designed for specialty uses, and therefore, do not 
represent significant energy savings. DOE did not receive any comments 
on this assessment in response to the NOPR and therefore, analyzes the 
same wattage range for IRLs in this final rule.

D. Summary of Scope of Coverage

    In conclusion, in this rulemaking DOE is extending the scope of 
coverage for GSFLs to certain wattages including 8-foot SP slimline 
lamps with wattages >=49 W and =25 W and =44 W and or are not being used to their optimal performance. 
Therefore, with the exception of the IRL technology options of 
efficient filament orientation and efficient filament coiling, which 
are discussed in greater detail in section VI.A.2, DOE continues to 
consider the technology options put forth in the NOPR as means to 
improve the efficacy of GSFLs and IRLs.
1. General Service Fluorescent Lamp Technology Options
    DOE received comments specific to the GSFL technology options put 
forth in the NOPR analysis. Specifically, DOE received a comment on 
highly emissive coatings, fill gas compositions, and higher efficiency 
phosphors.
a. Highly Emissive Coatings
    DOE identified highly emissive coatings as a technology option to 
increase GSFL efficacy in the NOPR. When electrons are more easily 
emitted from the fluorescent lamp electrodes, a lower voltage is needed 
to maintain the arc. Therefore, any improvement in electrode coating 
that would allow electrons to be more easily removed from the 
electrodes would reduce the lamp power and increase the overall 
efficacy of the lamp. See chapter 3 of the final rule TSD for further 
details.
    General Electric (GE) commented that highly emissive coatings are 
already being used to meet the current requirements of the 2009 Lamps 
Rule, so it is not logical to cite this as a technology options again. 
(GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 48-49)
    DOE found that there are various coatings and combinations that can 
be used to increase lamp efficacy. Conventional coatings include barium 
oxide (BrO), calcium oxide (CaO), and strontium oxide (SrO), sometimes 
paired with the addition of zirconium oxide (ZrO) which is used to 
extend lamp lifetime, and silicon carbide (SiC) which removes more 
electrons from the electrode. Because lamps are present on the market 
at more than one level of efficacy, and highly emissive electrode 
coating technology can be optimized in different variations, it 
provides a mechanism to improve the efficacy of less efficacious 
products (see chapter 3 of the final rule TSD for more information). 
Therefore, DOE retained highly emissive electrode coating as a 
technology option for this final rule.
b. Higher Efficiency Lamp Fill Gas Composition
    DOE also identified higher efficiency lamp fill gas composition as 
a technology option to increase GSFL efficacy in the NOPR. Lamp fill 
gases in fluorescent lamps increase mobility of mercury ions and 
electrons, facilitating recombination and resulting in increased 
ultraviolet (UV) output and higher lamp efficacy. See chapter 3 of the 
final rule TSD for further details.
    GE commented that higher efficiency gas fill composition is already 
being used to meet the current requirements of the 2009 Lamps Rule, so 
it is not logical to cite this as a technology option again. (GE, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 48-49)
    Based on feedback from manufacturers in interviews, there are 
different types and ratios of fill gases that can be used to improve 
lamp efficacy. Because lamps are present on the market at more than one 
level of efficacy, and fill gas compositions can be optimized in 
different combinations, they provide a mechanism to improve the 
efficacy of less efficacious products. Therefore, DOE retained higher 
efficiency fill gas composition as a technology option for this final 
rule.
c. Higher Efficiency Phosphors
    DOE also identified higher efficiency phosphors as a technology 
option to increase GSFL efficacy in the NOPR. 79 FR at 24088 (April 29, 
2014). Triband phosphors which contain rare earth elements are more 
efficient phosphors that allow a lamp to emit light at the wavelengths 
to which human eyes are most sensitive which increases lamp efficacy. 
This effect is impacted by the relationship between the efficiency 
losses in the phosphor's conversion of light, wavelengths sensitive to 
the human eye, and measurement of lamp efficacy. Generally, as 
thickness of the phosphor layer (also called phosphor weight) 
increases, lamp light output increases until it slightly decreases or 
stays flat. (See chapter 3 of the final rule TSD for further details).
    NEMA stated that options to increase phosphor weight are 
essentially exhausted at the proposed efficacy level because it is near 
the peak of the coating weight/light output curve shown in figure 3.4.5 
of chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 22-23)
    As noted, phosphor weight utilized in a lamp impacts the efficacy 
achieved. Because lamps are present on the market at more than one 
level of efficacy, varying weights of higher efficiency phosphor 
coatings is an option that can be utilized to improve the efficacy of 
less efficacious products. Therefore, DOE maintained higher efficiency 
phosphors as a technology option for this final rule.
d. Summary of GSFL Technology Options
    In summary, in this final rule analysis, DOE identified technology 
options for GSFLs listed in Table VI.1.

     Table VI.1--GSFL Technology Options in the Final Rule Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Name of technology option                   Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highly Emissive Electrode Coatings  Improved electrode coatings allow
                                     electrons to be more easily removed
                                     from electrodes, reducing lamp
                                     power and increasing overall
                                     efficacy.
Higher Efficiency Lamp Fill Gas     Fill gas compositions improve
 Composition.                        cathode thermionic emission or
                                     increase mobility of ions and
                                     electrons in the lamp plasma.
Higher Efficiency Phosphors.......  Phosphors increase the conversion of
                                     ultraviolet light into visible
                                     light.
Glass Coatings....................  Coatings on inside of bulb enable
                                     the phosphors to absorb more UV
                                     energy, so that they emit more
                                     visible light.
Higher Efficiency Lamp Diameter...  Optimal lamp diameters improve lamp
                                     efficacy.
Multi-Photon Phosphors............  Phosphors emit more than one visible
                                     photon for each incident UV photon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4059]]

2. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Technology Options
    DOE received comments specific to the IRL technology options put 
forth by DOE in the NOPR. Id. at 24088-24090. Specifically, DOE 
received comments on thinner filaments, efficient filament coiling, 
efficient filament orientation, higher efficiency inert fill gases, 
higher pressure tungsten-halogen lamps, infrared glass coatings, 
efficient filament placement, and integrally ballasted low voltage 
lamps.
a. Thinner Filaments
    In the NOPR analysis, DOE proposed thinner filaments as a 
technology option for increasing IRL efficacy. Id. at 24089. A thinner 
filament has an increased resistance and therefore an increased 
operating temperature, which increases the lamp efficacy. (See chapter 
3 of the final rule TSD for further details.) NEMA commented that 
thinner filaments mean longer filaments, which reduce efficacy by 
defocusing the light source inside the reflector. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 
20)
    DOE's research did not find any information indicating that the 
loss in efficacy due to the potentially defocused light with a longer 
filament outweighs the gain obtained by running a thinner filament at a 
higher temperature. Additionally, a longer filament would increase 
lumen output. DOE acknowledges that when utilizing a thinner filament 
as a technology option, other factors must be considered, such as the 
length of the filament required to implement the technology in its most 
optimal form. However, this does not preclude it as a technology option 
as use of it in the appropriate manner can increase IRL efficacy. 
Therefore, DOE maintained the use of thinner filaments as a technology 
option that can be manipulated to increase lamp efficacy for this final 
rule.
b. Efficient Filament Coiling
    DOE proposed efficient filament coiling in the NOPR analysis as a 
technology option to increase lamp efficacy. Id. at 24089. Coiling of 
the incandescent lamp filament can increase luminous efficacy. The 
light output of an incandescent lamp is directly proportional to the 
light-emitting surface area of the light source. By coiling the 
filament, a longer filament can be used, increasing luminous output and 
therefore lamp efficacy. (See chapter 3 of the final rule TSD for 
further details.) NEMA stated that efficient filament coiling, which is 
necessary for efficient optics and beam patterns, is already common 
practice in the majority of halogen IRLs. Thus, no further efficacy 
increase is possible with this technology option. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 
20)
    DOE research indicates that specifications of commercially 
available IRLs covered in this rulemaking state that the optimal 
coiling configuration, the CC (coiled coil) is being used. Therefore, 
DOE removed efficient filament coiling as a technology option that can 
be used to improve the efficacy of lamps on the market for this final 
rule.
c. Efficient Filament Orientation
    DOE proposed efficient filament orientation in the NOPR analysis as 
a technology option to increase lamp efficacy. Id. Tungsten filaments 
in incandescent lamps can be positioned horizontally or vertically with 
respect to the base of the bulb. By positioning the filament in 
vertical alignment, only a small portion of the light is emitted 
towards the base, allowing more light to escape the bulb and be used 
for illumination, thereby increasing lamp efficacy. (See chapter 3 of 
the final rule TSD for further details.) NEMA commented that efficient 
filament orientation, which is necessary for efficient optics and beam 
patterns, is already common practice in the majority of halogen IRLs, 
noting that manufacturers already strive to accomplish this and thus, 
no further efficacy increase is possible with this technology option. 
(NEMA, No. 54 at p. 20)
    DOE recognizes that filaments are placed in the vertical position 
which is optimal for commercially available IRLs covered in this 
rulemaking. Therefore, DOE removed efficient filament orientation as a 
technology option that can be used to improve the efficacy of lamps on 
the market for this final rule.
d. Higher Efficiency Inert Fill Gas
    DOE proposed high-efficiency inert fill gas as another technology 
option to increase IRL efficacy in the NOPR analysis. Id. Fill gases 
such as krypton and xenon have low thermal conductivity that decreases 
the convective cooling of the filament, allowing for higher temperature 
operation and therefore higher efficacy. These gas molecules are larger 
relative to other gases, and can more effectively slow down the 
evaporation of tungsten and thereby extend the life of the lamp. Xenon, 
having even lower heat conductivity and larger mass than krypton, can 
more drastically change efficacy and life, but has a higher cost. Most 
lamps compliant with the July 2012 standards use xenon as a fill gas. 
(See chapter 3 of the final rule TSD for further details.) NEMA 
commented that higher efficiency inert fill gas is already common 
practice in the majority of halogen IRLs and therefore, no further 
efficacy increase is possible with this technology option. (NEMA, No. 
54 at p. 20)
    Based on feedback from manufacturer interviews, DOE confirmed that 
the majority of covered standards-compliant IRLs are utilizing xenon. 
However, DOE also learned that the amount of xenon used in a lamp can 
vary based on several factors. Because lamps are present on the market 
at more than one level of efficacy, higher efficiency inert fill gas is 
one option that can be utilized to improve the efficacy of less 
efficacious products. Therefore, DOE maintained high-efficiency inert 
fill gas as a technology option for this final rule.
e. Higher Pressure Tungsten-Halogen Lamps
    DOE proposed the use of higher pressure tungsten-halogen as a 
technology option in the NOPR analysis. Id. Increasing the pressure of 
the halogen burner by increasing the density of halogen elements can 
indirectly raise the efficacy of the tungsten-halogen lamp. The 
increased density of halogen elements raises the probability that an 
evaporated tungsten element combines with a halogen element in a 
gaseous compound. Adding more of this gaseous compound in the burner 
effectively increases the amount of tungsten re-deposited on the 
tungsten filament. The lamp efficacy can be increased by using higher 
pressure to maintain the evaporation rate while increasing the filament 
temperature. (See chapter 3 of the final rule TSD for further details.) 
NEMA stated that the higher pressures in higher pressure tungsten-
halogen lamps increase life but reduce efficacy due to the faster 
convective cooling of the filament. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 21)
    DOE understands that maintaining the filament temperature and 
increasing the pressure, thereby decreasing the evaporation rate of 
tungsten result in a gain in lifetime. However, a combination of higher 
pressure and increased temperature can be used to achieve both an 
increase in efficacy and lifetime. Therefore, DOE maintains high-
efficiency inert fill gas as a technology option in this final rule.
f. Infrared Glass Coatings
    DOE proposed infrared glass coatings as a technology option in the 
NOPR analysis. Id. at 24090. Infrared coatings on incandescent lamps 
are used to

[[Page 4060]]

reflect some of the radiant energy emitted back onto the filament. This 
infrared radiation then supplies heat to the filament and the operating 
temperature increases. An increase in operating temperature results in 
higher light output and therefore an increase in efficacy. (See chapter 
3 of the final rule TSD for further details.) NEMA commented that 
infrared glass coatings on burners and reflectors have been in use 
since the mid-1980s and have been developed to the maximum 
technologically feasible level. More efficient coatings with 80 or more 
layers have been tested, but these coatings fail due to cracking under 
repeated thermal expansion and contraction. Therefore, no further 
efficacy increase is possible with this technology option. (NEMA, No. 
54 at p. 21)
    Based on feedback from manufacturer interviews, DOE determined that 
different IR coating formulas are used on different halogen burners. 
Because lamps are present on the market at more than one level of 
efficacy, and infrared glass coating technology can be optimized in 
different variations, it provides a mechanism to improve the efficacy 
of less efficacious products. Therefore, DOE maintained infrared glass 
coatings as a technology option for the final rule.
g. Efficient Filament Placement
    Efficient filament placement was one of the technology options 
presented in the preliminary analysis (see chapter 3 of the preliminary 
analysis TSD), but DOE did not propose it in the NOPR phase. An 
optimally placed filament allows a portion of the spectrum emitted by 
the filament to focus back onto it. The additional heat provided to the 
filament increases the operating temperature and thereby increases lamp 
efficacy. In the NOPR phase, NEMA commented that manufacturers already 
use efficient filament placement and that no further efficacy gains due 
to this technology option are possible. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 20)
    DOE had received similar comments regarding efficient filament 
placement in the preliminary analysis. Based on these comments and 
further research as well as manufacturer interviews, DOE determined 
that the optimal filament placement design is theoretically well 
understood and is being applied in commercially available IRLs covered 
under the scope of this rulemaking. Therefore, DOE did not propose 
efficient filament placement as a technology option in the NOPR 
analysis and maintained this decision for the final rule.
h. Integrally Ballasted Low Voltage Lamps
    DOE also presented integrally ballasted low voltage lamps as a 
technology option in the preliminary analysis but did not propose it in 
the NOPR phase. 79 FR at 24089 (April 29, 2014) The use of an integral 
ballast in an incandescent lamp allows an increase in the efficacy 
because it converts the line voltage to lower lamp operating voltages, 
thereby reducing the lamp wattage. In the NOPR phase, NEMA commented 
that integrally ballasted low voltage lamps use electronics that are 
thermally limited to 30 W or less due to American National Standards 
Institute/International Electrotechnical Commission (ANSI/IEC) form 
constraints. Further, most IRLs are burned base-up. Therefore, this is 
not viable for higher power PAR lamps. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 21)
    DOE received similar comments in the preliminary analysis and 
reviewed feedback from manufacturer interviews and conducted further 
research regarding issues with this technology option. In interviews, 
manufacturers stated that the use of an integral ballast to lower 
voltage is not a feasible technology in higher wattage lamps due to 
issues with dissipating heat generated by the electronic components. 
Manufacturers indicated that heat dissipation becomes a problem at 
wattages ranging from 20 to 35 W. DOE research also indicated that in 
converting to a lower voltage, current is increased and greater heat is 
generated from the filament. In higher wattage IRLs, the resulting 
increased temperature can be damaging to the voltage conversion 
circuitry. Further, based on manufacturer interviews there are no 
covered IRLs that currently utilize this technology option. Because the 
lower limit of IRL wattages covered under standards is 40 W, DOE did 
not propose integrally ballasted low voltage lamps as a technology 
option in the NOPR analysis and maintained this decision for the final 
rule.
i. Summary of IRL Technology Options
    In summary, in this final rule analysis, DOE identified technology 
options for IRLs listed in Table VI.2.

      Table VI.2--IRL Technology Options in the Final Rule Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name of technology option                   Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Higher Temperature Operation.  Operating the filament at higher
                                temperatures, the spectral output shifts
                                to lower wavelengths, increasing its
                                overlap with the eye sensitivity curve.
Microcavity Filaments........  Texturing, surface perforations,
                                microcavity holes with material
                                fillings, increasing surface area and
                                thereby light output.
Novel Filament Materials.....  More efficient filament alloys that have
                                a high melting point, low vapor
                                pressure, high strength, high ductility,
                                or good radiating characteristics.
Thinner Filaments............  Thinner filaments to increase operating
                                temperature. This measure may shorten
                                the operating life of the lamp.
Crystallite Filament Coatings  Layers of micron or submicron
                                crystallites deposited on the filament
                                surface that increases emissivity of the
                                filament.
Higher Efficiency Inert Fill   Filling lamps with alternative gases,
 Gas.                           such as Krypton, to reduce heat
                                conduction.
Higher Pressure Tungsten-      Increased halogen bulb burner
 Halogen Lamps.                 pressurization, allowing higher
                                temperature operation.
Non-Tungsten-Halogen           Novel filament materials that regenerate.
 Regenerative Cycles.
Infrared Glass Coatings......  When used with a halogen burner, this is
                                referred to as an HIR lamp. Infrared
                                coatings on the inside of the bulb to
                                reflect some of the radiant energy back
                                onto the filament.
IR Phosphor Glass Coatings...  Phosphor coatings that can absorb IR
                                radiation and re-emit it at shorter
                                wavelengths (visible region of light),
                                increasing the lumen output.
UV Phosphor Glass Coatings...  Phosphor coatings that convert UV
                                radiation into longer wavelengths
                                (visible region of light), increasing
                                the lumen output.
Electron Stimulated            A low voltage cathodoluminescent phosphor
 Luminescence.                  that emits green light (visible region
                                of light) upon impingement by thermally
                                ejected electrons, increasing the lumen
                                output.
Higher Efficiency Reflector    Alternative reflector coatings such as
 Coatings.                      silver, with higher reflectivity
                                increase the amount of directed light.

[[Page 4061]]

 
Corner Reflectors............  Individual corner reflectors in the cover
                                glass that reflect light directly back
                                in the direction from which it came.
High Reflectance Filament      Filament supports that include a
 Supports.                      reflective face that reflects light to
                                another filament, the reflective face of
                                another filament support, or radially
                                outward.
Permanent Infrared Reflector   Permanent shroud with an IR reflector
 Coating Shroud.                coating and a removable and replaceable
                                lamp can increase efficiency while
                                reducing manufacturing costs by allowing
                                IR reflector coatings to be reused.
Higher Efficiency Burners....  A double-ended burner that features a
                                lead wire outside of the burner, where
                                it does not interfere with the
                                reflectance of energy from the burner
                                wall back to the burner filament in HIR
                                lamps.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Screening Analysis

    After DOE identifies the technologies that improve the efficacy of 
GSFLs and IRLs, DOE conducts the screening analysis. The purpose of the 
screening analysis is to determine which options to consider further 
and which options to screen out. DOE consults with industry, technical 
experts, and other interested parties in developing a list of 
technology options. DOE then applies the following set of screening 
criteria to determine which options are unsuitable for further 
consideration in the rulemaking (10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A 
at 4(a)(4) and 5(b)):
     Technological Feasibility: DOE will consider technologies 
incorporated in commercially available products or in working 
prototypes to be technologically feasible.
     Practicability to Manufacture, Install, and Service: If 
mass production of a technology and reliable installation and servicing 
of the technology could be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the 
relevant market at the time the standard comes into effect, then DOE 
will consider that technology practicable to manufacture, install, and 
service.
     Adverse Impacts on Product Utility or Product 
Availability: If DOE determines a technology to have significant 
adverse impact on the utility of the product to significant subgroups 
of consumers, or to result in the unavailability of any covered product 
type with performance characteristics (including reliability), 
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the 
same as products generally available in the United States at the time, 
it will not further consider this technology.
     Adverse Impacts on Health or Safety: If DOE determines 
that a technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or 
safety, it will not further consider this technology.
    Those technology options not screened out by the above four 
criteria are called ``design options'' and are considered as possible 
methods of improving efficacy in the engineering analysis. DOE received 
several comments on technology options not screened out and retained as 
design options in the NOPR analysis for GSFLs and IRLs.
1. General Service Fluorescent Lamp Design Options
    DOE received a general comment on the screening methodology as it 
relates to GSFLs. Philips commented that the screening analysis is not 
comprehensive enough because it is only looking at efficacy and does 
not consider other market requirements such as lifetime, dimmability, 
and CRI. (Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 49)
    One of the screening criteria is determining if a technology option 
would result in adverse impacts on the utility or availability of the 
product. DOE determined that of the design options considered for 
GSFLs, none would have a negative impact on the utility of the lamp 
(since lumen output is improved or maintained) nor would they eliminate 
the common lifetimes and CRI currently being offered. DOE acknowledges 
that krypton, a high-efficiency fill gas, seems to affect dimmability 
of reduced wattage lamps (i.e., energy saver lamp model). Because of 
the issues related to dimming associated with reduced wattage lamps, 
DOE's analysis requires that full-wattage lamps, which do not 
experience these problems, meet any proposed level. Therefore, because 
the use of high-efficiency fill gas would only impact the dimmability 
of certain product options available at a standard level (i.e., reduced 
wattage lamps), this design option is retained.
    In summary, in this final rule analysis DOE identified as design 
options the following GSFL technologies that have met the screening 
criteria:
     Highly Emissive Electrode Coatings
     Higher Efficiency Lamp Fill Gas Composition
     Higher Efficiency Phosphors
     Glass Coatings
     Higher Efficiency Lamp Diameter
See chapter 4 of the final rule TSD for further details on the GSFL 
screening analysis.
2. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Design Options
    DOE received feedback on several IRL design options put forth in 
the NOPR analysis, including higher temperature operation, thinner 
filaments, and higher efficiency reflector coatings.
a. Higher Temperature Operation
    In the NOPR, DOE proposed higher temperature operation as a design 
option. 79 FR at 24091 (April 29, 2014). By operating the filament at 
higher temperatures, the spectral output shifts to shorter wavelengths, 
increasing its overlap with the photopic spectral eye sensitivity. 
This, in effect, increases the luminous output for a given power input 
and consequently increases the lamp efficacy. NEMA stated that higher 
temperature operation leads to a drastic and disproportionate loss in 
lifetime (e.g., 6-7 percent efficacy gain results in about 50 percent 
reduction in lifetime). (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 20)
    DOE understands that there may be a tradeoff between operation at 
higher temperature and a decrease in lifetime. However, DOE believes 
the use of higher temperature operation can be tuned to achieve a gain 
in efficacy while maintaining a reasonable lifetime. Therefore, DOE 
maintained higher temperature operation as a design option for this 
final rule.
b. Thinner Filaments
    DOE proposed thinner filaments as a design option in the NOPR 
analysis. A thinner filament has an increased resistance and therefore 
an increased operating temperature, which increases the lamp efficacy. 
NEMA commented that thinner filaments lead to a drastic loss in 
lifetime. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 20)
    DOE is aware that an incandescent lamp with a thinner filament 
cannot withstand as much tungsten evaporation as a thicker filament 
before failing,

[[Page 4062]]

resulting in a shorter lifetime. However, a thinner filament design can 
be implemented to achieve a gain in efficacy while preserving a 
reasonable lifetime. Therefore, DOE maintained the use of thinner 
filaments as a design option for this final rule.
c. Higher Efficiency Reflector Coatings
    DOE proposed higher efficiency reflector coatings with the 
exception of gold reflector coatings, as a design option in the NOPR 
analysis. 79 FR at 24091 (April 29, 2014). IRLs are incandescent lamps 
with a reflective coating, most commonly composed of aluminum or silver 
applied directly to the reflector surface. The reflector coating allows 
these lamps to place the same illuminance on a specific area with 
reduced watts, thereby increasing efficacy. (Note: In the NOPR and in 
this final rule, DOE screened out gold reflector coating due to impact 
on product utility as gold reflectivity diminishes at and below blue-
green wavelengths, which may decrease the color quality of light. See 
chapter 4 of the final rule TSD for further details.)
    NEMA stated that silver, the best higher efficiency reflector 
coating, is already in use and cannot be used in glue-sealed lamps 
(such as PAR20, PAR30, PAR30LN) due to extreme oxidation issues. (NEMA, 
No. 54 at p. 21)
    DOE research indicates that it is possible to use silver reflector 
coatings with an epoxy (glue-based) seal. For example, DOE identified a 
patent that uses aluminum as an inner reflective coating extending from 
the rim to the base of the lamp and then a second coating consisting of 
silver spaced from the rim. The silver layer is heat-treated in an oven 
with a controlled environment prior to fusing the lens to the reflector 
body, which allows a seal to form without further diminishing the 
reflective characteristic of the silver.\25\ Because there are methods 
to apply higher efficiency reflector coatings to all products covered 
by this rulemaking, DOE maintained the use of higher efficiency 
reflector coatings as a design option for this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Woodward, David R. and Walter A. Boyce, Jack R. Sheppard. 
High efficiency sealed beam reflector lamp with reflective surface 
of heat treated silver. U.S. Patent No. 5789847A, filed October 24, 
1995, and issued August 4, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Higher Pressure Tungsten-Halogen Lamps
    DOE proposed the use of high pressure tungsten-halogen as a 
technology option in the NOPR analysis. 79 FR at 24091 (April 29, 
2014). Increasing the pressure of the halogen burner by increasing the 
density of halogen elements can indirectly raise the efficacy of the 
tungsten-halogen lamp. NEMA stated that there are practical 
manufacturing process limitations and key consumer safety concerns with 
higher pressure tungsten-halogen lamps. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 21)
    DOE notes that this design option is being used in commercially 
available lamps. Further, DOE did not find information indicating any 
manufacturing or safety concerns with the use of higher pressure 
tungsten-halogen lamps. Therefore, DOE maintained the use of higher 
pressure tungsten-halogen lamps as a design option for this final rule.
    In summary, in this final rule analysis DOE identified as design 
options the following IRL technologies that have met the screening 
criteria:
     Higher Temperature Operation
     Thinner Filaments
     Higher Efficiency Inert Fill Gas
     Higher Pressure Tungsten-Halogen Lamps
     Infrared Glass Coatings
     Higher Efficiency Reflector Coatings (with the exception 
of gold reflector coatings)
     Higher Efficiency Burners
See chapter 4 of the final rule TSD for further details on the IRL 
screening analysis.

C. Product Classes

    DOE divides covered products into classes by: (a) the type of 
energy used; (b) the capacity of the product; or (c) other performance-
related features that justify different standard levels, considering 
the consumer utility of the feature and other relevant factors. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(q)) DOE received several comments regarding product classes 
proposed for GSFLs and IRLs in the NOPR analysis.
1. General Service Fluorescent Lamp Product Classes
    In the NOPR analysis DOE considered product classes for GSFLs based 
on the following three factors: (1) Correlated color temperature; (2) 
physical constraints of lamps (i.e., lamp shape and length); and (3) 
lumen package. 79 FR at 24091 (April 29, 2014). DOE received comments 
regarding establishing additional product classes based on the 
different spacing of 2-foot U-shaped lamps and lamp lifetime.
a. Two-Foot U-Shaped Lamps
    DOE received several comments that separate product classes based 
on the spacing of the 2-foot U-shaped lamps may be needed. Spacing 
refers to the length between the two legs of the U-shaped lamp. The 2-
foot U-shaped GSFLs come in 1\5/8\-inch spacing and 6-inch spacing. OSI 
commented that the 2-foot U-shaped lamps with 1\5/8\-inch spacing and 
6-inch spacing should be in different product classes based on DOE's 
analysis in the NOPR. (OSI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 
33-34) OSI stated that the reduced wattage 2-foot U-shaped lamps with 
1\5/8\-inch spacing are typically used in retail applications and would 
be eliminated by the rulemaking, resulting in an increase in energy 
use. OSI added that full-wattage 6-inch lamps would be eliminated by 
the rulemaking, removing dimming utility. (OSI, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 60-61) GE noted that this issue could 
partially be due to the scaling of the 2-foot U-shaped product class 
from the 4-foot MBP product class and could be an issue specific to the 
scaling factor or the 4-foot MBP product class efficacy levels. (GE, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 61) NEMA explained that 
consumers have switched to reduced wattage 1\5/8\-inch 2-foot U-shaped 
lamps, which serve retail applications and full-wattage 6-inch 2-foot 
U-shaped lamps are mainly used in offices for dimming purposes. (NEMA, 
No. 54 at p. 15)
    EEOs recommended that DOE only create separate product classes for 
6-inch and 1\5/8\-inch spacing of 2-foot U-shaped if a technical 
barrier impacting efficacy potential is identified. (EEOs, No. 55 at p. 
6) CA IOUs commented that DOE should not create separate product 
classes for U-shaped lamps with different spacing. CA IOUs supported 
this statement by identifying commercially available full and reduced 
wattage U-shaped lamps with 6-inch spacing that would meet the proposed 
standard in the NOPR for these products. CA IOUs also noted that of the 
2-foot U-shaped offerings with 1\5/8\-inch spacing, the majority of 
products were 31 W lamps, many of which met the standard level proposed 
in the NOPR analysis. Further, CA IOUs stated that there has to be a 
clear technical reason for design limitations for U-bend lamps of 
specific spacing to create separate product classes. They also noted 
that the 2-foot U-shaped lamps comprise a low market share that is 
shrinking as 2x2 fixtures are being converted to straight linear 2-foot 
lamps and therefore, manufacturers may not have developed an array of 
lamp offerings of varying efficacies. (CA IOU, No. 56 at p. 3)
    DOE determines efficacy levels for 2-foot U-shaped lamps by 
reducing the efficacy levels of comparable 4-foot MBP lamps by an 
appropriate scaling

[[Page 4063]]

factor. DOE updated this scaling factor for the final rule analysis, 
see section VI.D.2.h for addition detail. In response to stakeholder 
comments, DOE reviewed the ability of 2-foot U-shaped lamps to comply 
with the highest efficacy level analyzed in this final rule, paying 
particular attention to the ability of both lamp spacings to comply. 
DOE determined that full wattage and reduced wattage versions of both 
lamp spacings are able to meet the highest efficacy level analyzed in 
the 2-foot U-shaped product class. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE 
did not establish separate product classes for the 1\5/8\-inch 2-foot 
U-shaped and 6-inch 2-foot U-shaped lamps.
b. Long-Life Lamps
    DOE received comments that a separate product class for GSFLs with 
longer lifetimes than the standard lifetime may be needed. The longer 
life products are new on the market and mainly prevalent among the 4-
foot MBP lamp types. NEMA commented that DOE should ensure that long-
life lamps could meet the proposed standards or create a new product 
class for long-life lamps and report the associated analysis. (NEMA, 
No. 54 at p. 18) NEMA emphasized that the issue is that consumers are 
willing to pay a premium for long life (e.g., 80,000 hour) fluorescent 
lamps to avoid frequent lamp replacement. NEMA added that for many 
consumers long-life LEDs might not be an option due to first cost. 
(NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 72-73) NEMA stated that 
long-life products offer utility for areas that are difficult to 
relamp, such as areas over assembly lines, or bridges and tunnels. 
Further, NEMA contended that design changes that permit much longer 
lifetimes have a net reduction in lumens/watt. When lumens per watt are 
increased lifetime is reduced and that increases the frequency of 
replacement, which in turn increases labor costs for replacement, 
increases the use of rare earth oxides in manufacturing, and increases 
mercury release. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 13-14)
    GE noted that more lamps would be required to support lifetimes 
that may be half as long as common lifetimes for fluorescent lamps and 
this would also increase waste and costs to the manufacturer. GE also 
noted that elimination of long-life GSFLs would not result in energy 
savings as fluorescent lamps consume a steady amount of power from 
initial to mean to end life. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at 
pp. 68-69, 73-74) Regarding a question on the market share of long-life 
GSFLs, OSI responded that because these products have only been 
recently introduced in the market it is difficult to determine and NEMA 
noted that it would try to obtain this data for DOE. (OSI, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 74; NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 49 at pp. 75-76)
    EEOs remarked that although industry members proposed a separate 
product class for extra-long-life GSFLs with lifetimes of around 80,000 
hours, these products are new on the market and it is unclear if a 
technical barrier exists preventing these lamps from meeting proposed 
standards. EEOs added that CA IOUs provided examples of reduced wattage 
extra-long-life 4-foot MBP lamps that would meet proposed levels. 
Further, EEOs agreed that extra-long-life lamps are cost effective, 
however, the negative impacts of a proposed level on life could be 
captured in DOE's economic analysis. (EEOs, No. 55 at pp. 6-7) The 
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) stated that it had not 
observed consumer concern for lifetime, noting more sales of less 
efficacious, long-life products. NEEA also noted that it was not 
possible to have both an efficacious and a good long lifetime product 
and expected this rulemaking to address the lifetime in the life-cycle 
cost analysis of the product. (NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 
at pp. 77-79)
    CA IOUs commented that a separate product class might be warranted 
for extra-long-life GSFLs if DOE finds a technical justification for 
reduced efficacy among these products. CA IOUs identified a variety of 
commercially available reduced wattage extra-long-life products with 
catalog efficacies that would pass DOE's proposed standard for 4-foot 
MBP lamps. Noting that these were reduced wattage lamps, CA IOUs added 
that if DOE is not able to identify full-wattage extra-long-life lamps 
that meet the proposed standards, and stakeholders present a technical 
justification with respect to design limitations preventing such 
products from being developed, a separate product class might be 
appropriate for this product type. However, CA IOUs noted that a 
standard for such a product class should be sufficiently stringent to 
avoid becoming a loophole. (CA IOU, No. 56 at pp. 3-4)
    In response to stakeholder comments, DOE reviewed information about 
long life GSFLs from manufacturer interviews, product catalogs, and 
DOE's certification database. Manufacturer interviews indicated that it 
may be possible to increase the lifetime of fluorescent lamps by 
increasing the gas pressure, but that this may also decrease efficacy. 
DOE reviewed manufacturer catalog offerings and found that several 
manufacturers offered lamps that were marketed as ``standard life'' and 
also offered lamps that were marketed as ``long life.'' Catalog 
information generally indicated that the marketed long life lamps were 
less efficacious than comparable standard life lamps. Where available, 
certification data supported this trend. However, DOE notes that there 
is inconsistency in the industry regarding what actually constitutes a 
``long life'' lamp. When comparing lamps offered by different 
manufacturers, one manufacturer's ``long life'' product may be offered 
with a lifetime very similar to that of another manufacturer's 
``standard life'' product. Further, while DOE is aware that lifetime is 
a feature valued by consumers, DOE's analysis ensures that the 
lifetimes typically available at the baseline level are also available 
at higher efficacy levels (see section VI.D.2.g for more details). In 
this way, DOE's higher efficacy levels do not impact consumer utility 
and DOE accounts for any differences in lifetime as economic impacts in 
the LCC and NIA. Therefore, DOE did not establish separate product 
classes for long life GSFLs in this final rule analysis.
c. Summary of GSFL Product Classes
    In this final rule analysis, DOE established product classes for 
GSFLs as summarized in Table VI.3. See chapter 3 of the final rule TSD 
for further details on each GSFL product class.

         Table VI.3--GSFL Product Classes in Final Rule Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Lamp type                               CCT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-foot medium bipin........................................    4,500 K
2-foot U-shaped............................................    4,500 K
8-foot single pin slimline.................................    4,500 K
8-foot recessed double contact high output.................    4,500 K
4-foot T5, miniature bipin standard output.................    4,500 K
4-foot T5, miniature bipin high output.....................    4,500 K
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Product Classes
    In the NOPR analysis, DOE proposed product classes for IRLs based 
on the following three factors: (1) Rated voltage, separating lamps 
less than 125 V from lamps greater than or equal to 125 V; (2) lamp 
spectrum, separating lamps with a standard spectrum from lamps with a 
modified spectrum; and

[[Page 4064]]

(3) lamp diameter, separating lamps with a diameter greater than 2.5 
inches from lamps with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 inches. 79 
FR at 24092 (April 29, 2014). DOE received comments on the rated 
voltage and modified spectrum product class setting factors. DOE did 
not receive feedback on the other product class divisions proposed for 
IRLs in the NOPR analysis.
a. Rated Voltage
    In the NOPR analysis, DOE proposed rated voltage as a class setting 
factor, establishing a product class for IRLs with voltages less than 
125 V and a product class for IRLs with voltages greater than or equal 
to 125 V. NEMA stated that DOE's reasoning for a separate 130 V product 
class was out of concern that consumers would shift to 130 V options 
that are less efficient than 120 V lamps resulting in increased energy 
consumption. However, NEMA noted that when operated at 120 V, a 60 W 
130 V PAR38 uses less energy, approximately 54-55 W. Further, NEMA 
stated that since this decreases light output, consumers would not 
choose 130 V IRLs to `cheat' on energy conservation standards. (NEMA, 
No. 54 at p. 30)
    DOE agrees that the 130 V lamp described by NEMA would use less 
energy when operated at 120 V. However, in the NOPR analysis and in 
this final rule DOE concludes that the corresponding decrease in light 
output would result in consumers purchasing additional lamps to 
maintain sufficient light. 79 FR at 24093 (April 29, 2014). Therefore, 
setting higher standards for IRLs without accounting for voltage 
differences could result in increased energy consumption.
    Westinghouse remarked that the absence of 130 V IRLs on the market 
has resulted in a loss in utility as 130 V IRLs were used to maintain 
product lifetimes in areas with transients, voltage spikes, and other 
power issues, and that consumers in those markets will have to buy more 
light bulbs due to voltage issues. Citing the 130 V lamps as an 
example, Westinghouse noted that in this rulemaking DOE has to be 
careful when setting new IRL standards that such unintended 
consequences do not happen as they cannot be fixed in the future due to 
the backsliding provision. (Westinghouse, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 49 at pp. 43-44)
    DOE is aware that the 130 V lamps can provide a certain utility by 
lasting longer than 120 V lamps in certain areas that are susceptible 
to voltage spikes. However, based on its assessment that most consumers 
operate 130 V IRLs at 120 V and differences in efficacy when they are 
operated at 120 V versus tested at 130 V, DOE determined that there 
would be a potential migration to 130 V IRLs if they were subject to 
the same standards as 120 V IRLs and further that there would be 
additional purchases of 130 V IRLs by the consumer. Hence, in order to 
preserve energy savings, DOE maintained the rated voltage class 
division that separates covered IRLs less than 125 V from those that 
are greater than or equal to 125 V in this rulemaking. (See chapter 3 
of the final rule TSD for further information.)
b. Modified Spectrum
    Modified spectrum IRLs provide unique utility to consumers by 
providing a different type of light than standard spectrum lamps, much 
like fluorescent lamps with different CCT values. However, the same 
technologies (i.e., coatings) that modify the spectral emission of a 
lamp also decrease lamp efficacy. Therefore, in the NOPR DOE proposed a 
product class division separating standard spectrum IRLs from modified 
spectrum IRLs. 79 FR at 24093 (April 29, 2014).
    EEOs added that a separate product class for modified spectrum 
lamps may not be needed as more efficient technologies, such as CFLs 
and LEDs, are able to achieve the same utility and also due to the lack 
of commercially available modified spectrum lamps covered by the 
rulemaking. (EEOs, No. 55 at pp. 7-8) CA IOUs agreed that due to the 
limited number of modified spectrum IRLs on the market, the category 
should be eliminated. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 
20) ASAP and CA IOUs concluded that there is no need to make an 
exemption or have a less efficacious standard for modified spectrum 
lamps. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 17-18; CA IOUs, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 20) NEMA commented that 
modified spectrum lamps, like 130 V lamps, cannot remain both cost 
effective and compliant and referred DOE to manufacturer interviews for 
additional details. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 31)
    As in the NOPR, DOE continues to believe that modified spectrum 
lamps offer unique utility by providing a different spectrum of light. 
79 FR at 24093 (April 29, 2014). Although more efficient technologies, 
such as CFLs and LEDs, may offer similar spectrums, DOE must maintain 
consumer utility for the products that are within the scope of this 
rulemaking. Modified spectrum IRLs modify the spectral emission of a 
lamp in such a way that lamp efficacy decreases. DOE acknowledges that 
there are currently no modified spectrum products on the market. 
However, DOE maintains that there are no technological barriers to 
creating these products. DOE does not consider cost when establishing 
product classes. Because modified spectrum lamps offer unique utility 
but at lower efficacy compared to standard spectrum products, DOE 
maintained the class division for lamp spectrum in this final rule.
c. Summary of IRL Product Classes
    In this final rule analysis, DOE established product classes for 
IRLs as summarized in Table VI.4. See chapter 3 of the final rule TSD 
for further details on each IRL product class.

         Table VI.4--IRL Product Classes in Final Rule Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Diameter (in
                Lamp type                     inches)         Voltage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Spectrum.......................            >2.5         >=125 V
                                          ..............          =125 V
                                          ..............          2.5         >=125 V
                                          ..............          =125 V
                                          ..............          www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEMA commented that while catalog data is reviewed on a regular 
basis, due to publication delays it may not reflect all products being 
manufactured and, therefore, certification data would

[[Page 4066]]

provide a more realistic representation of products than catalogs. For 
example, NEMA commented on DOE's assessment that only 68 percent of the 
commercially available fluorescent lamps in the scope of this 
rulemaking have certification data. NEMA stated that this percentage 
suggests that products identified by DOE in catalogs are not really 
made or sold as all manufacturers are required to submit certification 
data to DOE on their products on an annual basis. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 
19)
    DOE understands that catalog data is subject to publication delays 
and may not be updated on a continuous basis. DOE frequently reviews 
both the available catalog data and certification data. At the time of 
the final rule analysis, DOE's certification database contained data 
for 79 percent of the covered commercially available lamps. While this 
percentage was an increase from the NOPR analysis, it still did not 
represent a comprehensive dataset on which to base an engineering 
analysis. Therefore, in this final rule analysis, DOE again utilized 
both catalog data and certification data in order to assess all 
available data. Specifically, DOE utilized catalog data to identify 
baseline products and develop initial efficacy levels. This approach 
ensured consideration of all available products. DOE then used 
available certification data to adjust the initial efficacy levels, if 
necessary, thereby ensuring that the adopted levels can be met based on 
the certification values submitted by manufacturers to demonstrate 
compliance with standards.
    Regarding the certification data, NEMA stated that they had 
determined that erroneous conclusions could be drawn from the data in 
DOE's certification database. NEMA commented on an exchange with DOE 
regarding the application of cathode heat during testing for T8 lamps 
in the 4-foot MBP and 2-foot U-shaped product classes. NEMA stated that 
the application of cathode heat for full wattage lamps and U-shaped 
lamps is clear as they do not have high frequency specifications. 
However, NEMA asserted that while ANSI C78.81-2010 specifies that the 
reduced wattage (30 W, 28 W and 25 W) 4-foot MBP T8 lamps have 
normative high frequency (HF) reference ballast circuits, DOE requires 
they be tested at low frequency and permits exclusion of cathode heat, 
which makes them appear more efficacious than full wattage lamps. NEMA 
asserted that DOE certification database has erroneous values for 
reduced wattage lamps for the following reasons: (1) There was a lack 
of awareness of the exchange between DOE and NEMA on the subject of 
cathode heat and high frequency circuits for reduced wattage lamps; (2) 
the current DOE test procedure incorporates ANSI C78.81-2010, which 
made high frequency reference photometry normative for reduced wattage 
T8 lamps but requires that these lamps be tested at low frequency and 
permits the removal of cathode heat, which makes them seem more 
efficacious; and (3) DOE certification data is not required to be 
resubmitted if there are no changes affecting efficacy of the basic 
model. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 23-24)
    DOE acknowledges that there may be confusion in the industry 
regarding how to test certain lamp types. Per the DOE test procedure, 
GSFLs are to be tested at low frequency unless only high frequency 
reference ballast specifications are available. (See section 4.1.1 in 
10 CFR 430, subpart B, appendix R.) Because low frequency settings 
exist, 4-foot MBP lamps and 2-foot U-shaped lamps must be tested at low 
frequency. For lamps tested at high frequency, the industry standard 
referenced by the DOE test procedure, LM-9-09,\28\ specifies that 
cathode heat is not utilized for high frequency circuits. Manufacturers 
are encouraged to contact general_service_fluorescent_lamps@ee.doe.gov 
with questions regarding DOE's test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ ``IES Approved Method for the Electrical and Photometric 
Measurement of Fluorescent Lamps'' (approved Jan. 31, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calculation of Efficacy
    DOE calculated efficacy as the initial lumen output published in 
manufacturer catalogs divided by the ANSI rated wattage. For lamp types 
that do not have a defined ANSI rated wattage, DOE utilized the lamp's 
nominal wattage to calculate catalog efficacy. For example, because 
reduced wattage 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps do not have a defined ANSI 
rated wattage, DOE used their nominal wattages, either 49 W or 47 W, to 
calculate efficacy.
    NEMA commented on DOE's use of catalog lumens and ANSI wattage to 
determine catalog efficacy, stating that lamp wattage may vary when 
measuring catalog lumens for rating purposes. Further, NEMA noted that 
the ANSI-typical electrical characteristics are given for informational 
use only and that any determination of lamp power or efficacy from 
these values would be considered as rough estimates. (NEMA, No. 54 at 
p. 23)
    ANSI rated wattage is the result of standardized ANSI testing and 
represents an industry agreed upon wattage. As noted by NEMA in 
response to the preliminary analysis, the rated wattage is based on the 
average of a very large number of samples and manufacturers produce 
lamps to fall on and around that point. Therefore, the individual lamp 
tested wattage will differ from this rated value of that lamp. NEMA 
stated that it would defer to its members, but in general it supported 
using the ANSI rated wattage rather than the measured wattage. 79 FR at 
24095 (April 29, 2014). Lamp wattage is also reported by manufacturers 
in the CCMS database. However, DOE identified inconsistencies with the 
reported wattage. For example, some manufacturers appeared to report 
nominal wattage rather than measured wattage. DOE notes that using the 
ANSI rated wattage provides a conservative rating for the efficacy for 
several lamp types, specifically those lamp types tested at low 
frequency (i.e., 4-foot MBP, 2-foot U-shaped, and 8-foot SP slimline). 
Therefore, DOE continued to use the ANSI defined rated wattage in this 
final rule.
    For lamp types that do not have a defined ANSI rated wattage, DOE 
utilized the lamp's nominal wattage to calculate catalog efficacy. NEMA 
commented that the assumption that the rated wattage and nominal 
wattage of reduced wattage 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps are the same is 
not valid. NEMA noted that until an industry standard is completed, 
these values are speculative in nature. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 26)
    DOE acknowledges that reduced wattage 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps do 
not have a defined rated wattage. However, DOE believes that the 
nominal wattage is a reasonable approximation of rated wattage for 
these lamps, based on the guidelines for defining nominal wattage in 
ANSI C78.81. After developing initial levels based on efficacies 
calculated using catalog data and ANSI wattages, DOE reviewed 
certification data. The reported values for efficacy are based on 
measured lumen output and measured wattage as specified in DOE's test 
procedures for GSFLs set forth at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix 
R. Utilizing ANSI rated wattage to calculate catalog efficacy and 
reported efficacy for developing final efficacy levels eliminates the 
uncertainty associated with the wattages reported for compliance.
Rounding
    NEMA disagreed with DOE's current GSFL test procedure that requires 
efficacies be reported to the nearest tenth. 10 CFR 430.23(r)(2) NEMA 
stated that due to the uncertainty of

[[Page 4067]]

measurement, reporting lumen values to the nearest tenth was 
statistically incorrect and could result in enforcement issues; and 
further recommended that DOE require efficacies to be rounded to the 
nearest lumen per watt. Specifically, NEMA quoted that the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) TL standards measurement 
of expanded uncertainty is 1.6 percent (coverage factor k=2). NEMA 
provided the example that a highly stable 3,000-lumen F32T8 fluorescent 
lamp based on NIST standards would result in an uncertainty for the 
reported mean of +/- 33 lumens for 21 samples. Further, NEMA stated 
that in addition to being contrary to the NIST ``Guidelines for 
Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results'' 
(GUM) rounding to the nearest tenth also did not align with 
International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) Policy for 
Uncertainty in Calibration (ILAC-P14:01/2013). The policy states that 
the expanded uncertainty should be at most two significant figures and 
the final result rounded to the least significant figure in the value 
of the expanded uncertainty assigned to the measurement result. NEMA 
noted that an accredited laboratory with measurements traceable to SI 
units through a National Metrology Institute cannot have a measurement 
uncertainty less than the artifact samples utilized to calibrate their 
systems and random lamp production samples would add further 
uncertainty. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 15-16)
    As specified in DOE's test procedures for GSFLs set forth at 10 CFR 
part 430, subpart B, appendix R, lamp efficacy is the ratio of measured 
lumen output in lumens to the measured lamp electrical power input in 
watts rounded to the nearest tenth in units of lumens per watt. In the 
2009 final rule for the GSFL and IRL test procedure, DOE amended the 
test procedure to require reported efficacy measurements for GSFLs to 
be rounded to the nearest tenth of a lumen per watt allowing for future 
energy conservation standards to be rounded to the nearest tenth of a 
lumen per watt. 74 FR 31829, 31836 (July 6, 2009). DOE concluded this 
amendment to the test procedure was feasible because manufacturers 
routinely generate test results that would allow reporting to at least 
the tenth of a lumen per watt level. 74 FR at 31836 (July 6, 2009).
    Therefore, DOE analyzed efficacy levels in this rulemaking rounded 
to the nearest tenth of a lumen per watt as DOE maintains that this is 
an achievable level of accuracy.
b. Representative Product Classes
    When a covered product has multiple product classes, DOE identifies 
and selects certain product classes as representative and analyzes 
those product classes directly. DOE chooses these representative 
product classes primarily due to their high market volumes. In the 
NOPR, DOE identified all GSFLs with CCTs less than or equal to 4,500 K 
with the exception of the 2-foot U-shaped lamps as representative 
product classes. 79 FR at 24096 (April 29, 2014). DOE received no 
comments on this subject and therefore maintained the same 
representative product classes for the final rule.
c. Baseline Lamps
    Once DOE identifies representative product classes for analysis, it 
selects baseline lamps to analyze in each class. Typically, a baseline 
lamp is the most common, least efficacious lamp that just meets 
existing energy conservation standards. In the NOPR, DOE proposed 
baselines at the existing standard levels for all product classes. Id. 
at 24097-98. For the 4-foot MBP and 8-foot slimline product classes, 
DOE determined the baseline to be the least efficient product on the 
market at the existing standard level. For representative product 
classes in which there were no commercially available lamps at the 
existing standard level, DOE modeled baseline lamps. Feedback from 
stakeholders and manufacturer interviews indicated that manufacturers 
will likely produce lamps at the existing standard level even if no 
products are currently available. Further, after the 2009 Lamps Rule, 
DOE observed the introduction of products that were not previously 
available at the newly adopted standard levels for some product 
classes. Thus, DOE believed this trend could continue and additional 
lamps may be offered that just meet the existing standard level for the 
remaining product classes. In the NOPR, DOE modeled baseline lamps for 
the 8-foot RDC HO, T5 MiniBP SO, and T5 MiniBP HO product classes. Id.
    NEMA agreed with the baselines selected for GSFLs based on the data 
in DOE's certification database, but noted its concern that product 
performance may be overstated due to data entry errors in the 
certification database or the use of catalog data that shows higher 
than actual performance of products. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 17)
    Because DOE received no comments to the contrary, DOE analyzed the 
same baselines in the final rule analysis as analyzed in the NOPR. DOE 
selected commercially available lamps as baselines for the 4-foot MBP 
and 8-foot slimline product classes and modeled baseline lamps for the 
8-foot RDC HO, T5 MiniBP SO, and T5 MiniBP HO product classes. 
Regarding overstated product performance, DOE addresses discrepancies 
within the available data sets in section VI.D.2.a and discusses its 
methodology for developing efficacy levels in section VI.D.2.g.
d. More Efficacious Substitutes
    DOE selects more efficacious replacements for the baseline lamps 
considered within each representative product class. DOE considers only 
design options identified in the screening analysis. In the NOPR, these 
selections were made such that potential substitutions maintained light 
output within 10 percent of the baseline lamp's light output with 
similar performance characteristics, when possible. 79 FR at 24098 
(April 29, 2014). DOE also sought to keep other characteristics of 
substitute lamps as similar as possible to the baseline lamps, such as 
rated life, CRI, and CCT. In identifying the more efficacious 
substitutes, DOE utilized a database of commercially available lamps. 
DOE received several comments regarding its choices for more 
efficacious substitutes in the NOPR.
Four-Foot MBP Lamps
    In the NOPR analysis, DOE analyzed two levels for 4-foot MBP lamps 
above the baseline, with the highest level represented by a more 
efficacious full wattage 4-foot MBP lamp and two reduced wattage lamps 
(28 W and 25 W) that are commercially available.
    CA IOUs questioned why DOE did not consider 30 W lamps in its 
analysis, which would be another opportunity to save energy and stay 
within 10 percent of lumen output. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 49 at pp. 94-95)
    DOE analyzed a database of commercially available lamps to identify 
the most common characteristics of lamps in each product class 
including wattage. DOE found the 30 W 4-foot MBP lamp to be 
significantly less common than the 28 W and 25 W wattages. Manufacturer 
feedback confirmed the most popular reduced wattage lamps in the 4-foot 
MBP product class to be 28 W and 25 W. Further, for consumers who 
choose to purchase a reduced wattage product, DOE believes the 28 W and 
25 W products capture both options available: one that saves energy 
while maintaining lumen output within 10 percent of the lumen output of 
typical 32 W products and one that saves more energy but offers 
slightly lower lumen output. Because 28 W lamps are more

[[Page 4068]]

efficacious than 30 W lamps and save more energy, DOE believes that 
consumers opting to purchase reduced wattage lamps will choose 28 W 
lamps rather than 30 W lamps. Therefore, DOE continued to analyze only 
28 W and 25 W reduced wattage 4-foot MBP lamps in the final rule.
T5 MiniBP HO Lamps
    In the NOPR analysis, DOE modeled a baseline lamp for the T5 HO 
product class because a commercially available lamp was not offered at 
the existing standard level. DOE analyzed one level above the baseline, 
represented by a more efficacious full wattage T5 HO lamp and two 
reduced wattage T5HO lamps that are commercially available.
    NEMA noted that DOE should not use modeled lamps to determine more 
efficacious substitutes for T5 MiniBP HO lamps. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 18) 
NEMA stated that if a more efficacious design was possible it would 
already be commercially available. Because of the high bulb wall 
temperatures in T5 MiniBP HO lamps, there are many characteristics to 
consider such as phosphor loading, cold spot control, cathode design, 
gas fill for reduced wattage products, and overall design for optimal 
performance at 35 [deg]C. Further, NEMA was skeptical that DOE could 
produce measured data that demonstrates manufacturability of the more 
efficacious modeled T5 MiniBP HO lamp. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 26)
    As noted in section VI.D.3.b in response to stakeholder comments 
DOE modeled a baseline lamp for the NOPR analysis because the T5 HO 
product class does not have a commercially available lamp that just 
meets the existing standard. Because there are full wattage products 
that have demonstrated efficacy higher than the existing standard, DOE 
believes the modeled baseline lamp is feasible. Based on this new 
baseline, in the NOPR analysis DOE was able to identify a more 
efficacious full wattage T5 HO substitute that is commercially 
available. For the final rule, DOE continues to analyze the same 
baseline and higher efficacy replacements, including the commercially 
available full wattage T5 HO lamp.
e. General Service Fluorescent Lamp Systems
    Because fluorescent lamps operate on ballasts in practice, DOE 
analyzed lamp-and-ballast systems, thereby more accurately capturing 
real-world energy use and light output. In the DOE test procedure for 
GSFLs, and therefore in this rulemaking, lamp efficacy is based on the 
initial lumen output. However, because light output decreases over 
time, DOE analyzed more efficacious systems that maintain mean lumen 
output \29\ within 10 percent of the baseline system, when possible. 
Further, DOE selected replacement systems that do not have higher 
energy consumption than the baseline system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Mean lumen output is a measure of light output midway 
through the rated life of a lamp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE considered two different scenarios: (1) A lamp replacement 
scenario in which the consumer selects a reduced wattage replacement 
lamp that can operate on the installed ballast and (2) a lamp-and-
ballast replacement scenario in which the consumer selects a lamp that 
has the same or lower wattage compared to the baseline lamp and also 
selects a new ballast with potentially different performance 
characteristics, such as ballast factor \30\ (BF) or ballast luminous 
efficiency \31\ (BLE). In the second scenario DOE attempted to select a 
ballast that would result in energy savings and still maintain the mean 
lumen output within 10 percent of the baseline. DOE identified a new 
lamp-and-ballast system by pairing a more efficacious lamp with a 
commercially available ballast that had the lowest BF possible that 
still maintained system mean lumen output within 10 percent of the 
baseline system. When multiple ballast options with the same BF 
existed, DOE selected the most efficient ballast based on the BLE 
metric, as this was considered to be the most likely ballast substitute 
in a lamp-and-ballast replacement scenario designed to achieve energy 
savings. If it was not possible to identify a lamp-and-ballast 
replacement that maintained the 10 percent mean lumen output criterion, 
DOE prioritized energy savings and analyzed a lamp-and-ballast system 
that reduced light output by more than 10 percent \32\ but saved energy 
relative to the baseline system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ BF is defined as the output of a ballast delivered to a 
reference lamp in terms of power or light divided by the output of 
the relevant reference ballast delivered to the same lamp (ANSI 
C82.13-2002). Because BF affects the light output of the system, 
manufacturers design ballasts with a range of ballast factors to 
allow consumers to vary the light output, and thus power consumed, 
of a fluorescent system. See the 2011 Ballast Rule final rule TSD 
Chapter 3. The Ballast Rule materials are available at 
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0016.
    \31\ BLE is the ratio of the total lamp arc power to ballast 
input power multiplied by the appropriate frequency adjustment 
factor.
    \32\ Light output was reduced up to 18 percent in some 
replacement scenarios. The percent reduction in light output was 
based on the ballast factor of the commercially available ballasts 
analyzed. For more information, see chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEMA disputed the energy savings demonstrated by the lamp-and-
ballast systems. NEMA commented that re-ballasting is not common and 
thus spaces will more likely be overlit and consume the same amount of 
system energy. NEMA asserted that a 32 W fluorescent lamp, even if it's 
more efficacious, will consume the same amount of energy.\33\ If 
ballasts were replaced, NEMA disagreed with DOE's assessment that, in 
new construction and retrofit scenarios, lamps will be paired with low 
ballast factor ballasts to result in lower system energy use. Further, 
NEMA noted that DOE's analysis shows a 2-3 percent change in system 
lumen output which does not align with the existing 10 percent steps in 
ballast factors. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ If paired with a dimming ballast, energy savings may be 
possible if the system is adjusted to maintain the same light output 
of the replaced system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE agrees that a ballast is not always replaced when a lamp fails. 
DOE analyzes a lamp replacement scenario in which the existing ballast 
is not replaced and a consumer saves energy by choosing a reduced 
wattage lamp. For the instances in which the consumer replaces both a 
lamp and ballast, DOE analyzes a lamp-and-ballast replacement scenario 
in which a consumer can achieve energy savings by pairing a new lamp 
with an improved ballast. DOE selected commercially available ballasts 
to pair with representative lamps and found ballasts with ballast 
factors available in increments smaller than 10 percent.
    DOE received several comments regarding the light level that must 
be maintained when analyzing replacement lamp-and-ballast systems. CA 
IOUs stated that they were aware that lumens depreciate over time, 
decreasing to about 30 percent of initial lumen output. Further, they 
added that in a lighting retrofit the replacement of a new lamp-and-
ballast system can result in up to a 15-17 percent increase in light 
output, and consumers actually respond negatively to this increase. 
Therefore, CA IOUs suggested that when examining different scenarios of 
sacrificing increased light over energy savings or vice versa, DOE 
prioritize energy savings and maintaining reasonable light levels. (CA 
IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 93-94) NEMA disagreed 
with the comment made by the CA IOU's during the NOPR public meeting 
that consumers would not like increased light levels and a decrease of 
up to 10 percent of lumens would still be too much light for consumers. 
NEMA stated that recent studies show that the aging population

[[Page 4069]]

requires higher light levels and regardless, does not agree that 
decreasing light by 10 percent in place of energy savings for all 
applications is acceptable due to lumen depreciation resulting in light 
that does not meet the required needs, creates safety issue, or 
violates building codes. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 18-19)
    DOE notes that, while it may be possible to decrease light output 
by more than 10 percent in certain situations to maximize energy 
savings, it is likely not acceptable in all applications. DOE tried to 
select lamp-and-ballast systems that maintained mean lumen output 
within 10 percent of the baseline system, when possible. For the lamp-
and-ballast replacement scenario, DOE attempted to select a ballast 
that would result in energy savings and still maintain the mean lumen 
output within 10 percent of the baseline. In cases where energy savings 
were not possible without going beyond the 10 percent threshold of the 
baseline mean lumen output, DOE gave priority to energy savings.
    DOE also received comments regarding the pairing of GSFLs with 
dimming ballasts. CA IOUs noted that California's new building codes 
will potentially require almost all lighting to use dimming ballasts 
and therefore the ballasts may become common in other states as well. 
CA IOUs noted that this presents another opportunity for saving energy 
without increasing light. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 
at pp. 94-96) CA IOUs requested clarification on compatibility issues 
when dimming fluorescent lamps because of the expected increase in the 
use of dimming products in California. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 49 at p. 63) ASAP noted that there are reduced wattage 
lamps that are able to be dimmed and because it is an improving 
situation, the analysis should not be so rigid as to require that there 
always be full wattage lamps available. (ASAP, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 49 at p. 65) GE responded that while reduced wattage 
lamps can be dimmed, their use of krypton makes them more susceptible 
to striations which are unacceptable to the consumer. GE added that 
because of this issue, major companies recommend using full wattage 
lamps with dimming systems as actual energy savings are obtained from 
the wattage at which the lamps are being operated rather than their 
efficacy. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 66-67)
    DOE agrees with the CA IOUs that the market share of dimmable 
systems may increase in the future and therefore continued to analyze 
dimmable systems in the final rule. While certain dimming ballasts are 
listed as compatible for operation with both full and reduced wattage 
lamps, DOE continues to receive feedback that there can be issues with 
dimming reduced wattage lamps. Specifically DOE received feedback from 
manufacturer interviews that problems that can be encountered when 
dimming linear fluorescent lamps, including difficulties in lamp 
starting, striations, and dropout, are exacerbated by the use of 
krypton in reduced wattage lamps. Because of these issues, DOE has 
continued to ensure that full wattage lamps can meet the efficacy 
levels analyzed.
    In the final rule, DOE continued to analyze GSFLs operating on 
fluorescent lamp ballasts. In situations where a consumer selects a new 
ballast in addition to a new lamp, DOE allows the consumer to select a 
new ballast with potentially different performance characteristics, 
such as BF \34\ or BLE.\35\ DOE maintained the same methodology 
described previously in this section to select ballasts in the final 
rule. However, due to certain products being discontinued and new 
products introduced, certain ballast selections in the final rule for 
the 4-foot MBP, 8-foot SP slimline, and 8-foot RDC HO product classes 
were updated. See chapter 5 of the final rule TSD for additional 
detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ BF is defined as the output of a ballast delivered to a 
reference lamp in terms of power or light divided by the output of 
the relevant reference ballast delivered to the same lamp (ANSI 
C82.13-2002). Because BF affects the light output of the system, 
manufacturers design ballasts with a range of ballast factors to 
allow consumers to vary the light output, and thus power consumed, 
of a fluorescent system. See the 2011 Ballast Rule final rule TSD 
Chapter 3. The Ballast Rule materials are available at 
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0016.
    \35\ BLE is the ratio of the total lamp arc power to ballast 
input power multiplied by the appropriate frequency adjustment 
factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Max Tech
    When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class 
of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically 
feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the 
engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically 
feasible (``max tech'') improvements in efficacy for GSFLs using the 
design parameters for the most efficient products available on the 
market or in working prototypes.
    NEMA advised DOE to be wary of claims of ultra-performance lamps in 
the certification database, particularly since there have been no 
technology breakthroughs since the 2009 Lamps Rule and therefore, the 
max tech established in that rulemaking should not change. (NEMA, No. 
54 at p. 25, 29)
    In reviewing available certification data, DOE considered the 
possibility of exorbitant claims or incorrect data. DOE identified 
several efficacy values that it did not consider feasible for 
fluorescent lamp technology and therefore did not consider in this 
analysis. In general, these outliers were identified based on the 
reported wattage, which indicated that these lamps may not have been 
tested correctly. However, DOE still identified several commercially 
available lamps performing at efficacy levels higher than the max tech 
levels established in the 2009 Lamps Rule based on catalog data and 
certification data. Thus, manufacturers appear to be utilizing more 
advanced technologies or to be more efficiently utilizing existing 
technologies.
g. Efficacy Levels
    After identifying more efficacious substitutes for each of the 
baseline lamps, in the NOPR DOE developed ELs based on the 
consideration of several factors, including: (1) The design options 
associated with the specific lamps being studied (e.g., grades of 
phosphor for GSFLs); (2) the ability of lamps across wattages to comply 
with the standard level of a given product class; and (3) the max tech 
level. When evaluating ELs in the NOPR, DOE considered only ELs at 
which a full wattage version of the lamp type was available because 
reduced wattage lamps have limited utility. 79 FR at 24103 (April 29, 
2014). DOE received several comments on the ELs considered in the NOPR.
Clarification of Standard Levels
    ASAP commented that the rulemaking for GSFLs is a performance 
standard and not a design standard, thus ensuring that full wattage 
lamps are available should not be a constraint for DOE. (ASAP, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 50-51)
    DOE agrees with ASAP that the efficacy levels analyzed in this rule 
are performance standards rather than design standards. Thus, DOE does 
not dictate how manufacturers must comply with a standard (i.e., 
requiring that they produce full wattage lamps). However, DOE must 
evaluate standards that do not lessen utility or performance of a 
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) As described in section 
VI.D.2.e, DOE has determined that reduced wattage lamps cannot be used 
in all of the same dimming systems as full wattage lamps due to the 
addition of krypton gas. Therefore, DOE has established a

[[Page 4070]]

performance standard such that manufacturers can continue to produce 
full wattage lamps if required by consumers.
Methodology To Develop Efficacy Levels
    EEOs agreed with DOE's approach using catalog lumens and ANSI 
wattages for GSFLs to establish initial efficacy levels and then 
adjusting the levels based on certification data to ensure that 
certified values could meet proposed standards. EEOs did note that DOE 
had not provided specifics of the adjustments based on certification 
data. Based on its observations of the certified efficacy levels for a 
significant number of lamps, from several manufacturers, EEOs 
determined that the proposed standard levels for the 4-foot and 8-foot 
T8/T12 products were reasonable. (EEOs, No. 55 at pp. 4-5)
    However, manufacturers offered several comments regarding the 
methodology for determining efficacy levels and how it might affect 
manufacturers' ability to comply with an adopted standard level. NEMA 
stated that manufacturers design products around the midpoint of a bell 
distribution curve, and therefore when the required standard is below 
the max-tech level, manufacturers have room to make adjustments (e.g., 
reducing lifetime, adding costly material) to ensure that all their 
products can meet the standard level. However, NEMA stated that because 
DOE's proposed standards for GSFLs are approaching max-tech, the design 
mid-point is above this max-tech level which does not allow 
manufacturers to build in production tolerances that would ensure 
compliance. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 12) GE stated that if DOE sets the 
level at the upper tail of the distribution of data, it will be 
requiring efficacies above max tech which is at the center of that 
distribution. GE encouraged DOE to use the information in NEMA Lighting 
System Division (LSD)-63 Measurement Methods and Performance Variation 
for Verification Testing of General Purpose Lamps and Systems paper to 
analyze data in the DOE certification database and assess the variation 
between test measurements and in production. (GE, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 86-88) Further, NEMA noted that while there 
is no statutory definition for the term ``standard,'' NEMA quoted 
specification of the term put forth by the International Standards 
Organization and the Office of Management and Budget. NEMA stressed 
that a standard must be capable of being met consistently and 
repeatedly by manufacturers and one that cannot be is not within DOE's 
authority to promulgate. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 13)
    To demonstrate compliance with standards, DOE requires 
manufacturers to test a minimum of 21 lamps according to the procedures 
described in 10 CFR 430, subpart B, Appendix R and report a value that 
does not exceed the lower of the sample mean or the 95 percent lower 
confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by 0.97. The greater 
the variation in the tested sample, the more likely that manufacturers 
will report the second value (i.e., LCL). DOE notes that the statistics 
included in the compliance procedures are intended to ensure that 
manufacturers are reporting a value that approximates the population 
mean. Each tested lamp is not individually required to meet or exceed 
the standard level. Designing products such that their population mean 
or the performance of each individual lamp unit within the population 
exceeds DOE's standard level is not required and is done so at the 
discretion of individual manufacturers.
    DOE believes the efficacy levels analyzed in this rulemaking 
represent expected population means rather than outlier data in the 
high end of a bell distribution curve. DOE received feedback from 
manufacturers during interviews that catalog data represents the long 
term average performance of products. DOE uses catalog data to 
establish initial efficacy levels. DOE then compares the efficacy 
levels to available certification data and adjusts the levels downward 
if necessary. DOE does not believe that the certification values 
represent outlier data in the high end of a bell distribution curve. 
Manufacturers must select a minimum of three lamps from each month of 
production for a minimum of 7 months out of a 12-month period.\36\ It 
is unlikely that selecting lamps from multiple months of production 
over the course of a year will result in a value that is consistently 
in the high end of a bell distribution curve. Furthermore, if 
manufacturers believe their test results are artificially high, they 
have the opportunity to report a more conservative value as DOE allows 
manufacturers to rate the product within the range of the existing 
standard up to the lower of the LCL divided by 0.97 or the mean. See 10 
CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix R.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ In the instance where production occurs during fewer than 7 
of such 12 months, the manufacturer shall randomly select 3 or more 
lamps from each month of production, where the number of lamps 
selected for each month shall be distributed as evenly as 
practicable among the months of production to attain a minimum 
sample of 21 lamps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using this methodology, DOE accounts for variation in tested 
samples and ensures efficacy levels are based on values determined by 
DOE's test procedures and reported by manufacturers themselves. In this 
final rule, DOE has maintained the same methodology to develop efficacy 
levels.
Long-Life Lamps
    NEMA stated that GSFL manufacturers have recently introduced 
reduced wattage 4-foot T8 MPB lamps with 84,000-90,000 hour life and 
full wattage (dimmable) lamps with 67,000-70,000 hour life. NEMA noted 
that these products offer more than twice the life and better lumen 
maintenance than standard product with the same initial lumens, 
attributes that provide consumer utility. However, NEMA asserted that 
the proposed efficacy standard levels will eliminate the 4-foot 32 W 
dimmable long life and 28W long life lamps leaving only the 25W long 
life lamps and also eliminate a patchwork of full and reduced wattage 
standard lamps between 42,000 and 52,000 hours. Additionally, NEMA 
stated the T5 MiniBP HO long-life product would also not be able to 
meet the proposed standard. NEMA also warned that industry would not 
produce new products in response to the proposed standards but instead 
reduce existing product offerings and re-purpose existing products, 
resulting in decreased consumer satisfaction. Citing T5s specifically, 
NEMA stated that in order to offer choices to consumers, manufacturers 
may have to add more rare earth phosphors increasing production costs 
and then also have to decrease life to lower cost to the consumer. 
(NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 17-18, 47-48)
    DOE reviewed catalog data to identify the long life products cited 
by NEMA. DOE found that while some manufacturers did offer long life 
products, the lifetimes of these products were inconsistent across the 
industry. For example, some manufacturers' long life products are 
similar in lifetime to other manufacturers' standard life products. 
While catalog data indicates that some designated long life products 
would meet analyzed efficacy levels, certification data is noticeably 
lower, suggesting that these products may not meet the highest level 
analyzed. DOE believes that lifetime is a feature valued by consumers. 
However, DOE considers lifetime to be an economic issue unless a 
standard requires the shortening of lamp lifetime beyond that which is 
typically available. Because the highest

[[Page 4071]]

standard level analyzed will still maintain the availability of 4-foot 
MBP GSFLs with lifetimes ranging from 30,000 to 50,000 hours,\37\ DOE 
did not adjust the efficacy levels in this final rule due to lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Based on 3-hour programmed start operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Four-Foot MBP Lamps
    In the NOPR, DOE analyzed a standard 800 series full wattage T8 
lamp at the baseline. (See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.) DOE identified 
two levels of efficacy above the baseline. Based on catalog data, DOE 
determined EL 1 (90.0 lm/W) represented an improved 800 series full 
wattage T8 lamp and EL 2 (93.0 lm/W) represented an 800 series high 
lumen output full wattage T8 lamp and the 25 W and 28 W reduced wattage 
lamps. DOE analyzed available certification information and found that 
EL 1 did not need to be adjusted from 90.0 lm/W. DOE adjusted EL 2 from 
93.0 lm/W to 92.4 lm/W based on certification data. DOE received 
several comments on the levels analyzed for 4-foot MBP lamps.
    NEMA commended DOE on taking an analytical approach rather than 
relying only on catalog data or DOE certification data to determine 
efficacy levels for the 4-foot MBP product class. However, NEMA stated 
that the limitations of both the catalog and DOE certification data 
need to be considered to understand the efficacy distribution and max 
tech of 4-foot MBP lamps with CCT W represents max tech measured with favorable lab 
measurement bias per LSD 63-2012. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 24)
    NEMA stated that the average maximum technically feasible 4-foot 
MBP T8 lamp efficacy measured at 60 Hz with cathode heat is close to 92 
lm/W. NEMA noted that setting a standard close to the max tech level of 
92 lm/W could result in sample measurement variation below the 
requirement approaching 50 percent and unintended consequences such as 
statistical production disruption of compliant designs. NEMA concluded 
that DOE should maintain the current standard at 89 lm/W for 4-foot MBP 
T8 lamps to allow for the manufacturability of consistently compliant 
products. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 24)
    GE offered a slightly different opinion on the average maximum 
technologically feasible efficacy for 4-foot MBP lamps. GE expressed 
concern that for the 4-foot MBP product class, EL 1 represented the 
central tendency of a distribution and EL 2 at 92.4 lm/W was based on a 
data point from DOE's certification database that happened to come out 
at the higher tail of a distribution. GE noted this as normal 
statistical variation when taking small samples of large quantities of 
lamps. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 86-87)
    NEMA noted its concern that the rulemaking is not following well-
established rules for the treatment of statistical variation as applied 
to the production of compliant lamps. NEMA stated that for the 4-foot 
MBP product class, the proposed efficacy level of 92.4 lm/W is 
considered the midpoint of the normal distribution performance curve of 
compliant lamps. However, because the Certification, Compliance, and 
Enforcement (CCE) rule (76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011)) requires almost 
all lamps to meet the proposed efficacy level, manufacturers would have 
to design their products above the midpoint which would result in 
eliminating most of the current best performing argon-based product 
lines. NEMA also noted that the response that lamps listed in the CCMS 
database meet the level is not adequate because it ignores differences 
due to the understanding of reporting requirements and optimistic 
manufacturer claims. NEMA concluded that DOE is proposing manufacturers 
consistently and repeatedly produce products above the max tech. (NEMA, 
No. 54 at p. 22)
    As described previously in this section, the statistics included in 
the compliance procedures are intended to ensure that manufacturers are 
reporting a value that approximates the population mean. Each tested 
lamp is not individually required to meet or exceed the standard level. 
Designing products such that their population mean or the performance 
of each individual lamp unit within the population exceeds DOE's 
standard level is not required and is done so at the discretion of 
individual manufacturers.
    DOE believes the efficacy levels analyzed in this rulemaking 
represent expected population means rather than outlier data in the 
high end of a bell distribution curve. DOE received feedback from 
manufacturers during interviews that catalog data represents the long 
term average performance of products. DOE uses catalog data to 
establish initial efficacy levels. DOE then compares the efficacy 
levels to available certification data and adjusts the levels downward 
if necessary. DOE does not believe that the certification values 
represent outlier data in the high end of a bell distribution curve. 
Manufacturers must select a minimum of three lamps from each month of 
production for a minimum of 7 months out of a 12-month period.\38\ It 
is unlikely that selecting lamps from multiple months of production 
over the course of a year will result in a value that is consistently 
in the high end of a bell distribution curve. Furthermore, if 
manufacturers believe their test results are artificially high, they 
have the opportunity to report a more conservative value as DOE allows 
manufacturers to rate the product within the range of the existing 
standard up to the lower of the LCL divided by 0.97 or the mean as 
determined per 10 CFR 429.27(a)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ In the instance where production occurs during fewer than 7 
of such 12 months, the manufacturer shall randomly select 3 or more 
lamps from each month of production, where the number of lamps 
selected for each month shall be distributed as evenly as 
practicable among the months of production to attain a minimum 
sample of 21 lamps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using this methodology, DOE accounts for variation in tested 
samples and ensures efficacy levels are based on values determined by 
DOE's test procedures and reported by manufacturers themselves. In this 
final

[[Page 4072]]

rule, DOE has maintained the same methodology to develop efficacy 
levels.
    NEMA stated that very high efficacy levels proposed and the 
impossibility of reliably meeting them indicates that consumers will 
lose the full-wattage (argon-based) lamps in some product categories. 
NEMA asserted that this would push consumers to reduced wattage 
(krypton-based) lamps which DOE has acknowledged are not suitable for 
dimming applications. Further, NEMA stated that control systems are 
expected to deliver more national energy savings than the 2 percent 
efficacy difference between the proposed EL 1 and EL 2 levels. NEMA 
asserted that the proposed EL 2 limits the dimmability and energy 
saving potential if argon-based lamps cannot meet the level as they can 
dim far more than 2 percent lower than krypton-based lamps. NEMA also 
noted that end users may not be aware of potential issues that can 
occur if reduced wattage lamps are used in the wrong application. 
(NEMA, No. 54 at p. 27, 48)
    NEMA stated that in order to ensure that dimmable argon-based lamps 
are available to take advantage of energy saving controls, the proposed 
efficacy level must be properly adjusted downward to make the low end 
of the bell distribution curve the midpoint and allow industry to be 
compliant. Specifically, the level must be maintained at 89 lm/W to 
assure that the very long life high performing argon lamps survive in 
the marketplace. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 22-23)
    NEEP commented that high efficacy lamps do not impede control 
capabilities. NEEP added that the proposed TSL 5 efficacy level allows 
for 4-foot MBP full-wattage ``high-lumen'' T8 lamps that have the same 
control and dimming performance as lower efficacy lamps eliminated by 
the standard. (NEEP, No. 57 at p. 2)
    As stated previously in this section, DOE disagrees that the 
analyzed levels cannot be reliably met by available products. Because 
manufacturers demonstrate compliance with energy conservation standards 
by reporting values to DOE that are intended to represent the 
population mean, DOE develops its efficacy levels based on these 
values. Thus, DOE is not adjusting efficacy levels downward to reflect 
the low end of a bell distribution curve. Regarding lighting controls, 
DOE agrees with NEMA that dimmable systems can offer significant energy 
savings and therefore ensures that the analyzed levels maintain the 
availability of full wattage (argon-based) products.
    NEMA stated that the proposed level for the 4-foot MBP product 
class will eliminate over 80 percent of the current full wattage 
product offering, including the long-life products, and nearly half of 
the reduced wattage lamps. NEMA noted that this would result in one 
lamp offering for each of the three common color lamps (830, 835 and 
841) per manufacturer. NEMA concluded that this proved DOE's approach 
to modeling does not work. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 25)
    When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class 
of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically 
feasible for such a product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) After determining 
this level, DOE conducts subsequent analysis to determine the impact of 
potential standards on individuals, manufacturers, and the nation as a 
whole. DOE then considers these results to determine whether the 
benefits of potential standard levels outweigh the burdens. See section 
VII.C.1 for this discussion.
    For the final rule, DOE updated catalog and certification data for 
all products. DOE continued to identify two levels of efficacy above 
the baseline. Based on catalog data, DOE determined EL 1 (90.0 lm/W) 
represented an improved 800 series full wattage T8 lamp and EL 2 (93.0 
lm/W) represented an 800 series high lumen output full wattage T8 lamp. 
Reduced wattage lamps also meet EL 2. Based on available certification 
information, DOE confirmed that no adjustment to EL 1 was necessary. As 
stated, DOE adjusted EL 2 to 92.4 lm/W in the NOPR analysis. DOE 
analyzed available certification information and found that, given 
additional certification data reported, no additional downward 
adjustments to EL 2 were necessary. Therefore, DOE analyzed EL 1 at 
90.0 lm/W and EL 2 at 92.4 lm/W in the final rule.
Eight-Foot Slimline Lamps
    In the NOPR, DOE selected a baseline lamp that just complies with 
the existing standard level of 97 lm/W. 79 FR at 24097, 24098 (April 
29, 2014). The baseline level represents a less efficient 800 series 
full wattage T8 lamp. DOE then identified two levels of efficacy above 
this baseline that commercially available lamps are able to achieve. 
Manufacturer-provided information in catalogs indicates that there are 
two distinct product lines available with efficacies higher than the 
baseline product. EL 1 represents a standard 800 series full wattage T8 
lamp. EL 2 represents an improved 800 series full wattage T8 lamp in 
which the phosphor mix and/or coating is enhanced to increase efficacy. 
Reduced wattage lamps also meet EL 2. DOE found no adjustments were 
necessary based on certification data and established EL 1 at 98.2 lm/W 
and EL 2 at 99.0 lm/W in the NOPR.
    NEMA stated that there is potential for erroneous high frequency 
reference ballast photometry testing for full wattage (59 W) and 
reduced wattage (54 W) 8-foot SP slimline lamps, although less likely 
for 59 W lamps because ANSI C78.81-2005 and C78.81-2010 versions 
standardized measurement on low frequency circuits for these lamps. 
NEMA noted that measurements with 54 W lamps tested on high frequency 
circuits were more likely to appear in DOE's certification database 
because this lamp type will be standardized for high frequency testing 
in the version of ANSI C 78.81 expected to be published in 2014. (NEMA, 
No. 54 at p. 25) NEMA commented on figure 5.3.4 of chapter 5 of the 
NOPR TSD, which shows all certification data reported for the 8-foot SP 
slimline lamps. Specifically, examining the data from 97 lm/W (current 
standard) to 102.4 lm/W, NEMA stated that the spread was approximately 
6 percent which is in agreement with industry expectations as specified 
in LSD 63-2012 and does not indicate the use of high frequency 
photometry testing. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 25)
    For the 8-foot SP slimline product class, NEMA recommended that DOE 
should maintain the current standard of 97 lm/W in order to allow the 
manufacturability of consistently compliant products. NEMA added that 
if DOE intended to propose the max tech level of 99 lm/W, it should 
allow for efficacy compliance tolerances of approximately 8 percent and 
require reporting only the sample mean value. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 25)
    For the final rule, DOE updated catalog and certification data for 
all products. DOE continued to identify two distinct levels above the 
baseline. EL 1 at 98.2 lm/W represents a standard 800 series full 
wattage T8 lamp and EL 2 at 99.0 lm/W represents an improved 800 series 
full wattage T8 lamp in which the phosphor mix and/or coating is 
enhanced to increase efficacy. Reduced wattage lamps also meet EL 2. 
DOE found no adjustments were necessary based on certification data. As 
described previously in this section, DOE believes that catalog and 
certification data approximate the population mean and therefore does 
not believe that an efficacy level has to be lowered further in order 
for products reporting those values to comply.

[[Page 4073]]

Eight-Foot RDC HO Product Class
    In the NOPR, DOE modeled a baseline that just met the existing 
standard level of 92 lm/W, as described in section VI.D.2.c. DOE then 
identified two levels of efficacy above the baseline level. EL 1 
represents a 700 series full wattage T8 lamp with basic coating, gas 
composition, and phosphor mix. EL 2 represents a shift to an 800 series 
full wattage T8 lamp. DOE analyzed publicly available certification 
data and determined that EL 1 should be adjusted from 95.2 lm/W to 94.0 
lm/W for 700 series full wattage T8 lamps based on available 
certification data. EL 2 was not adjusted based on available 
certification data and remained 97.6 lm/W. 79 FR at 24103 (April 29, 
2014).
    NEMA stated that the DOE certification data for the 8-foot RDC HO 
GSFL lamps with CCT W. (NEMA, No. 54 at 
p. 25) Although commenting that the data was sparse, NEMA claimed that 
the proposed efficacy levels would eliminate T8 HO lamps and force 
consumers to change to another fixture or retrofit with another 
technology. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 25)
    For the final rule, DOE updated catalog and certification data for 
all products. DOE continued to model a baseline lamp that just meets 
the existing standard level of 92 lm/W, because feedback from 
stakeholders and manufacturer interviews indicated that manufacturers 
will likely produce lamps at the existing standard level even if no 
products are currently available. DOE again identified two levels of 
efficacy above the baseline. DOE analyzed publicly available 
certification data and determined that adjustment to EL 1 in the NOPR 
analysis was still appropriate and maintained the adjustment from 95.2 
lm/W to 94.0 lm/W for 700 series full wattage T8 lamps based on 
available certification data. EL 2 was not adjusted based on available 
certification data and remained 97.6 lm/W. While there are fewer 
product offerings for 8-foot RDC HO lamps than for other covered lamp 
types, DOE does not believe the data is too sparse for analysis. For 
the final rule, certification data was available for 71 percent of 8-
foot RDC HO lamps. DOE confirmed through its assessment of catalog and 
certification data that 8-foot RDC HO products meet the analyzed ELs. 
Because manufacturer-reported data demonstrates that products can meet 
the analyzed levels, DOE does not believe the efficacy levels would 
eliminate 8-foot RDC HO lamps and force consumers to switch to another 
technology.
Four-Foot T5 MiniBP SO Product Class
    In the NOPR, DOE modeled a baseline that just met the existing 
standard level of 86 lm/W, as described in section VI.D.2.c. The 
baseline level represents a lower efficacy full wattage (28 W) lamp. 79 
FR at 24097, 24098 (April 29, 2014). Based on a review of commercially 
available products, DOE then identified two levels of efficacy above 
the baseline level at which lamps were consistently performing. 
Manufacturer-provided information in catalogs indicates that there are 
two distinct product lines available with efficacies higher than the 
baseline product. EL 1 represents an 800 series full wattage T5 lamp 
with basic coating, gas composition, and phosphor mix. EL 2 represents 
an improved 800 series full wattage T5 lamp in which the phosphor mix 
and/or coating is enhanced to increase efficacy. Reduced wattage lamps 
also meet this level. DOE found that no adjustments were necessary for 
EL 1 and therefore established EL 1 at 93.5 lm/W. For EL 2 representing 
improved 800 series full wattage T8 lamps, DOE adjusted EL 2 from 98.2 
lm/W to 97.1 lm/W based on certification data.
    NEMA stated that since the 2010-2011 rare earth crisis, some 
efficacious phosphors are no longer available and thus many of the high 
performance T5 lamps currently found in product catalogs that meet the 
proposed standard level will be removed from the catalogs. 
Additionally, compliant T5 lamps may also be removed because they do 
not sell due to high prices. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 19)
    DOE reviewed updated catalogs and certification submissions and 
confirmed that the 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO and HO lamps analyzed for the 
final rule were still commercially available. DOE found no indication 
in manufacturer literature that any T5 lamps were discontinued. When 
considering available products, DOE relied on information provided by 
each manufacturer and did not speculate on the future discontinuation 
of products.
    NEMA provided several comments on how the certification data 
compared to the efficacy levels DOE considered in the NOPR. NEMA 
acknowledged that the current standard for 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO lamps of 
86 lm/W is easily achievable by max tech designs. However, NEMA 
disagrees with eliminating the manufacturability and marketing of 
consistently compliant products by setting the minimum efficacy level 
any higher than 89 lm/W, which is only about 4 percent below the 
proposed max tech level. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 26) NEMA stated that the 
certification data for the 28 W 4-foot MiniBP T5 SO lamps shown in 
figure 5.3.8 of chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD reflects about a 7 percent 
spread from 93 lm/W to 100 lm/W and is in agreement with their 
assessment. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 26)
    For the final rule, DOE updated catalog and certification data for 
all products. DOE continued to model a baseline lamp that just meets 
the existing standard level of 86 lm/W, because feedback from 
stakeholders and manufacturer interviews indicated that manufacturers 
will likely produce lamps at the existing standard level even if no 
products are currently available. DOE again identified two levels of 
efficacy above the baseline. EL 1 represents an 800 series full wattage 
T5 lamp with basic coating, gas composition, and phosphor mix. EL 2 
represents an improved 800 series full wattage T8 lamp in which the 
phosphor mix and/or coating is enhanced to increase efficacy. Reduced 
wattage lamps also meet this level. DOE reviewed available 
certification data and found that no adjustments were necessary for EL 
1 and therefore established EL 1 at 93.5 lm/W. For EL 2 representing 
improved 800 series full wattage T8 lamps, DOE found that a further 
downward adjustment was necessary and adjusted EL 2 from 98.2 lm/W to 
95.0 lm/W. Additional and/or revised certification data reported since 
the publication of the NOPR indicated that T5 SO lamps had lower 
efficacies than originally indicated. As described previously in this 
section, DOE does not believe that catalog or certification data 
inherently represent values at the high end of a distribution curve and 
that an efficacy level has to be lowered further in order for products 
reporting those values to comply.
Four-Foot T5 MiniBP HO
    For the NOPR, DOE analyzed one level of efficacy above the baseline 
level. DOE modeled a baseline that just met the existing standard level 
of 76 lm/W, as described in section VI.D.2.c. The baseline level 
represents a lower efficacy full wattage (54 W) lamp. Manufacturer-
provided information in catalogs indicates that there is one distinct 
product line available with an efficacy higher than the baseline 
product. EL 1 represents an 800 series full wattage T5 lamp with basic 
coating, gas composition, and phosphor mix. Reduced wattage lamps also 
meet this level. DOE did not adjust this level based on certification 
data and is therefore evaluated EL 1 at 82.7 lm/W

[[Page 4074]]

in the NOPR. 79 FR at 24104 (April 29, 2014).
    NEMA stated that efficacy levels for T5 lamps should not be based 
on catalog rated efficacy at 35 [deg]C because the industry standard 
IEC 60081 and the DOE test procedure require measurement at 25 [deg]C. 
NEMA further noted that there is no ambiguity in the measurement 
circuit as all T5 lamps are measured on high frequency circuits at 25 
[deg]C. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 25-26)
    DOE agrees that T5 lamps must be tested at 25 [deg]C per DOE's test 
procedure. However, not all manufacturers provide lumen output data at 
25 [deg]C for T5 lamps in their catalogs, whereas all manufacturers 
provide data at 35 [deg]C. Thus, to consider the entire market DOE 
developed initial efficacy levels based on 35 [deg]C catalog data for 
T5 lamps and then adjusted the initial efficacy levels to reflect 
operation at 25 [deg]C. DOE compared the 25 [deg]C levels to 
certification data which reflects tested values at the same 
temperature.
    NEMA provided several comments on how the certification data 
compared to the efficacy level DOE considered in the NOPR. NEMA noted 
that the spread of certification data from 81 lm/W to 96 lm/W for 54 W 
4-foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps indicates variability of 17 percent, which 
could be explained by the steeper slope of lumen output with ambient 
temperature at 25 [deg]C for T5 compared to T8 lamps. NEMA stated that 
the certification data shown in figure 5.3.10 of chapter 5 of the NOPR 
TSD agreed with its assessment of DOE's certification database. NEMA 
noted that for the reduced wattage 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps, the 
certification data was shown mostly to be between 85 and 87 lm/W and 
with a couple of values well above 90 lm/W. Stating that it is 
difficult to determine the max tech for this product class, NEMA 
recommended that DOE set the minimum efficacy level no higher than 80 
lm/W. NEMA stated that 80 lm/W would require centering the practical 
compliant designs near 87 lm/W to avoid statistical non-compliant 
results. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 26)
    For the final rule, DOE updated catalog and certification data for 
all products. DOE continued to model a baseline lamp that just meets 
the existing standard level of 76 lm/W because feedback from 
stakeholders and manufacturer interviews indicated that manufacturers 
will likely produce lamps at the existing standard level even if no 
products are currently available. DOE again identified one level of 
efficacy above the baseline representing an 800 series full wattage T5 
lamp with basic coating, gas composition, and phosphor mix. Reduced 
wattage lamps also meet this level. Based on catalog data, DOE 
determined EL 1 to be 82.7 lm/W. DOE reviewed available certification 
data and found that the reported values did not indicate that any 
adjustment to the level was necessary. The certification data, as noted 
by NEMA, is generally higher than the catalog data on which EL 1 is 
based. As described previously in this section, DOE does not believe 
that catalog or certification data inherently represent values at the 
high end of a distribution curve and that an efficacy level has to be 
lowered further in order for products reporting those values to comply.
h. Scaling to Other Product Classes
    As noted previously, DOE analyzes the representative product 
classes directly. DOE then scales the levels developed for the 
representative product classes to determine levels for product classes 
not analyzed directly. For GSFLs, the representative product classes 
analyzed were all lamp types with CCTs 8\-inch 
lamps and reduced wattage 2-foot U-shaped 6'' lamps can meet the 
proposed efficacy

[[Page 4075]]

levels. NEMA explained that consumers have switched to reduced wattage 
2-foot U-shaped 1\5/8\-inch lamps which serve retail applications and 
full wattage 2-foot U-shaped 6'' lamps are mainly used in offices for 
dimming purposes. Therefore, NEMA concluded that the energy savings for 
the 2-foot U-shaped 1\5/8\-inch lamps would be negative and increase 
the energy consumption by 2 W due to the elimination of the reduced 
wattage versions forcing consumers back to the full wattage version. 
NEMA stated that DOE should update its energy savings estimates 
accordingly or adopt the efficacy level at TSL 3, which would allow for 
both full and reduced wattage 2-foot U-shaped lamps to meet. (NEMA, No. 
54 at p. 15, 27) GE also noted that the efficacies of the 2-foot U-
shaped class were scaled from the 4-foot MBP class which could indicate 
an issue with the scaling or the proposed efficacy levels of the 4-foot 
MBP. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 61)
    DOE revised its scaling analysis for 2-foot U-shaped lamps in the 
final rule to use the most recent values submitted to DOE for 
compliance purposes. DOE compared certification data for 2-foot U-
shaped lamps of both spacings (i.e., 6-inch and 1\5/8\-inch leg 
spacing) with equivalent 4-foot MBP lamps and determined an average 
efficacy reduction of 8 percent for the 2-foot U-shaped lamps from the 
4-foot MBP lamps was appropriate. Thus, DOE applied this scaling factor 
to the 4-foot MBP levels to determine the appropriate levels for 2-foot 
U-shaped lamps. If applying the scaling factor resulted in an efficacy 
that was lower than that of the existing standard, DOE maintained the 
existing standard level to avoid backsliding. (See 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(1)) DOE compared the scaled efficacy levels to available 
certification data and confirmed that both types of 2-foot U-shaped 
lamps can meet with the analyzed efficacy levels.
i. Rare Earth Phosphors
    DOE understands a constrained supply of rare earth phosphors may 
have impacts on the production of higher efficacy fluorescent lamps. 
DOE also acknowledges that supply and demand of rare earth phosphors 
should be considered when evaluating amended standards for GSFLs. Thus, 
in the NOPR analysis, DOE considered a scenario of increased rare earth 
phosphor prices in the LCC and NIA.
    NEMA commented that manufacturers are at risk of not being able to 
make compliant lamps consistently due to the availability of high 
efficiency phosphors for GSFLs. If manufacturers cannot consistently 
produce a product, they will stop making it as with the 130 V IRLs. 
(NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 13-14)
    NEMA noted that the proposed lm/W requirements would increase the 
use of rare earth oxides (REOs) per lamp. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 34) 
Further, NEMA commented that even though it is possible to increase 
GSFL efficacy with a more efficient mix of REOs, the high material cost 
of the REOs needed for the small increase in efficacy is still 
relevant. NEMA commented that DOE should analyze price elasticity and 
consumer behavior during previous REO shortages, as the ELs DOE 
proposed in the NOPR would effectively cause another shortage of REOs. 
(NEMA, No. 54 at p. 34)
    Noting that that China appealed World Trade Organization's (WTO's) 
ruling demanding greater availability of REOs, NEMA stressed that DOE 
should expect China to raise prices on REOs through various methods; 
specifically quoting an article from Bloomberg News.\39\ NEMA explained 
that during the last REO shortage, prices increased 400 to 700 percent, 
and stated that this is cause for DOE to revise their price estimates 
to raise the upper bounds of potential spiking during periods of 
criticality to 700 percent of current prices. NEMA further noted that 
while they cannot make the same supply warnings they provided for the 
2009 Lamps Rule, REO availability continues to be an issue and there 
are significant uncertainties regarding future supplies. (NEMA, No. 54 
at pp. 34-35)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Bloomberg News, ``China Maintains Quotas for Heavy Rare 
Earths, Tungsten,'' June 19, 2014. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-19/china-maintains-quotas-for-heavy-rare-earths-tungsten.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEEP noted that REO prices and availability had improved in the 
last few years and, according to DOE, would continue to fluctuate. NEEP 
commented that DOE appropriately weighed the variability of REO prices 
in the analysis. (NEEP, No. 57 at p. 3)
    In April of 2012, several manufacturers were granted exception 
relief exempting their 700 series T8 lamps from the July 2012 standards 
for a period of two years. The waiver was granted due to the global 
supply restrictions on rare earth phosphors, the rising world demand of 
these phosphors, and the resulting impacts on producing higher efficacy 
GSFLs. DOE notes that manufacturers, in their applications for 
exception relief, stated that they expected an improvement in the rare 
earth market, specifically noting that supplies of key rare earth 
phosphors used in fluorescent lamps will become more equal to estimated 
demand beginning in 2014. Manufacturers also stated that the two-year 
relief would provide time for potential development of additional 
supplies outside of China, for progress in technology advancements and 
development of alternative technologies that use lesser amounts of rare 
earth material, and for the expansion of recycling and reclamation 
initiatives.\40\ Because this waiver expired in 2014, and manufacturers 
did not reapply for exception relief, DOE does not believe that the 
availability of high efficiency phosphors will affect manufacturers' 
ability to consistently produce a product. However, DOE acknowledges 
that the market for rare earth phosphors is uncertain and therefore 
continues to analyze in this final rule a scenario of increased rare 
earth phosphor prices in the LCC and NIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Philips Lighting Company, et al. OHA Case Nos. EXC-12-0001, 
EXC-12-0002, EXC-12-0003 (2012). Accessible here: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/oha/EE/EXC-12-0001thru03.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Engineering
    For IRLs, DOE received several comments on the engineering analysis 
presented in the NOPR. 79 FR at 24106 (April 29, 2014). Stakeholders 
provided feedback on DOE's baseline lamps, selection of more 
efficacious substitutes, max tech level, ELs, scaling, and xenon. The 
following sections summarize the comments and responses received on 
these topics, and present the IRL engineering methodology for this 
final rule analysis.
a. Representative Product Classes
    When a product has multiple product classes, DOE identifies and 
selects certain product classes as representative and analyzes those 
product classes directly. DOE chooses these representative product 
classes primarily due to their high market volumes. For IRLs, in the 
NOPR analysis DOE identified standard spectrum lamps, with diameters 
greater than 2.5 inches, and input voltage less than 125 V as the 
representative product class, shown in gray in Table VI.5. 79 FR at 
24107 (April 29, 2014). NEMA commented that the only IRLs that still 
have any meaningful product sales are in the standard spectrum, less 
than 2.5 inches in diameter, less than 125 V product class. (NEMA, No. 
54 at p. 21) Receiving no

[[Page 4076]]

other comments, DOE maintained the same IRL representative product 
classes for the final rule.

                                 Table VI.5--IRL Representative Product Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Lamp type                         Diameter                             Voltage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard spectrum.....................  >2.5 inches..............  >=125
                                                                   =125
                                                                   2.5 inches..............  >=125
                                                                   =125
                                                                   W           lm            hr
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Spectrum, Voltage 2.5 Inches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. More Efficacious Substitutes
    DOE selects more efficacious replacements for the baseline lamps 
considered within each representative product class. DOE considers only 
design options identified in the screening analysis. In the NOPR, DOE 
considered substitute lamps that saved energy and, where possible, had 
a light output within 10 percent of the baseline lamp's light output. 
Id. at 24109. In identifying the more efficacious substitutes, DOE 
utilized a database of commercially available lamps. DOE identified two 
higher efficacy, reduced wattage lamps, referred to in this analysis as 
an HIR lamp with a lifetime of 2,500 hours and an improved HIR lamp 
with a lifetime of 4,200 hours, as more efficacious substitutes for the 
baseline lamp. DOE received several comments regarding its choice for 
the more efficacious substitutes.
    NEMA insisted that 3,000-hour and longer lifetimes must be 
available in the commercial market for the product line to maintain 
viability, as long life is a consumer-demanded utility. Lamp lifetimes 
shorter than 3,000 hours for premium and expensive halogen PAR38 lamps 
would not be sustainable or acceptable in the commercial market. (NEMA, 
No. 54 at p. 21)
    NEMA further explained that the only remaining method to increase 
IRL efficacy is by shortening their lifetime, and many IRLs are already 
rated at 1,000 hours. NEMA noted that a 1,000-hour lifetime represents 
a previous loss of utility from complying with efficacy requirements, 
and that the shortened lifetime has resulted in public backlash. NEMA 
warned that with the standards proposed in the NOPR, consumers would 
lose the utility of lifetime. Using a calculation from The Science of 
Incandescence,\41\ NEMA stated that the higher efficacy of EL 1 would 
result in a 30 percent reduction in lifetime for these lamps, causing a 
total loss of financial feasibility. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 21, 29, 49) 
Westinghouse remarked that IRLs are already at max tech, and that 
unlike with GSFLs, there is no opportunity for tradeoffs between 
efficacy and utility. (Westinghouse,

[[Page 4077]]

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 54-56)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Vukcevich, Milan R., Science of Incandescence, NELA Press, 
1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE recognizes that there is an inverse relationship between 
efficacy and lifetime for IRLs. DOE believes typical lifetimes of IRLs 
regulated by this rulemaking are between 1,500 and 4,400 hours. In the 
engineering analysis, DOE only considered lamps with lifetimes greater 
than or equal to the baseline when selecting representative lamp units. 
DOE found evidence that improved technology lamps (i.e., HIR lamps) 
with lifetimes higher than the baseline lifetime are prevalent on the 
market. Both representative lamp units that DOE selected in the 
engineering analysis have lifetimes longer than the baseline. While 
manufacturers can choose to introduce shorter lifetime products in the 
future, DOE does not require shortening of lamp lifetime to meet any 
analyzed level. One of the representative units at EL 1 has a lifetime 
of 4,200 hours. Thus, DOE ensured that products with lifetimes greater 
than 3,000 hours would be available for consumers desiring longer life 
products.
    NEMA commented that the PAR38 lamp is not an adequately 
representative lamp and inappropriately skews DOE's analysis because it 
is the only lamp type in the class that can physically incorporate the 
largest number of technology options, overstating the possible energy 
savings. NEMA encouraged DOE to examine smaller diameter lamps to 
better understand what technology options are feasible. (NEMA, No. 54 
at p. 29) As an example, NEMA commented that the lifetime of the PAR30 
lamp would have to be shortened to the point of being economically 
infeasible and unmarketable to consumers to meet standards. (NEMA, No. 
54 at pp. 29-30) NEMA could not identify a lamp that met the EL 
proposed in the NOPR while still providing adequate lifetime in all 
sizes. Specifically, NEMA stated that the rule proposed in the NOPR 
would allow only certain PAR38 lamps to meet the regulations and most 
other types and classes of covered IRLs would be eliminated. NEMA 
argued, therefore, that the EL proposed in the NOPR is invalid for most 
lamps. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 29)
    DOE recognizes that in addition to PAR38 lamps, the representative 
product class also includes PAR30 lamps. Because it is a more common 
lamp size among the covered IRLs, DOE selected PAR38 as the diameter 
for the baseline lamp and more efficacious substitutes of the baseline. 
DOE's research indicates that the design options identified for PAR38 
lamps are also applicable to PAR30 lamps. DOE assessed the availability 
of PAR30 lamps as more efficacious substitutes. DOE found that there 
are PAR30 lamps with lifetimes of 3,500 and 4,400 hours that are able 
to achieve the same efficacies as PAR38 lamps. See chapter 5 of the 
final rule TSD for additional details.
    CA IOUs expressed disappointment that there were not multiple 
efficacy levels representing higher performance products. CA IOUs 
stated that DOE had restricted itself to a small subset of IRLs by 
focusing on PAR38 lamps and requiring lumens to be within 10 percent of 
the baseline lamp, limiting the lumen range to about 963 to 1,170. CA 
IOUs mentioned that any design strategies used in other lamp types, 
(e.g., 800-lumen lamp, 1,200-lumen lamp, PAR30 lamp) that improved 
efficacy would be fairly transferable among lamp types. CA IOUs 
questioned why DOE did not consider potential efficacy improvements 
from these lamp types. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at 
pp. 107-109) Specifically, CA IOUs noted four lamps that have better 
performance than the proposed efficacy level: The GE 60 W PAR HIR Plus 
operating at 21 lm/W, the Philips PAR38 Energy Halogen DiOptic 
operating at 20 lm/W, the OSRAM SYLVANIA PAR38 medium-base warm white 
outdoor halogen flood operating at 20 lm/W, and the OSRAM SYLVANIA 
PAR38 warm white outdoor halogen flood operating at 21 lm/W. (CA IOUs, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 107-109, 118)
    ASAP also disagreed with DOE's criteria of restricting lumen output 
to be within 10 percent of the baseline lamp, noting that the NOPR 
analysis seemed to suggest that DOE understood that technologies used 
in one lamp to achieve a certain lumen package can be used in another. 
Therefore, ASAP questioned why DOE rejected a more efficacious 
technology used in another lamp due to the lumen output of that lamp 
having a greater than 10 percent difference from the baseline lamp. 
ASAP stated that DOE should have analyzed the more efficacious 
technology and used scaling to maintain the baseline lumen output. 
(ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 113)
    GE, on the other hand, commented that the analysis presented in the 
NOPR was fairly accurate in terms of addressing and looking at the 
other potential more efficacious products. GE argued that not all of 
the lamps proposed by commenters to be more efficacious were within the 
scope of this rulemaking and not all of the proposed technologies were 
transferable to covered lamps. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 
at p. 112)
    DOE used certain criteria when selecting more efficacious 
substitutes. Specifically, DOE only considered lamps with the same 
reflector shape as the baseline lamp, wattages less than the baseline 
wattage, lumens within 10 percent of the baseline lumens, lifetimes 
equal to or greater than the baseline lifetime, and that were 
commercially available in the United States or available as prototypes. 
These criteria ensured that higher efficacy lamps with similar 
characteristics to the baseline were available to consumers at each 
efficacy level analyzed.
    When establishing efficacy levels, DOE considered all lamps 
available. DOE reviewed the design options incorporated into each lamp, 
the ability of lamps across lumen packages to meet the level, and the 
max tech level. Regarding the four lamps that CA IOUs noted as having 
better performance than the proposed efficacy level, one of them was 
part of a product line for which certification data indicated that the 
product line performed below or much closer to EL 1 than indicated by 
its catalog data. Another of the lamps was part of a product family for 
which certification data indicated that product performance was at the 
existing standard level, or baseline, rather than EL 1. A third lamp in 
the group of four did not have certification data available for DOE to 
substantiate its performance claims in catalogs. The fourth lamp did 
have both catalog and certification data available and that data 
indicated that it performed above EL 1. However, this lamp was not part 
of a full product line that would indicate that the technology 
incorporated in the lamps could be used across all lumen packages. 
While DOE is aware that it is generally the case that technology can be 
shared among various lamps, modeling a product allows DOE to estimate 
lamp performance but not confirm performance via certification data or 
independent testing, a significant concern in this rulemaking. 
Furthermore, costs for such a product would be uncertain as it would 
not be commercially available at the time of the analysis. Therefore, 
DOE chose not to model a higher efficacy lamp that met its criteria for 
selecting representative units in the NOPR as well as the final rule 
analysis.
    NEEA commented that, unless the market shares of the 60 W PAR38 and 
55 W PAR38 lamps are close to 90 percent of the market, DOE's analysis 
was incomplete and the more efficacious lamps suggested by CA IOUs need 
to be analyzed. (NEEA, Public

[[Page 4078]]

Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 111-112)
    Through a review of product offerings in catalogs, DOE determined 
that PAR38 is the most common lamp diameter and 60 W is at least twice 
as common as any other wattage. Further, DOE did not restrain the 
representative lamp units to 55 W but rather required that the wattage 
be less than the baseline. DOE found that the majority of product 
offerings on the market have wattages at or below 60 W. Thus, DOE finds 
that the baseline and more efficacious lamp units analyzed represent 
the most widely offered products on the market. Table VI.7 summarizes 
the performance characteristics of the more efficacious substitutes for 
IRLs. For further information see chapter 5 of the final rule TSD.

                                                          Table VI.7--IRL Representative Lamps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Representative Lamps
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Wattage     Efficacy *    Initial      Lifetime
       Representative product class                                                                  --------------------------    light    ------------
                                                     Lamp type                    Descriptor                                       output
                                                                                                           W           lm/W    -------------      hr
                                                                                                                                     lm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Spectrum, Voltage 2.5 Inches.                     PAR38.......................  Improved HIR...............           55         18.5        1,120        4,200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Efficacy values are based on data from DOE's certification database.

d. Max Tech
    When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class 
of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically 
feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the 
engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically 
feasible (``max tech'') improvements in energy efficiency for IRLs 
using the design parameters for the most efficient products available 
on the market or in working prototypes.
    For IRLs, DOE presented one efficacy level (EL 1) for consideration 
in the NOPR analysis. Therefore, this level was also the max tech level 
identified for IRLs. DOE received several comments on the proposed max 
tech level.
    ASAP and CA IOUs commented that DOE made a mistake in not 
considering higher ELs for IRLs. ASAP stated that CA IOUs provided 
reasons for considering higher levels in response to the preliminary 
analysis and DOE dismissed the suggestions with a ``grab bag'' of 
unsubstantiated arguments for not considering the higher levels. (ASAP, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 17; CA IOUs, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 49 at p. 20) Further, CA IOUs commented that they do 
not think that DOE adequately considered alternative technology options 
they gave in response to the preliminary analysis for a more 
efficacious max tech. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 
114) CA IOUs stated that they suggested more efficacious lamps and in 
not considering them, DOE has not complied with their statutory 
requirement to investigate max tech. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 49 at p. 110) CA IOUs continued that commercially 
available products were available in different lumen bins or that there 
were different lamp shapes from PAR38. CA IOUs noted that some of the 
data they had for support were compliance certification values and some 
were prototype products from the past or developed recently. (CA IOUs, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 110)
    DOE evaluated the more efficacious lamps proposed by stakeholders 
in response to the preliminary analysis. As discussed in the NOPR, DOE 
did not consider some of these lamps when evaluating the max tech level 
because they were not available with the same reflector shapes or input 
voltage as the IRLs covered by this rulemaking. 79 FR at 24111(April 
29, 2014). In addition, as described in section VI.D.3.c, certification 
data indicates that some lamps are not performing at the high 
efficacies advertised in catalogs. Absent certification or independent 
test data, DOE is unable to verify high efficacy claims. Finally, 
although certain higher efficacy products have certification data 
confirming their performance above EL 1, they are not part of a full 
product line that would indicate that the technology incorporated in 
the lamps could be used across all lumen packages.
    Regarding prototype lamps, for the NOPR analysis, DOE contacted 
manufacturers producing high efficacy prototype IRLs and conducted 
independent testing of these lamps. The testing indicated that these 
lamps were more efficacious than the max tech level determined by DOE 
in this analysis.\42\ DOE notes that the lamps tested were prototype 
lamps and were not manufactured during commercial scale production 
runs. The measured efficacy of the prototype lamps greatly exceeded the 
efficacy of commercially available lamps with similar lumen packages. 
DOE did not, however, have the necessary information to do a cost 
analysis to determine if an efficacy level based on these lamps would 
be economically justified. Therefore, in the NOPR phase DOE requested 
information on the incremental manufacturer production cost of a lamp 
that could achieve the efficacy of the prototype lamps compared to a 
lamp that complies with EL 1. DOE also sought information on the 
manufacturing costs including equipment and product conversion costs 
necessary to produce lamps at the efficacy of the prototype lamps. 
However, DOE did not receive any information to conduct a cost 
assessment of the higher efficacy prototypes and therefore, did not 
include them in this final rule analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ DOE independently verified efficacy values provided by the 
manufacturer. At the time of NOPR analysis, the manufacturer was 
still conducting lifetime testing. DOE did not receive any updates 
on lifetime testing of the prototype lamps at the time of the final 
rule analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CA IOUs stated that the efficacy standards proposed in the NOPR 
would not be a challenge and an efficacy standard of more than three 
times higher, as shown in appendix 5A of the NOPR TSD, would be 
possible and likely be cost effective. Most manufacturers already have 
the capability to meet the levels proposed in the NOPR, and the 
achievement of higher efficacies was proven through the testing of 
prototype lamps. CA IOUs commended DOE on its tests of prototyped 
products, but expressed confusion over why DOE did not develop pricing 
estimates for these products and create a corresponding EL. They also 
questioned why DOE had not used the comments on projected sale prices 
given during manufacturer interviews in their analysis. CA IOUs noted 
that a pricing estimate could also

[[Page 4079]]

have been achieved by a teardown analysis of the prototype lamps 
compared with similar, commercially available components. Specifically, 
CA IOUs gave the example that lamps using high performance HIR burner 
are already commercially available in A-line and MR16 bulb shapes, 
selling for $3.49 and $6.90, respectively. Supported by these analyses, 
CA IOUs urged DOE to conduct a complete review of the higher efficacy 
prototype EL. (CA IOUs, No. 56 at p. 5)
    As noted in the NOPR, while DOE was able to test the efficacies of 
the prototype lamps, it had insufficient information to perform a cost 
analysis. 79 FR at 24111 (April 29, 2014). DOE did not find that a 
teardown analysis of the prototype lamps would be a feasible method to 
estimate costs. DOE would be unable to determine through teardowns 
whether the halogen burners used in various product offerings were the 
same because of the difficulty in analyzing the IR coating, 
specifically identifying the combinations of coatings applied. Without 
this knowledge, DOE could not distinguish the specific technology 
differences between one halogen burner and another and estimate costs 
accordingly. Expected retail prices of the prototype lamp were provided 
through comments and manufacturer interviews, but the information 
indicated that the prices of the higher efficacy products would be less 
than those of the lamps that comply with EL 1 and even the baseline. As 
these lamps utilize a more advanced IR coating than lamps currently 
available on the market, the manufacturer-provided cost was 
inconsistent with the available market information. Further, this 
manufacturer does not distribute covered IRLs in the U.S. market. 
Therefore, DOE was unable to estimate the price of the prototype lamp 
by comparing it to a similar lamp offered by the same manufacturer, 
which would have allowed DOE to isolate the change in price due to the 
more efficient coating. For these reasons, DOE concluded that it did 
not have the information needed to conduct a cost assessment of the 
higher efficacy prototype lamps and therefore, did not include them in 
this final rule analysis.
e. Efficacy Levels
    After identifying more efficacious substitutes for each of the 
baseline lamps, in the NOPR, DOE developed ELs based on the 
consideration of several factors, including: (1) The design options 
associated with the specific lamps being studied; (2) the ability of 
lamps across wattages to comply with the standard level of a given 
product class; and (3) the max tech level. 79 FR at 24093 (April 29, 
2014).
    For IRLs, DOE developed a continuous equation that specifies a 
minimum efficacy requirement across wattages and represents the 
potential efficacy a lamp can achieve using a particular design option. 
DOE observed an efficacy division among commercially available IRL 
products that corresponded to the design options utilized to increase 
lamp efficacy. Based on this efficacy division, DOE considered one EL 
in the NOPR analysis. Id. at 24113. DOE received a comment from NEMA 
regarding the EL presented for IRLs in the NOPR analysis.
    NEMA stated that energy conservation standards above the current 
IRL standards could not be economically justified. NEMA further stated 
that the 6.2P \0.27\ level proposed in the NOPR is inappropriately set 
at the higher end of the normal distribution curve for performance. 
Following the CCE rules, if the average performance of the more 
efficacious lamps is 6.2P \0.27\, the standard should be set at 6.0P 
\0.27\. NEMA did note, however, for standard spectrum IRLs under 125 V, 
it would be possible to consistently produce lamps at a higher 
efficacy, up to 6.0P \0.27\ from 5.9P\0.27\, for lamps between 60 W and 
205 W. NEMA expressed their belief that only this subset of IRLs could 
reliably increase their efficacy, and only by that increment. NEMA 
doubted that this increase would generate significant energy savings on 
its own. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 21-22)
    DOE conducted an updated engineering analysis for the final rule 
and determined that EL 1 corresponded to an efficacy requirement of 
6.2P \0.27\ based on certification data. DOE notes that the statistics 
included in the compliance procedures are intended to ensure that 
manufacturers are reporting a value that approximates the population 
mean. Each tested lamp is not individually required to meet or exceed 
the standard level. Designing products such that their population mean 
or the performance of each individual lamp unit within the population 
exceeds DOE's standard level is not required and is done so at the 
discretion of individual manufacturers. Regarding an assessment of 
national energy savings for IRLs see section VII.B.3. Regarding DOE's 
conclusion as to whether a standard is economically justified, DOE 
weighs the benefits and burdens in section VII.C.3.
    For the final rule analysis, DOE again reviewed the most updated 
catalog and certification data available for covered IRLs. As in the 
NOPR analysis, DOE used the catalog data to identify all products on 
the market and ensure consideration of all available products in the 
analysis and assessed both catalog and certification efficacy values to 
identify efficacy levels. In the NOPR analysis, DOE had found there to 
be certification data for 51 percent of covered IRL products compliant 
with the July 2012 standards. For the final rule analysis, DOE found 
that updates to DOE's certification database resulted in certification 
data for 61 percent of covered IRL products. While this was an increase 
from the NOPR analysis, it still did not represent a comprehensive 
dataset on which to base an engineering analysis. Therefore, in this 
final rule analysis, DOE again used catalog data to identify all 
products on the market and ensure consideration of all available 
products in the analysis. DOE assessed both catalog and certification 
efficacy values to identify efficacy levels. Using certification data 
reported for the PAR38 2,500 hour HIR and 4,200 hour improved HIR 
representative lamps, DOE adjusted EL 1. As mentioned previously, DOE 
developed a continuous equation that specifies a minimum efficacy 
requirement across wattages for IRLs. The EL that DOE determined based 
on the representative lamps is a curve that represents a standard 
across all wattages.
    Table VI.8 presents the efficacy level for IRLs. See chapter 5 of 
the final rule TSD for additional information on how the engineering 
analysis was conducted.

   Table VI.8--Efficacy Levels for Standard Spectrum, Voltage  2.5 Inches IRLs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Efficacy level                 Efficacy requirement  lm/W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1.....................................  6.2P \0.27\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
P = rated wattage

f. Scaling to Other Product Classes
    When more than one product class exists for a covered product, DOE 
identifies and selects representative product classes to analyze 
directly. Efficacy levels developed for these representative product 
classes are then scaled to products not analyzed directly. For IRLs, 
DOE analyzed directly standard spectrum lamps greater than 2.5 inches 
in diameter and with input voltages less than 125 V. The efficacy 
levels developed for this representative product class were then scaled 
to product classes not analyzed, using a scaling factor to adjust 
levels for smaller diameter lamps, lamps with higher

[[Page 4080]]

input voltages, and modified spectrum lamps. DOE received several 
comments specific to the scaling factors applied to develop efficacy 
levels for the product classes analyzed directly.
Diameters Less Than or Equal to 2.5 Inches
    In the NOPR analysis, DOE scaled from the EL developed for IRLs 
with diameters greater than 2.5 inches (hereafter ``large diameter 
lamps'') to IRLs with diameters less than or equal to 2.5 inches 
(hereafter ``small diameter lamps''). Based on catalog data, DOE 
determined the reduction in efficacy caused by the smaller lamp 
diameter to be approximately 12 percent. DOE also determined that the 
more efficient double-ended HIR burners could not fit into small 
diameter lamps without extending the reflector lens. Therefore, in the 
NOPR analysis, DOE applied an additional 3.5 percent reduction to 
account for the ability of small diameter lamps to utilize only less 
efficient single-ended HIR burners.
    CA IOUs noted that small diameter lamps are less efficacious than 
larger lamps and agreed with DOE's scaling factor as appropriate, 
except for the 3.5 percent to account for double-ended burners, as CA 
IOUs believed that small diameter lamps are capable of utilizing these 
burners. CA IOUs stated that DOE had not provided enough analysis on 
the potential issue that fitting double-ended burners in a small 
diameter lamp would change the physical shape of the lamp and thereby 
impact whether these lamps can fit in fixtures in which they are 
currently used. CA IOUs questioned if DOE had collected data on the 
various lengths of small diameter lamps on the market. CA IOUs noted 
that they have found R20 lamps with single-ended burners that range in 
length from 3.1 to 4.2 inches. They stated that the R20 lamp with a 
double-ended burner they submitted to DOE was 3.5 inches long, and 
therefore still in the typical R20 range. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 124-126, 128-129)
    OSI commented that, in general, technologies used in PAR30 lamps 
cannot be used in PAR20 lamps. (OSI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 
at p. 127) OSI noted that luminaire manufacturers construct luminaires 
for the actual lamp length on the market, not to the ANSI 
specifications for the bulb shape. OSI clarified, therefore, that a 
lamp longer than what is otherwise on the market would not fit in 
luminaires, regardless of whether it still met the ANSI requirements 
for the bulb shape. (OSI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 128-
129) GE agreed and added that a small increase in lamp length would not 
matter for certain luminaires, such as a track lighting fixture, but 
that DOE could not assume the new design would fit in all existing 
fixtures. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 125) OSI 
explained that fitting the lamp with the double-ended burner into the 
luminaire would not be the only problem, DOE should also consider the 
temperature limits that the double-ended burner might force the lamp to 
exceed. (OSI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 127) NEMA 
commented that lamps need to be designed to match the physical shape of 
the luminaires in the market. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 49)
    DOE must consider how the use of a design option affects product 
utility and whether a more efficacious product is an appropriate 
substitute for an existing less efficacious product. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE confirmed that a double-ended burner was present 
in the small diameter (PAR20) prototype lamp mentioned previously and 
also in a commercially available PAR20 lamp that is outside the scope 
of this rulemaking. However, manufacturers noted that fitting a double-
ended burner into a small diameter lamp requires changes to the 
physical shape of the lamp, specifically requiring an extension of the 
reflector lens. (NEMA, no. 36 at p. 12; GE, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 49 at p. 125) While the modified lamp may still meet ANSI standards 
for a small diameter lamp such as a PAR20, it would be larger than 
PAR20 lamps sold in the past and those currently installed. Because the 
lamp shape would be different from the standard sizes of commercially 
available small diameter lamps, the modified lamp may not fit in 
existing structures. DOE conducted an analysis by comparing lengths of 
small diameter lamps to existing fixtures. The lengths of lamps with 
double-ended burners varied and DOE cannot state with certainty that 
these lengths will fit in all fixtures. Further, within the wattage 
range of lamps covered by this rulemaking (40 W or higher), heat 
dissipation in lamps with a smaller envelope using a double-ended 
burner could also become an issue. Additionally, manufacturer feedback 
indicated that even if the double-ended burner could fit into a small 
diameter lamp, it would be difficult to place the burner/filament in 
the optimal position such that the benefits in efficacy could be 
realized.
    Therefore, in this final rule DOE continued to apply an additional 
3.5 percent reduction factor when scaling efficacies of large diameter 
to small diameter lamps to account for the ability of small diameter 
lamps to utilize only single-ended burners.
Operating Voltages Greater Than or Equal to 125 Volts
    In the NOPR analysis, DOE scaled from IRLs with voltages less than 
125 V to IRLs with voltages greater than or equal to 125 V. DOE 
developed a scaling factor that would require 130 V lamps operating at 
120 V \43\ to use the same technology and possess the same general 
performance characteristics as 120 V lamps operating at 120 V. DOE 
found that while there may be a slight decrease in efficacy, the 
lifetime of a 130 V lamp is doubled when it is operated at 120 V, 
giving it an advantage over 120 V lamps. Using the Illuminating 
Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) Lighting Handbook 
equations that relate lifetime, lumens, and wattage to voltage of 
incandescent lamps, DOE determined that a 15 percent scaling factor was 
necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ While a 130 V lamp is typically operated at 120 V, DOE test 
procedures require that lamps rated at 130 V be tested at 130 V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEMA commented that in the 2009 Lamps Rule, DOE set a level for 130 
V lamps which was approximately 15 percent higher than achievable with 
the maximum available technology. NEMA argued that, as the efficacy of 
130 V lamps is actually slightly lower than 120 V lamps, the only way 
to achieve such efficacy levels is to greatly shorten lamp life to less 
than 500 hours even if a 130 V lamp was operated on 120 V. If the 
consumer had a high voltage problem and was operating near 130 V, the 
lamp life would be shortened to a few hundred hours. In both scenarios, 
very short life products are unmarketable to the consumer, especially 
for 130 V consumers who were primarily buying the lamp due to its long 
life on 120 V operation during voltage fluctuations. Giving the example 
of the 130 V IRL, NEMA commented that DOE is incorrect in its 
assumptions that no utility would be lost with higher IRL standards. 
Specifically, NEMA explained that 130 V IRLs were able to operate under 
elevated voltage spike and transient conditions, and are now eliminated 
from the market due to the 2009 Lamps Rule standards. (NEMA, no. 54 at 
p. 48)
    Philips commented that the scaling factor used for any new 130 V 
lamp standards would not matter as the lamp is already out of the 
market. (Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 123) GE 
commented that the max tech for 120 V and 130 V lamps are almost 
identical, so the 15 percent scaling factor used to scale between the 
two

[[Page 4081]]

lamps in the 2009 Lamps Rule is responsible for eliminating 130 V lamps 
from the marketplace, along with its utility. (GE, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 49 at p. 123)
    DOE has not found evidence that more efficacious 130 V IRLs are not 
technologically feasible or practicable to manufacture. DOE research 
indicates that the basic structure, components, and operating 
requirements of these lamps do not prevent the application of design 
options considered in the engineering analysis to achieve EL 1. 
Therefore, in this final rule analysis, DOE continued to determine a 
higher efficacy level for these lamp types.
    Further, DOE remains concerned, that the operation of 130 V lamps 
at 120 V has the potential to significantly affect energy savings. 
DOE's research has shown that 130 V lamps are usually operated by 
consumers at 120 V rather than on a higher voltage line. This could 
incentivize manufacturers to design a less efficient and less expensive 
130 V lamp that would meet standards when tested at 130 V. Because they 
would be cheaper, there could be a market migration to 130 V lamps and 
due to the lower lumen output when 130 V lamps are operated at 120 V, 
consumers may purchase more 130 V lamps, resulting in increased energy 
consumption.
    DOE's research indicates that operating 130 V lamps at 120 V 
increases lifetime and lowers efficacy compared to operating these 
lamps at 130 V. Therefore, to develop an appropriate scaling factor, 
DOE determined the efficacy of 130 V lamps operated at 120 V if their 
additional lifetime over that of 120 V lamps were instead used to 
increase their efficacy. DOE found this increase in efficacy to be 15 
percent. Therefore in this final rule analysis, DOE is using a scaling 
factor of a 15 percent efficacy increase from an IRL with voltages less 
than 125 V to voltages greater than or equal to 125 V.
Modified Spectrum
    In the NOPR analysis, DOE established ELs for modified spectrum 
IRLs by scaling from the ELs developed for the standard spectrum 
product class. DOE determined that a reduction of 15 percent from the 
standard spectrum ELs would be appropriate for modified spectrum IRLs.
    EEOs cited a 2009 study by Ecos Consulting which found a 9-11 
percent light loss associated with IRL modified spectrum lenses, and 
recommended either eliminating the allowance altogether or reducing it 
to 10 percent. (EEOs, No. 55 at p. 7)
    Regarding the use of a 15 percent scaling factor from standard 
spectrum to modified spectrum IRLs, DOE based this determination on 
both its understanding of the differences in characteristics and 
performance of these two lamp types. In the 2009 Lamps Rule, DOE 
assessed the efficacy differences between standard and modified 
spectrum IRLs by measuring the efficacies of commercially available 
standard and modified spectrum lamps. 74 FR 34080 (July 14, 2009). In 
that analysis, DOE correlated the measured color point data of the 
lamps with lamp light output reduction and lamp spectral power 
distribution. By analyzing the data, DOE established that a reduction 
of 15 percent from the standard spectrum to modified spectrum lamps was 
necessary. Using the available data for standards-compliant modified 
spectrum lamps on the market, DOE compared the efficacies of these two 
lamps with standard spectrum lamps with the same wattage and lifetime 
by the same manufacturer, and confirmed a 15 percent reduction in 
efficacy from a modified spectrum lamp to a standard spectrum lamp. 
Therefore, DOE maintained a 15 percent efficacy reduction from a 
standard spectrum IRL to a modified spectrum IRL for this final rule.
g. Xenon
    DOE identified higher efficiency inert fill gas as a design option 
for improving lamp efficacy of IRLs. Specifically, xenon, due to its 
low thermal conductivity, can greatly increase lamp efficacy and is 
utilized in most covered standards-compliant IRLs.
    NEMA commented that the scarcity of xenon makes it questionable 
that IRL products will be able to comply with the proposed standards 
just by adding more xenon to the lamp burners. NEMA stated that due to 
a xenon shortage last year manufacturers had to reduce the use of 
xenon. NEMA explained that the remaining efficacy margin under current 
standards allows continued production of IRLs during xenon shortages. 
Further, NEMA noted that the big xenon producing companies have not 
expanded their production capacity as much and there is high demand and 
limited production capacity for this gas. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 35) NEMA 
remarked that DOE's xenon price analysis ignores xenon shortages. 
(NEMA, No. 54 at p. 11) Further, NEMA stated the current high cost of 
xenon is at 13 Euros per liter compared to its previously low price in 
early 2013. NEMA predicted that xenon prices would not drop again and 
instead continue to increase with the increased number of incandescent 
A-line replacement lamps (which also utilize xenon). (NEMA, No. 54 at 
p. 35)
    NEMA warned that manufacturers are at risk of not being able to 
make compliant lamps consistently due to the availability of xenon for 
IRLs, and if are unable to do so, they will stop making them, as they 
did with the 130 V IRLs. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 13-14) NEMA reported that 
a member's global buyer for noble gases had reported that xenon 
availability is at a minimum. NEMA concluded that the EL should be 
reduced due to the unavailability of xenon and noted that lighting 
legislation hugely affects the supply and demand of xenon. (NEMA, No. 
54 at p. 35)
    DOE acknowledges that xenon supply and prices are important factors 
for IRLs. Therefore, in the NOPR analysis DOE conducted a market 
assessment of xenon supply, demand, and prices as well as LCC and NIA 
sensitivities to determine the impact of increased end user lamp prices 
due to increases in the price of xenon. DOE updated this market and 
price assessment as well as the sensitivities for the final rule 
analysis.
    Based on this research, DOE determined that even if there are short 
term shortages of xenon, the long term supply of xenon is stable due to 
its availability in the air. Thus, supply could be increased to meet a 
continued increase in demand. DOE acknowledges that the supply of xenon 
cannot be quickly altered in the short term, and therefore conducted a 
sensitivity analysis to determine the impact of an increased price of 
xenon. In the final rule analysis, using NEMA's estimation of the 
current price of xenon, DOE updated the xenon price utilized in the LCC 
sensitivity analysis from $10 per liter to $18 per liter. Based on the 
results of this analysis, DOE determined that positive LCC savings 
could still be achieved at EL 1 with higher xenon prices. Additionally, 
in the NIA, DOE performed an alternative analysis in which the price of 
xenon is assumed to increase by a factor of ten in the near future and 
remain at these elevated levels throughout the analysis period. The 
impacts of the modeled xenon price increase on the NES and NPV of this 
rulemaking were minimal. See appendix 7C of the final rule TSD for 
complete details on the xenon price sensitivity conducted in the LCC, 
and chapter 12 of this final rule TSD for details on the xenon price 
sensitivity conducted in the NIA.
h. Proprietary Technology
    In response to the EL (and max tech) proposed for IRLs in the NOPR, 
DOE

[[Page 4082]]

received several comments regarding proprietary technology. 79 FR at 
24111 (April 29, 2014). NEMA stated that processes for silver, the best 
higher efficiency reflector coating, are patent-protected intellectual 
property (IP). (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 21)
    While DOE had determined in the 2009 Lamps Rule that the silver 
reflector was patented technology, DOE research indicated that there 
were alternate pathways to achieve this level, such as filament 
redesign to achieve higher temperature operation (thus reducing the 
lifetime), non-proprietary higher efficiency reflectors, and a higher 
efficiency IR coating. 74 FR 34080, 34133 (July 14, 2009). For this 
rulemaking, in interviews conducted in the preliminary analysis, 
manufacturers indicated that there were no specific patent or 
intellectual property barriers to obtaining commercially available IRL 
technologies. Further, for the NOPR analysis, DOE confirmed during 
interviews that proprietary technology is not a barrier to achieving 
the proposed max tech level. Therefore, DOE has concluded that several 
manufacturers have found means of designing more efficacious IRLs that 
are commercially available, such as through the use of IR glass 
coatings and higher efficiency reflector coatings that do not use 
proprietary technology. Hence, the EL for IRLs in this final rule is 
based on a commercially available improved HIR lamp that does not 
require proprietary technology to achieve its efficacy. Therefore, DOE 
has determined that this level can be achieved without the use of 
proprietary technology.

E. Product Pricing Determination

    Typically, DOE develops manufacturer selling prices (MSPs) for 
covered products and applies markups to create end-user prices to use 
as inputs to the LCC analysis and NIA. Because GSFLs and IRLs are 
difficult to reverse-engineer (i.e., not easily disassembled), DOE did 
not use this approach to derive end-user prices for the lamps covered 
in this rulemaking.
    In the NOPR analysis, DOE gathered publicly available lamp pricing 
data after the compliance date of the July 2012 standards. 79 FR at 
24116 (April 29, 2014). Based on feedback from manufacturer interviews, 
DOE determined that GSFLs and IRLs are sold through three main channels 
(state procurement; large distributors, including do-it-yourself (DIY) 
stores [i.e., Lowe's and Home Depot]; and Internet retailers). Using 
these main channels and the pricing data, DOE developed three different 
end-user prices as representative of a range of publicly available 
prices: low, based on the state procurement channel; medium, based on 
large distributors and DIY stores; and high, based on Internet 
retailers. DOE then developed an end-user price weighted by 
distribution channel. Using manufacturer feedback in interviews, DOE 
determined an aggregated percentage of shipments that go through each 
of the main channels for GSFLs and IRLs. The large distributors and DIY 
stores channel was estimated at 85 percent, the state procurement 
channel at 10 percent, and the Internet retail channel at 5 percent. 
DOE then applied these percentages respectively to the average medium 
price determined for large distributor and DIY stores, the average low 
price determined for state procurement contracts, and the average high 
price determined for Internet retailers. The sum of these weighted 
prices was used as the average consumer price for GSFLs and IRLs in the 
main LCC analysis and NIA. DOE continued to utilize the low prices and 
high prices in a sensitivity analysis in the LCC analysis. DOE received 
several comments on the pricing analysis.
    GE remarked that the pricing methodology presented in the NOPR is a 
reasonable approach. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 130-
131) CA IOUs agreed that the pricing methodology is appropriate for 
GSFLs but not for IRLs, as the latter is predominantly purchased 
through retail channels for homes and small businesses instead of 
through distributors or state procurements. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 49 at p. 131; NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 
at pp. 131-132)
    DOE's assessment of the GSFL and IRL markets indicated that there 
are three main distribution channels. Of these three, DOE determined 
that the majority of volume goes through the large distributors and DIY 
stores and assigned it an 80 percent weighting. Because this channel 
includes stores such as Home Depot and Lowes in addition to 
distributors, it encompasses channels through which residential and 
small business consumers are more likely to make their purchases. 
Additionally, DOE determined that while the volume may be low, IRLs are 
included in state procurement contracts; therefore, DOE included them 
as a distribution channel and assigned them a low weighting.
    In the final rule analysis, DOE used the same methodology as 
described for the NOPR analysis. For the final rule, DOE scaled the 
prices from 2012$ to 2013$ in the LCC analysis and NIA, using the ratio 
of the 2013 consumer price index (CPI) and 2012 CPI multiplied by the 
2012$ price. See chapter 7 of the final rule TSD for further 
information on the pricing analysis.

F. Energy Use

    For the energy-use analysis, DOE estimated the energy use of lamps 
in the field (i.e., as they are actually used by consumers). The 
energy-use analysis provided the basis for other DOE analyses, 
particularly assessments of the energy savings and the savings in 
consumer operating costs that could result from DOE's adoption of 
amended standard levels.
1. Operating Hours
    In the NOPR, to develop annual energy-use estimates, DOE multiplied 
annual usage (in hours per year) by the lamp power (in watts) for IRLs 
and the lamp-and-ballast system input power (in watts) for GSFLs. Id. 
at 24117. DOE characterized representative lamp or lamp-and-ballast 
systems in the engineering analysis (see section VI.D). To characterize 
the country's average use of lamps for a typical year, DOE developed 
annual operating hour distributions by sector, using data published in 
the 2010 U.S. Lighting Market Characterization report (2010 LMC),\44\ 
the Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS),\45\ the 
Manufacturer Energy Consumption Survey (MECS),\46\ and the Residential 
Energy Consumption Survey (RECS).\47\ Id. at 24118. DOE did not receive 
any comments on this subject and maintained this approach for 
determining operating hours for this final rule. DOE updated the MECS 
data to 2010 data.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy. Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: 
2010 U.S. Lighting Market Characterization. 2012. Washington, DC. 
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/2010-lmc-final-jan-2012.pdf.
    \45\ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 
Administration. Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey: 
Micro-level data, file 2 Building Activities, Special Measures of 
Size, and Multi-building Facilities. 2003. Washington, DC. 
www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2003/index.cfm?view=microdata.
    \46\ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 
Administration. Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey, Table 9.1: 
Enclosed Floorspace and Number of Establishment Buildings. 2006. 
Washington, DC. www.eia.gov/consumption/manufacturing/data/2006/xls/Table9_1.xlsl.
    \47\ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 
Administration. RECS Public Use Microdata files. 2009. Washington, 
DC. www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009.
    \48\ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 
Administration. Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey, Table 9.1: 
Enclosed Floorspace and Number of Establishment Buildings. 2010. 
Washington, DC. http://www.eia.gov/consumption/manufacturing/data/2010/.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4083]]

2. Lighting Controls
    DOE evaluated the impact of lighting controls on the energy use of 
GSFLs and IRLs. Most lighting controls have one of two impacts: 
reducing operating wattage or reducing operating hours. DOE refers to 
these two groups of controls as dimmers or light sensors, and occupancy 
sensors, respectively. The calculated operating hours used in the 
reference case already account for the use of occupancy sensors because 
the 2010 LMC operating hour data are based on building surveys and 
metering data. In the NOPR analysis, DOE accounted for the use of 
dimmers or light sensors by modeling GSFLs and IRLs on dimmers and 
developing associated energy-use results for both types of covered 
lamps as a sensitivity analysis. See appendix 6A of the final rule TSD 
for further information.
    DOE received an overall comment regarding its approach to lighting 
controls for GSFLs and IRLs. Westinghouse suggested that DOE separate 
dimming percentages between IRLs and GSFLs because in the commercial 
sector, GSFLs are generally dimmed more often and IRLs are on simple 
switch circuits, and in the residential sector, IRLs are frequently 
dimmed and GSFLs are almost never dimmed. (Westinghouse, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 49 at p. 142)
    DOE agrees with Westinghouse that GSFLs and IRLs are used 
differently and that usage varies depending on the market sector. DOE 
calculated separate dimming percentages for GSFL and IRL and for each 
market sector in which they are present. The following sections discuss 
these percentages in more detail.
a. General Service Fluorescent Lamp Lighting Controls
    In the NOPR, DOE assessed the impacts of dimmers on GSFLs by 
determining the reduction in system lumen output and system input power 
as a result of using dimming ballasts. Id. Based on product research 
and manufacturer feedback, DOE analyzed dimming scenarios for 2-lamp 4-
foot MBP systems, 4-lamp 4-foot MBP systems, 2-lamp 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO 
systems, and 2-lamp 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO systems operating in the 
commercial and industrial sectors. DOE did not analyze dimmable GSFL 
systems in the residential sector because DOE believes these systems 
are rarely dimmed. DOE determined that the average reduction of system 
lumen output for GSFLs was 33 percent, based on research and 
manufacturer input. DOE did not receive any comments on this approach 
to analyzing GSFL dimming and therefore maintained this approach in the 
final rule.
b. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Lighting Controls
    In the NOPR analysis, DOE research indicated that, on average, 
consumers using dimmers reduce lamp wattage by 20 percent, 
corresponding to a lumen reduction of 25 percent and an increase in 
lifetime by a factor of 3.94. Id. at 24119. DOE analyzed two scenarios 
in LCC sensitivity analyses: (1) The light output of the baseline lamp 
was reduced by 25 percent and more efficient lamps were dimmed to the 
same light output and (2) the characteristics of the lamps analyzed 
represented the distribution of dimmers across the nation. For the 
second scenario, DOE used the 2010 LMC to determine that 29 percent of 
halogen IRLs operate on dimmers or light sensors in the residential 
sector and 5 percent of halogen IRLs operate on dimmers in the 
commercial sector and used these percentages to calculate weighted-
average performance characteristics. DOE received several comments on 
its approach to analyzing IRL dimming.
    Philips disagreed with only 5 percent dimming in the commercial 
sector, stating that given the 30-year analysis period, this percentage 
is understated. Philips specifically referenced California's new 
requirements for dimming in all renovations and new buildings and 
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning 
Engineers' (ASHRAE's) support of these measures driving increased 
dimming prevalence across the country. (Philips, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 137-138) NEEA agreed with Philips that 5 
percent dimming for the commercial sector is too low and added that the 
29 percent dimming DOE used for the residential sector is far too high. 
Westinghouse also questioned the 29 percent dimming estimate for the 
residential sector noting that if the percentage was for residential 
IRLs only, it may be representative but was too high for GSFLs as 
homeowners tend not to dim those lamps. (Westinghouse, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 49 at p. 141)
    To update DOE's numbers, NEEA suggested a report they had completed 
on a 13-month residential metering study that studied 2,200 sensors in 
103 houses by fixture type, technology, and room. NEEA explained that 
their data include the wattage of the lamp, the controls on the socket, 
the number of lamps per fixture, the number of lamps per switch, the 
type of fixture, and room in which it is located. NEEA suggested that 
the data contain enough samples to characterize residential lighting in 
the four states included. NEEA also mentioned a census they conducted 
across 1,400 houses that gathered the same data, which can then be 
applied across the entire region. NEEA sent a summary of the data to 
DOE for immediate use, and stated that the rest of the data would be 
available for download on NEEA's and NEMA's Web sites. (NEEA, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp.138, 140)
    Regarding the accuracy of the percentages, the 29 percent of lamps 
on dimmers was applied to IRLs for the residential sector analysis and 
the 5 percent of lamps on dimmers was applied to IRLs for the 
commercial sector. As noted, these values are based on the 2010 LMC and 
DOE believes are an accurate representation of the percentage of IRLs 
on dimmers in each sector. Regarding the potential increase in 
percentage, while the percentage of occupancy sensors may increase, DOE 
assumed that the percentage of IRLs on dimmers will remain relatively 
constant because dimmers provide utility for consumers beyond energy 
savings. DOE also reviewed NEEA's data, but ultimately maintained the 
methodology described above because NEEA's data is limited to the 
Northwest region while the 2010 LMC lighting controls data is based 
several building audit studies, spanning several geographic regions and 
years of data collection, which was then scaled based an inventory of 
lighting at the national level. Therefore, for this final rule, DOE 
maintained its methodology for analyzing dimming for IRLs.

G. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis and Payback Period Analysis

    In the NOPR analysis, DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to 
evaluate the economic impacts of proposed energy conservation standards 
for GSFLs and IRLs on individual consumers. 79 FR at 24119 (April 29, 
2014). The LCC is the total consumer expense over the life of a 
product, consisting of purchase, installation, and operating costs 
(operating costs are expenses for energy use, maintenance, and repair). 
To compute the operating costs, DOE discounted future operating costs 
to the time of purchase and summed them over the lifetime of the 
product. The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes 
consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including 
installation) of a more efficient product through lower operating 
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the

[[Page 4084]]

change in purchase cost (normally higher) by the change in average 
annual operating cost (normally lower) that results from the higher 
efficiency standard. DOE used a ``simple'' PBP for this rulemaking, 
which does not take into account other changes in operating expenses 
over time or the time value of money.
    For any given efficacy or energy-use level, DOE measures the PBP 
and the change in LCC relative to an estimated base-case product 
efficacy or energy-use level. The base-case estimate reflects the 
market without new or amended mandatory energy conservation standards, 
including the market for products that exceed the current energy 
conservation standards.
    Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost 
of the product--which includes consumer product price and sales taxes--
and installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses 
include annual energy consumption, energy prices and price projections, 
repair and maintenance costs, product lifetimes, discount rates, and 
the year in which compliance with proposed standards would be required. 
DOE also incorporated a residual value calculation to account for any 
remaining lifetime of lamps at the end of the analysis period. The 
residual value is an estimate of the product's value to the consumer at 
the end of the LCC analysis period. In addition, this residual value 
recognizes that a lamp may continue to function beyond the end of the 
analysis period. DOE calculates the residual value by linearly 
prorating the product's initial cost consistent with the methodology 
described in the Life-Cycle Costing Manual for the Federal Energy 
Management Program.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Fuller, Sieglinde K. and Stephen R. Peterson. National 
Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook 135 (1996 Edition); 
Life-Cycle Costing Manual for the Federal Energy Management Program. 
(Prepared for U. S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Management 
Program, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Conservation and 
Renewable Energy.) February 1996. NIST: Gaithersburg, MD. Available 
at: http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build96/PDF/b96121.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As inputs to the PBP analysis, DOE used the total installed cost of 
the product to the consumer for each efficacy level, as well as the 
first-year annual operating costs for each efficacy level. The 
calculation requires the same inputs as the LCC, except for energy 
price trends and discount rates; only energy prices for the year in 
which compliance with any new standard would be required (2018, in this 
case) are needed.
    To account for uncertainty and variability, DOE created value 
distributions for inputs as appropriate, including operating hours, 
electricity prices, discount rates and sales tax rates, and disposal 
costs. For example, DOE created a probability distribution of annual 
energy consumption in its energy-use analysis, based in part on a range 
of annual operating hours. The operating hour distributions capture 
variation across census divisions and large states, building types, and 
lamp or lamp-and-ballast systems for three sectors (commercial, 
industrial, and residential).
    DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analyses using a spreadsheet model 
developed in Microsoft Excel. When combined with Crystal Ball (a 
commercially available software program), the spreadsheet model 
generates a Monte Carlo simulation \50\ to perform the analysis by 
incorporating uncertainty and variability considerations. The Monte 
Carlo simulations randomly sample input values from the probability 
distributions and lamp user samples, performing 1,000 iterations per 
simulation run.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Monte Carlo simulations model uncertainty by utilizing 
probability distributions instead of single values for certain 
inputs and variables.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE did not receive any comments on the general methodology 
regarding the LCC and PBP assessment. In the final rule analysis, DOE 
generally maintained the methodology from the NOPR analysis, with a few 
changes. Table VI.9 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive 
inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations for the NOPR, as well as the 
changes made for this final rule. The final rule TSD chapter 8 and its 
appendices provide details on the spreadsheet model and of all the 
inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses. The final rule TSD appendix 8B 
provides results of the sensitivity analyses conducted using Monte 
Carlo simulation. The subsections that follow discuss the comments 
regarding each initial input and any changes made to them in the final 
rule analysis.

                 Table VI.9--Summary of Inputs and Key Assumptions in the LCC and PBP Analyses *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Inputs                                  NOPR TSD                    Changes for the Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Product Price................  Applied discounts to manufacturer         No change.
                                         catalog (``blue book'') pricing in
                                         order to represent low, medium, and
                                         high prices for all lamp categories.
                                         Used a weighted-average price in the
                                         main analysis based on the percentage
                                         of shipments that go through the
                                         distribution channel having low,
                                         medium, or high prices.
Sales Tax.............................  Derived sector-specific average tax       No change.
                                         values based on the probability of
                                         purchasing a GSFL or IRL in each census
                                         division and large state from data
                                         provided by the Sales Tax Clearinghouse.
Installation Cost.....................  Derived costs using the RS Means          No change.
                                         Electrical Cost Data and U.S. Bureau of
                                         Labor Statistics to obtain average
                                         labor times for installation, as well
                                         as labor rates for electricians and
                                         helpers based on wage rates, benefits,
                                         and training costs.
Annual Operating Hours................  Determined operating hours by             Updated MECS data to 2010
                                         associating operating hours for a GSFL    data.
                                         or IRL in a specific building type
                                         using the average lamps per square foot
                                         and the percentage of lamps of each
                                         type with regional distributions of
                                         various building types using the 2010
                                         LMC and EIA's 2003 CBECS, 2009 RECS,
                                         and 2006 MECS.

[[Page 4085]]

 
Product Energy Consumption Rate.......  Determined lamp input power for IRLs      No change.
                                         based on published manufacturer
                                         literature. Calculated system input
                                         power for GSFLs. Used lamp arc power,
                                         catalog BF, number of lamps per system,
                                         and tested BLE (when possible) to
                                         calculate system input power for each
                                         unique lamp-and-ballast combination.
Electricity Prices....................  Electricity: Based on EIA's Form 861      Electricity: Based on EIA's
                                         data for 2011 scaled to 2012 (the         Form 861 data for 2012 scaled
                                         dollar year of the analysis) using AEO    to 2013 (the dollar year of
                                         2013 and the consumer price index.        the analysis) using AEO 2014
                                        Variability: Weighted-average national     and the consumer price index.
                                         price for each sector and lamp type      Variability: No change.
                                         calculated from the probability of a
                                         GSFL or IRL purchased in each census
                                         division or large state.
Electricity Price Projections.........  Forecasted using AEO 2013...............  Forecasted using AEO 2014.
Replacement and Disposal Costs........  Commercial and industrial: Included       No change.
                                         labor and materials costs for lamp
                                         replacement, and disposal costs for
                                         failed GSFLs.
                                        Residential: Included only materials
                                         cost for lamps, with no lamp disposal
                                         costs.
Product Lifetime......................  Ballast lifetime based on average         No change.
                                         ballast life of 49,054 from 2011
                                         Ballast Rule. Lamp lifetime based on
                                         published manufacturer literature where
                                         available.
Discount Rates........................  Commercial and industrial: Derived        No change.
                                         discount rates using the cost of
                                         capital of publicly traded firms in the
                                         sectors that purchase lamps, based on
                                         data in the 2003 CBECS, Damodaran
                                         Online,\51\ Office of Management and
                                         Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-94,\52\ and
                                         state and local bond interest
                                         rates.\53\
                                        Residential: Derived discount rates
                                         using the finance cost of raising funds
                                         to purchase lamps either through the
                                         financial cost of any debt incurred to
                                         purchase product or the opportunity
                                         cost of any equity used to purchase
                                         equipment, based on the Federal
                                         Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances
                                         data \54\ for 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998,
                                         2001, 2004, 2007, and 2010.
Analysis Period.......................  IRLs and commercial and industrial        No change.
                                         GSFLs: Based on the baseline lamp life
                                         in hours divided by the annual
                                         operating hours of that lamp.
                                        Residential GSFLs lamp failure: Based on
                                         the lifetime of the ballast.
                                        Residential GSFLs ballast failure and
                                         new construction/renovation: Based on
                                         the lifetime of the ballast.
Compliance Date of Standards..........  2017....................................  2018.
Lamp Purchase Events..................  Assessed three events: lamp failure,      No change.
                                         ballast failure (GSFLs only), and new
                                         construction/renovation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in
  chapter 8 of the final rule TSD.

1. Consumer Product Price
    In the NOPR, DOE used a variety of sources to develop consumer 
product prices, including lamp prices from manufacturers' blue books, 
state procurement contracts, large electrical supply distributors, 
hardware and home improvement stores, Internet retailers, and other 
similar sources. 79 FR at 24122 (April 29, 2014). DOE then developed 
low, medium, and high prices based on its findings. DOE calculated a 
weighted-average price based on the percentage of shipments going 
through the low discount (high price), medium discount (medium price), 
and high discount (low price) distribution channels. Because 
fluorescent lamps operate on a ballast in practice, DOE analyzed lamp-
and-ballast systems in the engineering analysis and therefore also 
determined end-user prices for ballasts. DOE utilized the end-user 
prices from the 2011 Ballast Rule converted to 2012$ to develop prices 
for replacement ballasts. In the final analysis, DOE maintained the 
same methodology, but converted the prices to 2013$ instead of 2012$. 
For further discussion regarding end-user prices, see section VI.E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Damodaran Online, The Data Page: Historical Returns on 
Stocks, Bonds, and Bills--United States (2014). Available at: http:/
/pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar.
    \52\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Circular No. A-94 
Appendix C (2013). Available at: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a094/a94_appx-c.
    \53\ Federal Reserve Board, Statistics: Releases and Historical 
Data--Selected Interest Rates--State and Local Bonds (2014). 
Available at: www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/Build.aspx?rel=H15.
    \54\ The Federal Reserve Board, Survey of Consumer Finances. 
Available at: www.federalreserve.gov/PUBS/oss/oss2/scfindex.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 22, 2011, DOE published a notice of data availability 
(NODA; 76 FR 9696) stating that DOE may consider whether its regulatory 
analysis would be improved by addressing product price trends. Using 
three decades of historic data on the quantities and values of domestic 
shipments of fluorescent lamps and PAR lamps reported by the U.S. 
Census Bureau in their Current Industrial Reports, DOE examined product 
prices trends, fitting the data to an experience curve, as described in 
chapter 11 of the NOPR TSD. DOE found that the data are well-
represented by the experience curve and consistent with price learning 
theory. Therefore, consistent with the NODA, DOE incorporated price 
trends into this rulemaking. In the LCC analysis, DOE

[[Page 4086]]

adjusts prices for each year using the experience curve.
2. Sales Tax
    In the NOPR analysis, DOE obtained state and local sales tax data 
from the Sales Tax Clearinghouse. Id. The data represented weighted 
averages that included county and city rates. DOE used the data to 
calculate a weighted-average sales tax based on the probability of a 
GSFL or IRL purchased for a particular building type in each census 
division and large state (New York, California, Texas, and Florida). 
DOE used information in the 2010 LMC, such as the number of lamps per 
square feet and the percentage of lamps within a building that are 
linear fluorescent or halogen. In combination with this information, 
DOE used CBECS, MECS, and RECS, respectively, for commercial, 
industrial, and residential building data on building types in each 
census division and large state. DOE did not receive any feedback on 
its approach to determining sales tax. In this final rule analysis, DOE 
used the same methodology with updated sales tax data from the Sales 
Tax Clearinghouse.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Sales Tax Clearinghouse. Aggregate State Tax Rates. (2014). 
Available at: http://thestc.com/STrates.stm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Installation Cost
    The installation cost is the total cost to the consumer to install 
the product, excluding the consumer product price. Installation costs 
include labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and parts. As 
detailed in the NOPR analysis, DOE considered the total installed cost 
of a lamp or lamp-and-ballast system to be the consumer product price 
(including sales taxes) plus the installation cost. For the commercial 
and industrial sectors, DOE assumed consumers must pay to install the 
lamp or lamp-and-ballast system and assumed the installation cost was 
the product of the average labor rate and the time needed to install a 
lamp or lamp and ballast. In the residential sector, DOE assumed that 
consumers must pay for only the installation of a lamp-and-ballast 
system. Therefore, the installation cost assumed was the product of the 
average labor rate and the time needed to install the lamp-and-ballast 
system. DOE assumed that residential consumers would install their own 
replacement lamps and, thus, would incur no installation cost when 
replacing their own lamp. Id.
    DOE did not receive any comments on the installation cost. DOE 
retained this methodology for determining installation costs in this 
final rule analysis.
4. Annual Energy Use
    As discussed in section VI.F, DOE estimated the annual energy use 
of representative lamp or lamp-and-ballast systems by multiplying input 
power and sector operating hours. For further discussion regarding 
annual energy-use calculations, see section VI.F.1. DOE maintained its 
methodology of determining annual energy-use inputs in this final rule 
analysis.
5. Product Energy Consumption Rate
    As in the NOPR analysis, DOE determined lamp input power for IRLs 
based on published manufacturer literature. 79 FR at 24123 (April 29, 
2014). For GSFLs, DOE calculated the system input power using published 
manufacturer literature and test data. DOE used lamp arc power, catalog 
BF, number of lamps per system, and tested BLE (when possible) to 
calculate system input power for each unique lamp-and-ballast 
combination. The rated system input power was then multiplied by the 
annual operating hours of the system to determine the annual energy 
consumption. DOE did not receive any comments on energy consumption 
rate calculations. DOE retained this methodology for determining energy 
consumption in this final rule analysis.
6. Electricity Prices
    For the LCC and PBP in the NOPR analysis, DOE derived average 
energy prices for 13 U.S. geographic areas consisting of the nine 
census divisions, with four large states (New York, Florida, Texas, and 
California) treated separately. Id. For census divisions containing one 
of these large states, DOE calculated the regional average, excluding 
the data for the large state. The derivation of prices was based on 
data from EIA Form 861, ``Annual Electric Power Industry Database.'' 
DOE calculated weighted-average electricity prices based on the 
probability of a GSFL or IRL purchased in each census division and 
large state. The same methodology as noted previously for determining 
average weighted sales tax was used to calculate average weighted 
electricity prices. DOE used data published in the 2010 LMC in 
combination with CBECS, MECS, and RECS to determine an average weighted 
electricity price based on the probability of a GSFL or IRL in a 
particular building type in each census division and large state. DOE 
did not receive any comments on this approach. DOE retained this 
methodology for determining electricity prices in this final rule 
analysis.
7. Electricity Price Projections
    To estimate the trends in energy prices for the NOPR analysis, DOE 
used the price forecasts in AEO 2013. Id. To arrive at prices in future 
years, DOE multiplied current average prices by the forecast of annual 
average price changes in AEO 2013. In this final rule analysis, DOE 
used the same approach, but updated its energy price forecasts using 
AEO 2014. In addition, the spreadsheet tools that DOE used to conduct 
the LCC and PBP analyses allow users to select price forecasts from 
AEO's low-growth, high-growth, and reference case scenarios to estimate 
the sensitivity of the LCC and PBP to different energy price forecasts. 
DOE did not receive any comments on this approach and maintained this 
methodology for determining electricity price projections in the final 
rule analysis.
8. Replacement and Disposal Costs
    In its NOPR analysis, DOE addressed lamp replacements occurring 
within the analysis period as part of installed costs for considered 
lamp or lamp-and-ballast system designs. Id. Replacement costs in the 
commercial and industrial sectors included the labor and materials 
costs associated with replacing a lamp at the end of its lifetime, 
discounted to 2012$. For the residential sector, DOE assumed that 
consumers would install their own replacement lamps and incur no 
related labor costs.
    Some consumers recycle failed GSFLs, thus incurring a disposal 
cost. In its research, DOE found average disposal costs of 10 cents per 
linear foot for GSFLs.\56\ A 2004 report by the Association of Lighting 
and Mercury Recyclers noted that approximately 30 percent of lamps used 
by businesses and 2 percent of lamps in the residential sector are 
recycled nationwide.\57\ DOE considered the 30 percent lamp-recycling 
rate to be significant and incorporated GSFL disposal costs into the 
LCC analysis for commercial and industrial consumers. Given the very 
low (2 percent) estimated lamp-recycling rate in the residential 
sector, DOE assumed that residential consumers would be less likely to 
voluntarily incur the higher disposal costs. Therefore, DOE excluded 
the

[[Page 4087]]

disposal costs for lamps and ballasts from the LCC analysis for 
residential GSFLs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Environmental Health and Safety Online's fluorescent lights 
and lighting disposal and recycling Web page--Recycling Costs. 
Available at www.ehso.com/fluoresc.php.
    \57\ Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers, ``National 
Mercury-Lamp Recycling Rate and Availability of Lamp Recycling 
Services in the U.S.'' Nov. 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE received no comments concerning these assumed recycling rates, 
disposal costs, and their application in the LCC analysis. DOE 
maintained this approach in the final rule analysis.
9. Lamp Purchase Events
    DOE designed the LCC and PBP analyses for this rulemaking around 
scenarios where consumers need to purchase a lamp. Each of these events 
may give the consumer a different set of lamp or lamp-and-ballast 
designs and, therefore, a different set of LCC savings for a certain 
efficacy level. In the NOPR analysis, DOE evaluated three types of 
events that would prompt a consumer to purchase a lamp. Id at 24123. 
These events are described in the following list. Though described 
primarily in the context of GSFLs, lamp purchase events can be applied 
to IRLs as well. However, considering that IRLs are not used with a 
ballast, the only lamp purchase events applicable to IRLs are lamp 
failure (Event I) and new construction and renovation (Event III).
     Lamp Failure (Event I): This event reflects a scenario in 
which a lamp has failed (spot relamping) or is about to fail (group 
relamping). In the base case, identical lamps are installed as 
replacements. In the standards case, the consumer installs a standards-
compliant lamp that is compatible with the existing ballast.
     Ballast Failure (Event II): This is a scenario in which 
the failure of the installed ballast triggers a lamp-and-ballast 
purchase.
     New Construction and Renovation (Event III): This event 
encompasses all fixture installations where the lighting design will be 
completely new or can be completely changed. During new construction 
and renovation, the spatial layout of fixtures in a building space is 
not constrained to any previous configuration. However, because DOE's 
higher efficacy replacements generally maintain lumen output within 10 
percent of the baseline system, DOE did not assume that spacing was 
changed.
    DOE received several comments regarding the lamp purchasing events 
assessed in the NOPR analysis. OSI questioned if, in the event of 
ballast failure in the new construction and renovation scenario, the 
installed cost includes the price of controls that are required by 
recent building codes, especially ASHRAE 90.1. (OSI, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 144-145) ASHRAE 90.1 is a standard that 
provides the minimum requirements for energy-efficient design of 
certain commercial buildings. OSI noted that any replacement of lamps 
and ballasts that could be considered renovation would be subject to 
building codes requiring the installation of lighting controls, and 
this cost should be added to the scenarios. (OSI, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 49 at p. 146) Westinghouse agreed, stating that having 
to buy a control for a lamp should be treated no differently than 
having to hire an electrician and is part of the installation cost for 
a typical end-user product. (Westinghouse, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 49 at p. 145) NEEA acknowledged that controls may be required by 
building codes, but pointed out that a building code would apply 
regardless of the EL chosen. Thus the costs of controls would be the 
same at each level and would be unlikely to change the incremental 
installed costs analyzed in the LCC analysis. (NEEA, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 49 at p. 146)
    DOE agrees that in the LCC analysis, a consumer that purchases a 
new lamp will have to comply with the same building code in both the 
base case (absent amended energy conservation standards) and the 
standards case (with amended energy conservation standards). In 
instances where the building code would require lighting controls, DOE 
reviewed the lighting systems analyzed in the GSFL engineering analysis 
for this rulemaking and determined that the required controls would not 
differ between the baseline systems analyzed and each higher efficacy 
system. Because the controls would be the same at each level, the 
incremental costs associated with the controls (price and installation) 
would not be different for the different ELs, Therefore, DOE did not 
include the cost of controls in the final rule analysis.
    Regarding more efficient replacement systems analyzed, NEMA noted 
switching from T12 or T8 to T5 lamps is expensive, and therefore 
suggested that the LCC and PBP analyses include the re-ballasting costs 
for lamps, luminaires, ballasts, labor, and down time. (NEMA, No. 54 at 
p. 48)
    The LCC and PBP analyses determine the economic impacts to a 
consumer within an individual product class. Because only one type of 
lamp (i.e., T5 or T8) is specified within each product class, DOE does 
not account for product class switching in the LCC and PBP analyses. 
DOE does, however, account for product class switching in the shipments 
analysis and, subsequently, the NIA. See VI.I for additional details on 
product class switching in the shipments analysis.
    DOE received no other comments on lamp purchase events and is 
maintaining the lamp purchase events and the associated assumptions in 
this final rule analysis.
10. Product Lifetime
a. Lamp Lifetime
    In the NOPR analysis, DOE used manufacturer literature to determine 
lamp lifetimes. DOE also considered the impact of group relamping 
practices on GSFL lifetime in the commercial and industrial sectors. In 
the NOPR analysis, DOE assumed that a lamp subject to group relamping 
operates for 85 percent of its rated lifetime based on information from 
manufacturers in interviews that consumer behavior had changed due to 
recent economic conditions and group relamping occurred at 85-90 
percent of rated life. Id. at 24124.
    Westinghouse agreed that relamping would occur at 85 percent of 
rated life in the commercial sector, however, they noted that in the 
residential sector, relamping would occur when the resident cannot see 
or when the lamp fails. (Westinghouse, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
49 at p. 144) Philips further commented that older consumers would 
relamp sooner, due to impaired eyesight. (Philips, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 49 at p. 144)
    DOE assumed that during group relamping, a consumer removes and 
replaces a collection of lamps that are near the end of their lives at 
once, as a way of avoiding the failure of any individual lamp in the 
collection. While DOE models this behavior in the commercial sector, 
DOE assumed that residential sector consumers replace their lamps 
either when they fail or when the associated fixture is removed; thus, 
there are no spot or group relamping lifetime impacts on the 
residential sector.
    NEMA noted that group relamping is commonly recommended at 70-80 
percent of rated life. During the 2010-2011 rare earth crises, group 
relamping may have been delayed, but it has since come back in line 
with the recommended time frame. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 32)
    DOE acknowledges that the economic conditions that impacted group 
relamping decisions may have been temporary and, taking into 
consideration NEMA's observation, changed the group relamping 
assumption to 75 percent of rated life for the final rule analysis. See 
chapter 8 of the final rule TSD for further details.

[[Page 4088]]

    In the NOPR, DOE used 15 years as the estimated fixture and ballast 
lifetime in the residential sector for purposes of its analyses. NEMA 
commented that DOE should not assume a normal average lifetime for 
residential GSFLs as these lamps typically fail from frequent switching 
rather than deterioration of the emitter. NEMA mentioned that failure 
due to rapid switching is unpredictable and variable, based on the 
frequency of switches, and therefore it is difficult to define an 
average lifetime in this sector. NEMA suggested that DOE review their 
analysis for residential GSFL lifetime by incorporating switching and 
hours of use data from the NEEA residential building stock assessment 
metering study. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 31-32)
    Based on a report, DOE found that the average fixture and ballast 
in the residential sector lasts for 15 years.\58\ Therefore, in its 
residential sector analysis for GSFLs, DOE established 15 years as the 
average ballast lifetime in the residential sector, regardless of 
operating hours. Because the lamp lifetime exceeds the ballast lifetime 
under average operating hours conditions, DOE assumed that the ballast 
lifetime of 15 years limits the lamp lifetime. While the typical 
lifetime of a GSFL is about 37 years in the residential sector, by 
basing the analysis period on the ballast lifetime, DOE used a much 
shorter analysis period than the product lifetime in its analysis for 
residential GSFLs and, therefore, likely accounted for early failure of 
lamps due to frequent switching. As recommended by NEMA, DOE also 
reviewed NEEA's data, but found that the data did not provide the 
lifetime data on the GSFLs DOE analyzed in the residential sector. 
Therefore, DOE maintained the lamp lifetime of 15 years based on the 
ballast lifetime for this final rule analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Economic Research Associates, Inc., and Quantec, LLC. 
Revised/Updated EULs Based On Retention And Persistence Studies 
Results. Southern California Edison, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Ballast Lifetime
    Chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD detailed DOE's development of average 
ballast lifetimes, which were based on assumptions used in the 2011 
Ballast Rule. For ballasts in the commercial and industrial sectors, 
DOE used an average ballast lifetime of 49,054 hours. Consistent with 
the 2011 Ballast Rule, DOE assumed an average ballast lifetime of 
approximately 15 years in the residential sector. DOE received no 
comments on this approach and retained these ballast lifetimes in the 
final rule.
11. Discount Rates
    The calculation of consumer LCC requires the use of an appropriate 
discount rate. DOE used the discount rate to determine the present 
value of lifetime operating expenses. The discount rate used in the LCC 
analysis represents the rate from an individual consumer's 
perspective.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ The consumer discount rate is in contrast to the discount 
rates used in the NIA, which are intended to represent the rate of 
return of capital in the U.S. economy, as well as the societal rate 
of return on private consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NOPR analysis, for the residential sector, DOE derived 
discount rates from estimates of the interest or ``finance cost'' to 
purchase residential products. 79 FR at 24125 (April 29, 2014). The 
finance cost of raising funds to purchase these products can be 
interpreted as: 1) the financial cost of any debt incurred to purchase 
products (principally interest charges on debt), or 2) the opportunity 
cost of any equity used to purchase products (principally interest 
earnings on household equity). Household equity is represented by 
holdings in assets, such as stocks and bonds, as well as the return on 
homeowner equity. Much of the data required, which involves determining 
the cost of debt and equity, comes from the Federal Reserve Board's 
triennial ``Survey of Consumer Finances.'' \60\ For the commercial and 
industrial sectors, DOE derived discount rates from the cost of capital 
of publicly traded firms in the business sectors that purchase lamps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ The Federal Reserve Board. Survey of Consumer Finances 
1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010. Federal Reserve 
Board: Washington, DC. Available at: www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/
oss/oss2/scfindex.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE received no comments concerning the determination of discount 
rates. Thus, DOE maintained this approach in the final rule analysis. 
For further details on discount rates, see chapter 8 and appendix 8C of 
the final rule TSD.
12. Analysis Period
    The analysis period is the span of time over which the LCC is 
calculated. In the NOPR analysis, DOE used the longest baseline lamp 
life in a product class divided by the annual operating hours of that 
lamp as the analysis period. Id. During Monte Carlo simulations for the 
LCC analysis, DOE selected the analysis period based on the longest 
baseline lamp life divided by the annual operating hours chosen by 
Crystal Ball. For GSFLs in the residential sector, the analysis period 
is based on the useful life of the baseline lamp for a specific event. 
GE and Philips commented that this approach seemed reasonable. (GE, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 147; Philips, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 49 at p. 148) DOE maintained this approach for 
determining the analysis period in the final rule analysis.
13. Compliance Date of Standards
    The compliance date is the date when a covered product is required 
to meet a new or amended standard. Consistent with 42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(5), DOE analyzed a compliance date in 2018, three years after 
the publication of the final amended standards. DOE calculated the LCC 
for all end users, as if each one would purchase a new lamp in the year 
compliance with the standard is required.
14. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Life-Cycle Cost Results in the NOPR
    DOE received several comments regarding the LCC results of IRLs in 
the NOPR analysis. GE commented that the LCC analysis appeared to be 
done mostly for commercial customers of PAR38 lamps and would have a 
dramatically different and negative outcome for the residential sector 
and other consumers. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 152)
    DOE conducted separate LCC analyses for the commercial sector and 
residential sector. See chapter 8 of the final rule TSD for all results 
by sector.
    NEMA commented that consumers were unlikely to realize the 
operating cost savings DOE claimed in the NOPR. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 11) 
NEMA questioned how the proposed rulemaking can generate positive 
savings for consumers of IRLs when the increased product costs are 
higher than the energy savings. NEMA reasoned that an 18.75 lm/W PAR38 
would need an infrared coated burner to reach an efficacy of 19.57 lm/W 
to comply with the standards proposed in the NOPR. The increased 
efficacy would save the consumer $0.36 per year while the burner would 
add about $1 to the cost of the lamp. NEMA further argued that the lamp 
is only rated at 1,100 hours, so the consumer will never see the 
payback from the improved lamp. NEMA commented that DOE cannot assume 
that technological breakthroughs yet to be discovered would improve the 
efficacy and lifetime of the lamp. As such, NEMA concluded that DOE 
cannot prove that a full range of products would comply with the 
standards proposed in the NOPR, and that DOE has not adequately 
addressed the negative cost effects on the consumer. (NEMA, No. 54 at 
pp. 32-33)

[[Page 4089]]

    In its analysis, DOE considered only more efficacious replacements 
with lifetimes greater than or equal to the baseline lifetime. Both 
representative lamp units that DOE analyzed at EL 1 have lifetimes 
longer than the baseline. The characteristics of the representative 
lamp units were used as inputs to the LCC analysis. The LCC analysis 
assumes that the analysis period is the lifetime of the baseline lamp. 
Any lamps at higher efficacy levels that have longer lifetimes than 
that of the baseline product incorporate a residual value into the 
life-cycle cost, which subtracts the value of the lamp at the end of 
the analysis period from the total life-cycle cost. Thus, the residual 
values of the longer lifetime lamps increase the LCC savings.
    NEMA commented that the increased efficacy of the EL 1 proposed in 
the NOPR would result in a 30 percent reduction in lifetime,\61\ 
meaning a total loss of financial feasibility as the payback period 
would be longer than the lifetime of the more efficacious lamps. (NEMA, 
No. 54 at p. 29)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ NEMA cited the following reference for this calculation: 
Vukcevich, Milan R. The Science of Incandescence. NELA Press, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE recognizes that there is an inverse relationship between 
efficacy and lifetime for IRLs. The engineering analysis focuses on 
commercially available products and DOE does not analyze efficacy 
levels that require shorter lifetimes than the baseline product. 
However, DOE is aware that to meet higher efficacy levels, 
manufacturers can choose to produce lamps with shorter lifetimes than 
the baseline lamp to achieve higher efficacies. Given that 
manufacturers responded to the July 2012 standards by introducing IRLs 
with shorter lifetimes, DOE understands this is a likely path 
manufacturers may take in response to higher standards. To capture the 
impacts of the relationship between lifetime and efficacy in IRLs, DOE 
determined how much the lifetime of a lamp with the same wattage as the 
baseline lamp must be shortened to achieve each efficacy level in the 
final rule analysis. (See chapter 5 of the final rule TSD for further 
information.) The impact of these shortened lifetime lamps are assessed 
as sensitivities in the LCC, NIA, and MIA. (See respectively, appendix 
8B, chapter 12, and appendix 13B of the final rule TSD). For the 
shortened lifetime sensitivity, because the wattage is the same as the 
baseline, there are no energy savings and therefore, the LCC savings 
are negative and a payback period cannot be calculated.

H. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

    In analyzing the potential impact of new or amended standards on 
consumers, DOE evaluates the impact on identifiable subgroups of 
consumers (e.g., low-income households) that a national standard may 
disproportionately affect. In the NOPR analysis, DOE evaluated low-
income consumers and institutions that serve low-income populations 
(e.g., small nonprofits) as subgroups. DOE did not receive any comments 
regarding subgroups and therefore maintained this approach for 
assessing consumer subgroups in the final rule analysis. Chapter 9 of 
the final rule TSD presents the results of the consumer subgroup 
analysis.

I. Shipments Analysis

    DOE uses projections of product shipments to calculate the national 
impacts of standards on energy use, NPV, and future manufacturer cash 
flows. DOE develops shipment projections based on historical data and 
an analysis of key market drivers for each product. Historical 
shipments data are used to build up a product stock and also to 
calibrate the shipments model. The details of the shipments model are 
described in chapter 11 of the final rule TSD.
    The shipments model projects shipments of GSFLs and IRLs over a 30-
year analysis period for the base case (no standards) and for all 
standards cases. Separate shipments projections are calculated for the 
residential sector and for the commercial and industrial sectors. The 
shipments model used to estimate GSFL and IRL lamp shipments for this 
rulemaking has four main interacting elements: (1) A lamp demand module 
that estimates the demand for GSFL and IRL lighting for each year of 
the analysis period; (2) a price-learning module, which projects future 
prices based on historic price trends; (3) substitution matrices, which 
specify the product choices available to consumers (lamps as well as 
lamp-and-ballast combinations for fluorescent lamps) depending on 
whether they are renovating lighting systems, installing lighting 
systems in new construction, or simply replacing lamps; and (4) a 
market-share module that assigns shipments to product classes, 
ballasts, and lamp options, based on consumer sensitivities to first 
costs (prices) and operation and maintenance costs.
    The lamp demand module first estimates the lumen demand for GSFL 
and IRL lighting. The lumen demand calculation assumes that sector-
specific lighting capacity (maximum lumen output of installed lamps) 
remains fixed per square foot of floor space over the analysis period. 
Floor space changes over the analysis period according to the EIA's AEO 
2014 projections of residential and commercial floor space; industrial 
floor space is assumed to grow at the same rate as commercial floor 
space. A lamp turnover calculation estimates shipments of lamps in each 
year given the initial stock, the expected lifetimes of the lamps (and 
ballasts for GSFLs), and sector-specific assumptions on operating 
hours. The turnover model attempts to meet the lumen demand as closely 
as possible, subject to the constraint that the areal density of 
lighting fixtures is fixed for existing buildings that are not 
renovated.
    The lamp demand module accounts for the penetration of LED lighting 
into the GSFL and IRL markets. The reference assumption for LED market 
penetration is based on projections developed for DOE's Solid-State 
Lighting (SSL) Program.\62\ The SSL Program projections extend only to 
2030; DOE extrapolated to the end of the shipments forecast period. DOE 
fitted the technology adoption curve to allow for an entire market 
takeover by LEDs. Given the best fit to the SSL forecast, DOE estimates 
that LEDs will achieve close to 100 percent penetration in both the 
GSFL and IRL markets by 2046.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Navigant Consulting, Inc. Energy Savings Potential of 
Solid-State Lighting in General Illumination Applications. U.S. DOE 
Solid State Lighting Program, January 2012. Available at http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/ssl_energy-savings-report_jan-2012.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The shipments model accounts for the use of lighting controls, 
including dimming and on-off controls, because controls affect ballast 
and lamp requirements and, therefore, lifetimes and shipments. The 
reference assumption for lighting system controls for the commercial 
sector is that state building energy code requirements for lighting 
controls remain constant at current levels, as does the ratio of 
voluntary to code-driven demand. Because code provisions are 
implemented only in new construction and building renovations that meet 
certain threshold requirements, code-driven implementation of lighting 
controls grows in slowly over time.
    The price-learning module estimates lamp and ballast prices in each 
year of the analysis period using a standard price-learning model.\63\ 
The model is

[[Page 4090]]

calibrated using three decades of historic data on the volume and value 
of fluorescent and PAR lamp shipments in the U.S. market, from which 
cumulative shipments and average prices are derived. Prices and 
cumulative shipments are fit to an experience curve. They are then 
augmented in each subsequent year of the analysis based on the 
shipments determined for the prior year by the module that assigns 
shipments to product classes and ELs. The current year's shipments, in 
turn, affect the subsequent year's prices. As shown in chapter 11 of 
the final rule TSD, because fluorescent and PAR lamps have been on the 
market for decades, cumulative shipments are changing slowly. 
Therefore, experience curve effects are relatively small--an effect 
that is further constrained by the expected incursion of solid-state 
lighting into the GSFL and IRL markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ For discussion of approaches for incorporating learning in 
regulatory analysis, see Taylor, Margaret, and Sydny K. Fujita. 
Accounting for Technological Change in Regulatory Impact Analyses: 
The Learning Curve Technique. Berkeley: Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory, 2013. LBNL-6195E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The market-share module apportions the lamp and ballast shipments 
in each year among the different product classes, ballast types, and 
lamp options based on consumer sensitivities to first costs and 
operation and maintenance costs. To determine the prices used as inputs 
to the market-share module, DOE uses the ballast prices, weighted-
average lamp prices, and installation costs developed in the 
engineering and LCC analyses. The operation and maintenance costs are 
based on the power required to operate a particular lamp-and-ballast 
system, the price of electricity, and the annualized cost of lamp 
replacements over the lifetime of that system. To enable a fair 
comparison between systems with different light output, the module 
considers the prices and operating and maintenance costs computed per 
kilolumen of light output. For consumers replacing lamps on existing 
ballasts, only the lamp-related prices and energy costs are considered 
by the market-share module. For consumers replacing an entire lamp-and-
ballast system, the full price of the system, as well as the energy and 
annualized relamping costs, are considered.
    The ballast types and lamp options considered in the shipments 
model were determined in the engineering analysis. Whereas the earlier 
analyses considered only lamp-and-ballast combinations that did not 
increase energy relative to the baseline system, the shipments analysis 
allows consumers to choose among different lamp-and-ballast systems. 
These lamp-and-ballast combinations include full wattage and reduced 
wattage lamps coupled to ballasts with high, normal, or low ballast 
factors, and dimming ballasts. Programmed start and instant start 
ballasts are also considered separately, where appropriate. DOE limits 
or excludes lamp-and-ballast combinations that DOE's research indicates 
would not provide acceptable performance or would only do so in limited 
circumstances. The remaining combinations allow for a variety of 
different energy-saving and non-energy-saving options relative to the 
baseline. Details of the selection of allowable lamp-and-ballast 
combinations are given in chapter 11 of the final rule TSD.
    The market-share module allows for the possibility that consumers 
will switch among the different product classes, ballast types, and 
lamp options over time. Substitution matrices were developed to specify 
the product choices available to consumers (lamps as well as lamp-and-
ballast combinations), depending on whether they are retrofitting 
lighting systems, renovating the lighted space, installing lighting 
systems in new construction, or simply replacing lamps, and depending 
on the particular lighting application. In this way, the module assigns 
market shares to the different product classes, ballast types, and ELs 
based on historical observations of consumer sensitivity to price and 
to operating and maintenance costs.
    DOE projects that some fraction of the lighting market currently 
being served by T8 lamps will migrate to T5 lamps in the absence of 
standards. At the NOPR stage, DOE projected that the standards in this 
rulemaking would make certain T5 systems more cost competitive relative 
to certain T8 systems, resulting in an increase in the rate of this T8 
to T5 lamp migration. DOE received comments regarding product class 
switching between T8 lamps and T5 lamps. Philips, NEMA, and GE 
commented that consumers will not switch from T8 lamps to T5 lamps. 
Philips and NEMA stated that T5s have been on the market for 20 years 
and have not been used as substitutes for T8s. NEMA and GE mentioned 
that T5 lamps are shorter than T8 lamps; therefore, T5 lamps cannot be 
used to retrofit T8 fixtures and vice versa. Philips, NEMA, and GE also 
noted that T5 and T8 lamps are used in different applications. Because 
T5 lamps have higher luminance than T8 lamps, T5 lamps are typically 
used in indirect fixtures or places with high ceiling heights, whereas 
T8 lamps are used in direct fixtures or places with lower ceiling 
heights. Hence Philips, NEMA, and GE stated that these lamps cannot be 
used interchangeably. (Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 
163-164; GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 163, p. 167-168; 
NEMA, No. 54 at p. 14, p. 46)
    DOE is aware that there are physical and optical differences 
between T8 and T5 lamps. DOE assumes in its modeling for this 
rulemaking that switching between T8 and T5 lamps does not occur during 
retrofits. The potential for substitution of 4-foot MBP and 8-foot 
slimline with T5 SO Lamps is only assumed at the time of new 
construction and renovation, when a new luminaire would be specified. 
DOE's analysis indicates that there exist T5 luminaires that compete 
directly with 4-foot MBP T8 luminaires in most applications in the 
largest luminaire markets (e.g., commercial offices, education, 
industrial). In some cases, luminaire manufacturers offer essentially 
identical luminaires in 4-foot T8 and T5 versions. Therefore, DOE 
believes that the switching from T8s to T5s estimated in the NOPR, and 
in the final rule, is reasonable. See appendix 11C of the final rule 
TSD for examples of these luminaires and a discussion of DOE's analysis 
of the substitution potential for 4-foot MBP and T5 SO Lamps.
    NEMA noted that first cost is a significant driver of consumers' 
choice of product class and, as a consequence, higher initial T8 lamp 
costs would drive consumers to T5 products or LED products in new 
construction and renovation projects. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 46) This 
comment is consistent with DOE's assumptions in the analysis for this 
rulemaking.
    NEMA noted that, even if the standards required the 4-foot MBP T8 
to increase phosphor use, T5 lamps would remain more expensive than T8 
lamps owing to differences in manufacturing technology. (NEMA, No. 54 
at p. 34) DOE determined the end-user prices of lamps by applying a 
shipment-weighted discount to the blue book price of the lamp. In 
certain cases the end-user prices for 4-foot MBP T8 lamps are higher 
than for T5 MiniBP SO lamps (see chapter 7 of the final rule TSD). At 
max tech, the full-wattage 4-foot MBP T8 lamp end-user prices are 
higher than the full wattage T5 MiniBP SO.
    NEMA also commented that T5 lamp sales are not from T8 consumers 
but are mainly from consumers switching from older inefficient 
technology, like HID lamps. However, NEMA added that this rulemaking 
would slow down the transition from HID products to T5 lamps. (NEMA, 
No. 54 at p. 47)
    In its assessment of the market, DOE did not find any T5 HO lamps 
at the baseline efficacy level considered here.

[[Page 4091]]

Thus, the amended standard represents the least efficacious T5 HO lamps 
on the market. For this reason DOE believes that this standard will 
have no impact on the transition from HID to T5 technology.
    NEMA noted that the inability of non-PAR38 lamps to meet the 
proposed standard would cause consumers to switch to either expensive 
LED lamps or BR lamps that consume more energy than PAR lamps. NEMA 
calculated that the overall energy savings could be negative. (NEMA, 
No. 54 at pp. 20, 29) NEMA stated that significant energy savings would 
be lost under the proposed standards due to forcing halogen PAR30 lamp 
consumers to switch to LED lamps, the reduced wattage 39W PAR30 lamps, 
or 65W BR30 lamps after PAR30 lamps are eliminated from the market. 
NEMA and GE predicted that the majority of consumers would switch to 
the BR30 lamps, which would cause an increase of 97 kWh per year, an 
inadvertent increase of 0.03 quads of energy. NEMA stated that, given 
the popularity of these IRLs and the alternative lamps once they are 
eliminated, no new standard should be set for PAR30 lamps. (NEMA, No. 
54 at pp. 48-49; GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 121-122) 
ASAP noted that there are substitute lamps outside of the scope of this 
rulemaking and that DOE needed to consider what consumer choices could 
be made among the unregulated product options. (ASAP, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 114-115) GE disagreed and stated that 
consumers purchase quite a number of regulated products, such as PAR20, 
PAR30, and 90W PAR38 lamps. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at 
pp. 115-116)
    DOE's analysis indicates that there are PAR30 and PAR20 products on 
the market that meet EL 1. DOE recognizes that BR lamps are potential 
substitutes for non-PAR38 IRLs. However, given the large price 
difference between PAR and BR lamps in the current market, DOE believes 
that all consumers currently using PAR lamps are obtaining a unique 
utility from the PAR lamps for which they are willing to pay a 
substantial price premium. Thus, DOE believes that all potential 
switching from PAR to BR lamps has already taken place. DOE accounts 
for some consumers shifting to LED lamps with the use of an LED market 
adoption curve.
    The market-share module incorporates a limit on the diffusion of 
new technology into the market using the widely accepted Bass adoption 
model,\64\ the parameters of which are based on historic penetration 
rates of new lighting technologies into the market. It also accounts 
for other observed deviations from purely price- and cost-driven 
behavior using an acceptance factor, which sets an upper limit on the 
market share of certain product classes and lamp options that DOE 
research indicates are acceptable only to a subset of the market. The 
available options depend on the case under consideration; in each of 
the standards cases corresponding to the different TSLs, only those 
lamp options at or above the particular standard level in each product 
class are considered to be available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Bass, F.M. A New Product Growth Model for Consumer 
Durables. Management. 1969. 15(5): pp. 215-227.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because DOE executes the market-share module for the base case and 
each of the standards cases independently, the shipments analysis 
allows for the possibility that setting a standard on one product class 
could shift market share toward a different product class. The costs 
and benefits accruing to consumers from such market share shifts are 
fully accounted for in the NIA.
    When the shipments model selects lamps for replacement, retrofit, 
renovation, or new construction, it accepts only lamps or lamp-and-
ballast combinations that retain lumen capacity within acceptable 
bounds.
    As discussed previously, based on manufacturer feedback, DOE 
determined that consumers would not notice a change in light output 
that is up to 10 percent, and that some consumers will choose to reduce 
light levels beyond 10 percent to conserve energy. Accordingly, in the 
shipments analysis, DOE assumes that consumers choose between lighting 
systems within 10 percent of current light output by considering the 
trade-off between first cost and operating costs, and not the relative 
light output. In this approach, systems that save energy in a cost-
effective way will tend to be selected over systems that increase light 
output without saving energy. DOE further assumes that the fraction of 
the market that will accept larger reductions in lumen output is fixed 
throughout the analysis period. The size of this market segment was 
estimated from the current market share of reduced wattage lamps that 
reduce light levels by more than 10 percent compared to the baseline 
lamp. The model does not allow cumulative reductions in light levels. 
The model retains national average light levels within 10 percent of 
the average level at the beginning of the analysis period. No potential 
standards considered in this analysis lead to average light levels 
outside of this range.
    DOE is aware of the substantial impact of the ballast and lamp 
choice on the energy consumption of a lamp-and-ballast system. As 
discussed earlier in this section, the shipments analysis explicitly 
models the possibility that consumers will choose to reduce their 
ballast factor during a renovation or retrofit or switch to reduced 
wattage lamps when relamping an existing system. In addition, this 
analysis models the growth of dimming ballasts in the market and allows 
a variety of lamps to be coupled to dimming ballasts to achieve a fixed 
light output. Thus, when high-efficacy lamps are coupled to dimming 
ballasts, the overall energy savings are greater than those that are 
achieved when lower efficacy lamps are coupled to dimming ballasts. DOE 
assigns market share to these lamp-and-ballast pairings using a model 
based on historical consumer sensitivity to price and operating costs. 
When a particular pairing saves energy in a cost-effective manner 
compared to other pairings, its market share is increased compared to 
less cost-effective options. As in the NOPR analysis, DOE did not 
consider delamping in this final rule because manufacturer feedback 
confirmed that delamping is not common practice when retrofitting 
existing T8 systems as lumen output levels have already been reduced to 
comply with newer recommended lighting levels and building codes. The 
shipments model, however, allows for the possibility that consumers 
will alter the number of lamps per square foot during renovations to 
maintain light levels.
    NEMA noted that future installations or retrofits would not 
adequately ``tune'' lamp and ballast pairings, by manipulating the 
ballast factor, especially during the maintenance phase of system 
lifetime when lamps and ballasts get replaced on a case-by-case basis. 
Furthermore, without this ballast tuning, consumers would have 
increased light density with the same energy consumption as the 
previous lamp-and-ballast system had. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 18 and 36)
    DOE is aware that the ballast factor is not typically modified 
during the maintenance phase of a lamp-ballast system. DOE assumes in 
its modeling for this rulemaking that any tuning of the ballast and 
lamp pairing does not occur during the maintenance phase. Adequate 
tuning is only assumed at the time of new construction, renovation, and 
retrofitting.
    GE and NEMA disagreed with the assumption that ballast factors can 
be

[[Page 4092]]

tuned to maintain the same light output. They both stated that ballast 
factors are only available in 10 percent increments while the resulting 
increase in efficacy is only about 2-3 percent. They commented that 
consumers will keep the same ballast factor for retrofits, which means 
that the lamps will still consume the same amount of energy but will be 
giving 2-3 percent more lumen output. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 49 at p.196-198; NEMA, No. 54 at p. 18)
    DOE is aware that ballast factors tend to cluster around modal 
values that are separated by roughly 10 percent. However, in analyzing 
the market, DOE identified ballasts with a broad range of ballast 
factors that were not restricted to these modal values. Moreover, DOE 
notes that the increase in lumen output from the baseline to the full-
wattage EL 2 lamp is 7 percent for 4-ft MBP lamps, and 16 percent for 
T5 SO lamps. DOE believes that, for consumers undertaking renovations, 
lighting retrofits, and new construction, the selection of ballast 
factor will be informed by the lamps available on the market and that 
an increased fraction of consumers will choose lower ballast factors 
than are now typical if typical lamp lumen ratings increase.
    DOE notes that full wattage lamp options are available for all 
product classes at all efficacy levels considered in this analysis. 
DOE's research indicates that krypton gas is generally used to reduce 
the wattage of lamps and that full wattage lamps can generally be 
dimmed reliably. Also, as discussed previously, DOE found that dimming 
ballasts for 4-foot MBP lamps are commonly marketed as compatible with 
reduced wattage lamps, which are presumably krypton filled. 
Accordingly, in the shipments analysis and the NIA, DOE allows all full 
wattage lamp options to be coupled to dimming ballasts. DOE also 
allowed reduced wattage options in the 4-foot MBP category to be 
coupled to dimming ballasts, but, because the range of applications for 
this combination is restricted, DOE limits its market share in the 
analysis.
    NEMA provided their Ballast Section market survey data, indicating 
that dimming ballast sales decreased between 2010 and 2013. NEMA 
acknowledged that CA Title 24 and ASHRAE 90.1 may increase these 
shipments, but stated that the increase in shipments could not be 
properly estimated at this time due to their recent or sporadic 
adoption. NEMA noted that the last rulemaking constrained this 
decreasing market. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 33, p. 35, p. 47)
    DOE thanks NEMA for the input on dimming ballast shipments. DOE 
believes that, given the many recently updated commercial building 
codes that require lighting controls, the market share of dimming 
ballasts is very likely to increase in the future and that the recent 
decline is likely transitory. Therefore, DOE has modeled the fraction 
of commercial floorspace that is subject to such codes and utilizes 
this in its analysis to estimate the future market share of dimming 
ballasts, based on current usage of dimming in fluorescent lighting 
systems.
    Rare earth oxides (REOs) are used in GSFL phosphors to increase 
their efficacy. The shipments model considers the potential impact of 
changes in rare earth oxide prices on fluorescent lamp prices and, 
thereby, on GSFL shipments. Large increases in rare earth oxide prices 
in 2010 and 2011 raised manufacturer concerns that future price 
increases could have adverse impacts on the market. DOE developed 
shipments scenarios in its NOPR to reflect uncertainties in the prices 
of rare earth oxides.
    NEMA noted that the prices during the last REO crisis increased by 
400 to 700 percent. Due to decreased REO prices and subsequent slowing 
of REO supply expansion, NEMA mentioned the possibility of another 
price increase as future supplies are uncertain. Therefore, NEMA 
suggested that DOE revise the estimates of the high end of possible 
prices to 700 percent of current prices. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 34-35)
    DOE has examined the rare earth oxide market and still considers 
future rare earth prices significantly uncertain. DOE considered two 
price scenarios in its shipments modeling for GSFLs, as described in 
appendix 11B of the final rule TSD. The reference scenario assumes that 
rare earth prices remain fixed at their June 2014 level. The high rare 
earth price scenario assumes an average rare earth price 4.5 times the 
reference level, representing a value that is half way between the low 
pre-2010 baseline price and the 2011 peak price. This scenario 
represents the average price of regular price fluctuations between the 
peak and baseline amounts. DOE notes that the high rare earth price 
scenario represents a high price volatility scenario where the price 
could fluctuate at higher or lower levels than 4.5 times the baseline 
rare earth price.

J. National Impact Analysis--National Energy Savings and Net Present 
Value Analysis

    The NIA assesses the NES and the national NPV of total consumer 
costs and savings expected to result from amended standards for GSFLs 
and IRLs at specific efficacy levels. Analyzing impacts of potential 
energy conservation standards for GSFLs and IRLs requires comparing 
projections of total energy consumption with amended energy 
conservation standards to projections of energy consumption without the 
standards (the base case).
    As the shipments model allows for substitutions across product 
classes when lighting systems are selected during renovation or new 
construction, understanding the impact of setting a standard at any 
given level for any given product class requires considering the impact 
on all other product classes. Therefore, in addition to conducting the 
analysis for the covered products as a whole, DOE evaluated the NPV and 
NES by product class to determine the impact of consumer switching 
between product classes. The NIA was developed in a Microsoft Excel 
spreadsheet,\65\ allowing access to a broad range of scenario 
assumptions for conducting sensitivity analyses on specific input 
values. The major inputs for the NIA are described in Table VI.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Available at www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/24.

          Table VI.10--Inputs for the National Impact Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Input                             Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments.........................  Annual shipments from shipments
                                     model.
Compliance date of standard.......  January 1, 2018.
Base case efficiencies............  Estimated by market-share module of
                                     shipments model.
Standards case efficiencies.......  Estimated by market-share module of
                                     shipments model.
Annual energy consumption per unit  Calculated for each efficacy level
                                     and product class based on inputs
                                     from the energy use analysis.

[[Page 4093]]

 
Total installed cost per unit.....  Lamp prices by efficacy level,
                                     ballast prices by ballast type, and
                                     lamp and ballast installation
                                     costs. The weighted-average prices
                                     and installation costs developed in
                                     the engineering analysis and LCC
                                     analysis were used.
Electricity expense per unit......  Annual energy use for each product
                                     class is multiplied by the
                                     corresponding average energy price.
Escalation of electricity prices..  AEO 2014 forecasts (to 2040) and
                                     extrapolation beyond 2040.
Electricity site-to-primary energy  A time series conversion factor;
 conversion.                         includes electric generation,
                                     transmission, and distribution
                                     losses.
Discount rates....................  3% and 7% real.
Present year......................  2014.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. National Energy Savings
    The inputs for determining the NES for each product class are: (1) 
Lamp shipments; (2) annual energy consumption per unit; (3) installed 
stocks of lamps (coupled to each analyzed ballast type for GSFLs) in 
each year; and (4) site-to-primary energy and FFC conversion factors. 
The lamp stocks were calculated by the shipments model for each year of 
the analysis period from the prior year's stock, minus retirements, 
plus new shipments, accounting for lamp and ballast lifetimes. DOE 
calculated the national electricity consumption in each year by 
multiplying the number of units of each product class and EL in the 
stock by each unit's power consumption and operating hours. The power 
consumption is determined by the lamp wattage and, for each GSFL, by 
the ballast type to which each lamp is coupled. The operating hours are 
estimated by taking a weighted average of the distributions developed 
in the LCC analysis. The electricity savings are estimated from the 
difference in national electricity consumption by GSFLs between the 
base case (without new standards) and each of the standards cases for 
lamps shipped during the 2018-2047 period.
    DOE accounted for the impact of lighting system controls on 
lighting energy use as well as on lamp shipments, as discussed in the 
previous section. DOE understands that many lighting control systems 
may not achieve the savings for which they were designed. Accordingly, 
the estimated average energy reduction from controls is based on a 
meta-analysis of studies on the performance of actual lighting controls 
systems in the field.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Williams, A., B. Atkinson, K. Garbesi, E. Page, and F. 
Rubinstein (2012). Lighting controls in commercial buildings. Leukos 
8(3): 161-180. www.ies.org/leukos/samples/1_Jan12.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEMA requested clarification on DOE's assumption that no individual 
reduced wattage lamp option will be coupled to more than 10 percent of 
the dimming ballasts in the installed stock, owing to performance 
problems that may arise in some applications. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 33) 
NEMA further commented that DOE cannot assume energy savings from 
pairing 28W energy-saver lamps with dimming ballasts, as DOE cannot 
presume that consumers will tolerate not having full dimming 
functionality with these lamps. NEMA specified that DOE must remove all 
energy savings estimated to result from the energy-saver lamps in this 
scenario and instead assume full-wattage lamps would be installed. 
(NEMA, No. 54 at p. 36)
    In its assessment of the market, DOE noted the presence of T8 
dimming ballasts whose marketing materials indicated compatibility with 
reduced wattage lamps. Therefore, DOE believes that at least some 
consumers with dimming ballasts would consider coupling them to such 
lamps. DOE is aware, however, that in some cases significant 
performance degradation is possible when coupling reduced wattage lamps 
to dimming ballasts. Therefore, DOE assumed that only a small fraction 
of consumers with dimming ballasts would consider purchasing reduced 
wattage lamps to install on their ballasts. Specifically, DOE took this 
fraction to be 10 percent of consumers who have dimming ballasts. This 
represents the fraction of consumers who would consider such a lamp-
ballast combination among the set of plausible options; not all such 
consumers will in fact decide to purchase reduced wattage lamps. Thus, 
the fraction of dimming ballasts that are coupled to reduced wattage 
lamps remains exceedingly small in DOE's projections throughout the 
analysis period.
    NEMA commented that, although 4-foot T8 argon lamps can have 
efficacies of 89, 90, 91, or 92.4 lumens per watt, at different 
efficacies these lamps will still operate at the same wattages, and 
instead they would just provide different illumination. Therefore, NEMA 
stated that there is no meaningful difference in national energy use 
impact from choosing any of these three levels above 89 lm/W. 
Furthermore, NEMA added that an energy conservation standard for 4-foot 
MBP GSFLs at 89 lm/W will maintain consumer utility as well as increase 
national energy savings by increasing use of dimming systems. (NEMA, 
No. 54 at p. 14)
    DOE does not agree that lamps at different efficacies will still 
operate at the same wattages. DOE considers two modes by which energy 
savings can be achieved with full-wattage lamps. First, when using more 
efficacious lamps, consumers with dimming ballasts may dim their 
systems to a lower input wattage to achieve the same light output. 
Second, consumers undertaking renovations, lighting retrofits, and new 
construction may select lower ballast factors on average if only high-
efficacy lamps are available on the market. Regarding NEMA's claim that 
a standard at 89 lm/W will increase national energy savings by 
maintaining utility and increasing use of dimming systems, DOE has 
ensured that, at all ELs considered for 4-foot MBP lamps, lamp options 
are available that can be coupled to dimming systems. Therefore DOE 
does not believe that this final rule will negatively impact the energy 
savings that is available from dimming.
    DOE accounts for the direct rebound effect in its NES analysis. 
Direct rebound reflects the idea that, as appliances become more 
efficient, consumers use more of their service because their operating 
cost is reduced. In the case of lighting, the rebound could be 
manifested in increased hours of use or in increased lighting density 
(fixtures per square foot). Based on information evaluated for the 
preliminary analysis, DOE assumed no rebound for the residential or 
commercial lighting in its reference scenario for the final rule 
analysis.
    NEMA commented that, if light levels are reduced through energy-
saver lamps or lower ballast factor ballasts, end users

[[Page 4094]]

could offset the reduction in light levels by increasing the GSFL use 
or through other technologies, thereby reducing the energy-saving 
benefit. NEMA referenced an article and a report that they believe 
support their point of view. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 36) Additionally, 
Miller commented that DOE should evaluate whether there was a 
measurable rebound effect resulting from use of more energy-efficient 
lamps. (Miller, No. 50 at p. 12)
    DOE is not aware of any methodologically sound studies that have 
quantified a direct rebound effect for lighting efficacy improvement in 
commercial buildings, where most GSFLs are used. As discussed in 
chapter 12 of the final rule TSD, DOE did not find evidence of 
systematic increases in operating hours or lighting density of GSFLs or 
IRLs with increased efficacy of these products. The items mentioned by 
NEMA refer to the potential for higher lighting demand when consumers 
start using LEDs. DOE believes that adoption of LEDs would not be 
impacted by the standards in this notice, so any rebound effect 
associated with this lighting technology is not germane. Based on the 
weight of the evidence, DOE assumed zero rebound for GSFLs or IRLs with 
increased efficacy. DOE also conducted a sensitivity analysis assuming 
a high rebound rate of 15 percent, which is presented in chapter 12 of 
the final rule TSD. Using a high rebound rate does not change the 
relative ranking of the considered TSLs.
    DOE converted the site electricity consumption and savings to 
primary energy (power sector energy consumption) using annual 
conversion factors derived from the AEO 2014 version of NEMS. 
Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the NES for each year in which 
product shipped during 2018 through 2047 continue to operate.
    DOE has historically presented NES in terms of primary energy 
savings. In 2011, response to the recommendations of a committee on 
``Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy 
Efficiency Standards'' appointed by the National Academy of Science, 
DOE announced its intention to use FFC measures of energy use and 
emissions in the NIA and emissions analysis included in future energy 
conservation standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (August 18, 2011). 
After evaluating the approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011 
notice, DOE published a statement of amended policy in the Federal 
Register in which DOE explained its determination that NEMS is the most 
appropriate tool for its FFC analysis and its intention to use NEMS for 
that purpose. 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012). Therefore DOE is using a 
NEMS-based approach to conduct FFC analyses for this rule. This 
approach is further described in appendix 12C of the final rule TSD.
    GE and NEMA stated that there are no energy savings from switching 
from T8 lamps to T5 lamps. GE mentioned that, although the efficacies 
of T5 lamps are measured at high frequency and T8 lamps are measured at 
low frequency, the lamps have similar efficacies. (GE, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 49 at p. 163) NEMA commented that the efficiencies of 
T8 and T5 lamps are not directly comparable, because the efficiencies 
are measured differently. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 14, p. 46) NEMA further 
added that the T5 lamp-ballast systems have the same power consumption 
as the equivalent T8 lamp-ballast systems. (GE, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 49 at p. 163; NEMA, No. 54 at p. 46)
    DOE does not assume an automatic energy savings from switching from 
a T8 system to a T5 system. The energy use of a lamp-and-ballast system 
is calculated using the wattage of the installed lamps as well as the 
ballast factor and ballast luminous efficacy of the ballast on which 
the lamps are installed. DOE notes that, while it does not assume 
automatic energy savings of a T5 system compared to a T8 system, there 
are T5 lamp-and-ballast combinations (e.g., low ballast factor ballast 
coupled with high efficacy lamps) that can have lower power consumption 
compared to a T8 system of similar light output. Further, DOE agrees 
that testing on high frequency circuits versus low frequency circuits 
impacts efficacy measurements. Per DOE test procedure, GSFLs are tested 
at low frequency unless only high frequency reference ballast 
specifications are available. The T5 MiniBP SO and HO lamps and 8-foot 
RDC HO should be tested on high frequency circuits, as those are the 
only specifications provided for these lamp types. The 4-foot MBP, 2-
foot U-shaped and 8-foot SP slimline lamps should be tested on low 
frequency circuits. Therefore, within each product class, the lamp 
efficacies should be comparable, however, efficacies of lamps across 
product classes may not be comparable.
    NEMA noted that PAR38 lamps that currently meet the proposed 
standard are not available through consumer channels and consumers 
would lose all reasonable options for PAR lamps. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 
10) DOE understands that the availability of certain PAR lamps may be 
concentrated in the commercial sector. However, DOE does not find that 
to be a barrier to such lamps becoming available and used in other 
sectors of the market.
    NEMA noted that setting new standards for 130 V IRLs would be a 
waste of resources and would skew energy savings estimates, as the 
product is no longer available. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 54) DOE assumes in 
its analysis that there are no 130 V IRLs on the market. No energy 
savings from such products are assumed.
2. Net Present Value of Consumer Benefit
    The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits 
experienced by consumers of the considered product are: (1) Total 
annual installed cost; (2) total annual savings in operating costs; and 
(3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and 
savings. DOE calculated net savings each year as the difference between 
the base case and each standards case in terms of total savings in 
operating costs versus total increases in installed costs. DOE 
calculated savings over the lifetime of products shipped during in the 
2018-2047 period. The NPV was calculated as the difference between the 
present value of operating cost savings and the present value of total 
installed costs.
a. Total Annual Installed Cost
    The total installed cost includes both the product price and the 
installation cost. For each product class, DOE utilized weighted-
average prices for each of the lamp-and-ballast options, as well as 
installation costs, as developed in the engineering and LCC analyses. 
DOE calculated the total installed cost for each lamp-and-ballast 
option and determined annual total installed costs based on the annual 
shipments of lamps and ballasts determined in the shipments model. As 
noted in section VI.I, DOE assumed that GSFL and IRL prices decline 
slowly over the analysis period according to a learning rate developed 
from historical data.
    As discussed in section VI.I, DOE considered two price scenarios in 
its modeling for GSFLs. The reference scenario assumes that rare earth 
prices remain fixed at their June 2014 level. The high rare earth price 
scenario assumes that rare earth prices are 4.5 times higher than the 
reference level, representing a value at the midpoint of the low pre-
2010 baseline price and the peak 2011 price. The impact of the latter 
scenario on the NPV results is discussed in section VII.B.3.c.
    NEEP expressed support for DOE's REO pricing analysis (NEEP, No. 57 
at p. 3), but NEMA stated that DOE does not include an analysis of 
price

[[Page 4095]]

elasticity and consumer buying practices during previous REO shortages. 
NEMA also noted that the proposed standards would create an REO 
shortage. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 34; Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at 
pp. 180-182)
    DOE estimates that, for the amended standards, the annual increase 
in demand for REOs will be approximately 300 tons per year in the first 
5 years, which amounts to less than 1 percent of the annual 8,000-ton 
global demand for REOs used in phosphors. DOE expects that demand will 
steadily decrease over the analysis period owing to the increasing LED 
market. Therefore, DOE does not believe that the amended standards will 
cause a significant change in the supply of REOs.
    For IRLs, DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis on the potential 
impact on the rulemaking of a 10-fold increase in xenon prices. The 
impact of the scenario on the results is discussed in section 
VII.B.3.c.
b. Total Annual Operating Cost Savings
    The per-unit energy savings were derived as described in section 
III.C. To calculate future electricity prices, DOE applied the 
projected trend in national average commercial and residential 
electricity prices from the AEO 2014 Reference case, which extends to 
2040, to the energy prices derived in the LCC and PBP analysis. DOE 
used the trend from 2030 to 2040 to extrapolate beyond 2040. In 
addition, DOE analyzed scenarios that used the trends in the AEO 2014 
Low Economic Growth and High Economic Growth cases. These cases have 
energy price trends that are, respectively, lower and higher in the 
long term compared to the Reference case. These price trends, and the 
NPV results from the associated cases, are described in chapter 12 of 
the final rule TSD.
    DOE estimated that annual maintenance costs do not vary with 
efficacy within each product class, so they do not figure into the 
annual operating cost savings for a given standards case. DOE utilized 
the lamp disposal costs developed in the LCC analysis, along with the 
shipments model forecast of the lamp retirements in each year, to 
estimate the annual cost savings related to lamp disposal costs from 
extended lamp lifetime. In the NIA, DOE assumes that 30 percent of 
commercial consumers are subject to disposal costs.
    In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future 
years by a discount factor to determine their present value. In 
accordance with OMB's guidelines on regulatory analysis,\67\ DOE 
calculated the NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent real discount 
rate. The 7-percent rate is an estimate of the average before-tax rate 
of return on private capital in the U.S. economy; it reflects the 
returns on real estate and small business capital as well as corporate 
capital. This discount rate approximates the opportunity cost of 
capital in the private sector. The 3-percent rate reflects the 
potential effects of standards on private consumption (e.g., through 
higher prices for product and reduced purchases of energy). This rate 
represents the rate at which society discounts future consumption flows 
to their present value. It can be approximated by the real rate of 
return on long-term government debt (i.e., yield on U.S. Treasury 
notes), which has averaged about 3 percent for the past 30 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ OMB Circular A-4, section E (Sept. 17, 2003). Available at: 
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

K. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

    DOE conducted separate MIAs for GSFLs and IRLs to estimate the 
financial impact of potential amended energy conservation standards on 
manufacturers of GSFLs and IRLs, respectively. The MIA has both 
quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative part of the MIA 
relies on the GRIM, an industry cash-flow model customized for GSFLs 
and IRLs covered in this rulemaking. The key GRIM inputs are data on 
the industry cost structure, product costs, shipments, and assumptions 
about markups and conversion costs. The key MIA output is INPV. DOE 
used the GRIM to calculate cash flows using standard accounting 
principles and to compare changes in INPV between a base case and 
various TSLs (the standards cases). The difference in INPV between the 
base and standards cases represents the financial impact of potential 
amended energy conservation standards on GSFL and IRL manufacturers. 
Different sets of assumptions (scenarios) produce different INPV 
results. The qualitative part of the MIA addresses factors such as 
manufacturing capacity; characteristics of, and impacts on, any 
particular subgroup of manufacturers; impacts on competition; and the 
cumulative regulatory burden placed on GSFL and IRL manufacturers.
    DOE outlined its complete methodology for the MIA in the previously 
published NOPR. Also, the complete MIA is presented in chapter 13 of 
the final rule TSD.
1. Manufacturer Production Costs
    Manufacturing more efficacious lamps is typically more expensive 
than manufacturing baseline lamps due to the need for more costly 
components and materials used in the lamps as well as more extensive 
R&D to design the more efficacious lamps. The resulting changes in the 
manufacturer product costs (MPCs) of the representative lamps can 
affect the revenues, gross margins, and cash flows of lamp 
manufacturers. DOE strives to accurately model the potential changes in 
these production costs, as they are a key input for the GRIM and DOE's 
overall analysis. For the final rule, DOE updated the dollar year of 
the MPCs from 2012$, the dollar year used in the NOPR, to 2013$.
2. Shipment Projections
    Changes in sales volumes and efficacy distribution of lamps over 
time can significantly affect manufacturer finances. The GRIM estimates 
manufacturer revenues based on total unit shipment projections and the 
distribution of shipments by efficacy level. For the final rule, DOE 
slightly altered the distribution of shipments based on interested 
party comments. DOE also updated the shipments to reflect the potential 
amended standard going into effect in 2018 as opposed to 2017, the 
standard compliance date used in the NOPR. This had a negligible effect 
on the MIA results. For the MIA, the GRIM used the NIA's annual 
shipment projections from 2015, the base year, to 2047, the end of the 
analysis period. For a complete description of the shipment analysis 
see chapter 11 of the final rule TSD.
3. Markup Scenarios
    For the GSFL and IRL NOPR MIAs, DOE modeled two standards case 
markup scenarios to represent the uncertainty regarding the potential 
impacts on prices and profitability for manufacturers following the 
implementation of potential amended energy conservation standards: (1) 
A flat, or preservation of gross margin, markup scenario and (2) a 
preservation of operating profit markup scenario. Each scenario leads 
to different manufacturer markup values, which when applied to the 
inputted MPCs, result in varying revenue and cash-flow impacts.
    During the NOPR public meeting, Philips and Westinghouse commented 
that DOE should consider a third markup scenario for GSFLs where 
manufacturers are not able to maintain the absolute dollars on their 
GSFLs, as they do in the preservation of operating

[[Page 4096]]

profit, due to the increase in MPC of GSFLs as a result of amended 
energy conservation standards. Philips stated that amended standards 
could cause a total commoditization of the GSFL market, especially at 
max-tech, so the only way to differentiate products is by price. They 
also stated that since manufacturers have already established the 
pricing levels for these GSFLs, it is hard to justify an increase in 
the price after standards go into effect, as many of the big box retail 
stores are not going to accept a higher price for GSFLs. Both of the 
factors likely will result in manufacturers reducing their manufacturer 
markups. (Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 216-217; 
Westinghouse, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 221-222) Based 
on the GSFL market pricing conditions described during manufacturer 
interviews, DOE concluded that the markup scenario recommended by 
Philips and Westinghouse is a realistic markup scenario that should be 
incorporated into the MIA to reflect the range of possible outcomes 
following GSFL standards. Therefore, DOE examined the INPV impacts of a 
two-tiered markup scenario in the final rule for the GSFL MIA as a 
result of these comments. The results of this additional markup 
scenario are displayed in section VII.B.2.a, along with the rest of the 
manufacturer INPV results.
    In the two-tiered markup scenario, DOE assumed that higher efficacy 
GSFLs command a higher manufacturer markup and baseline efficacy GSFLs 
subsequently have a lower manufacturer markup. DOE estimated the 
manufacturer markups for GSFLs under a two-tier pricing strategy in the 
base case based on manufacturer interviews conducted as part of the 
NOPR analysis. In the standards case, DOE modeled the situation in 
which portfolio reduction reduces the margin of higher efficacy GSFLs 
as they become the new baseline efficacy products due to amended 
standards. This new two-tiered markup scenario represents the lower 
bound profitability markup scenario.
4. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
    Amended energy conservation standards will cause manufacturers to 
incur one-time conversion costs to bring their production facilities 
and product designs into compliance. For the MIA, DOE classified these 
one-time conversion costs into two major groups: (1) Product conversion 
costs and (2) capital conversion costs. Product conversion costs are 
one-time investments in R&D, testing, compliance, marketing, and other 
non-capitalized costs necessary to make product designs comply with 
amended standards. Capital conversion costs are one-time investments in 
property, plant, and equipment necessary to adapt or change existing 
production facilities such that new product designs can be fabricated 
and assembled. For the final rule, DOE only updated the dollar year of 
the conversion costs from 2012$, the dollar year used in the NOPR, to 
2013$.
    During the NOPR public meeting GE and Philips commented that they 
believe that IRL manufacturers would be unwilling to make large 
investments to make sure IRLs comply with energy conservation standards 
at TSL 1, since the market is changing so rapidly to LEDs and 
manufacturers might not ever be able to recover any substantial 
investment put in upgrading their IRLs. (Philips, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 49 at p. 231 & GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 a 
pp. 231-232) DOE understands manufacturers' concern with making 
significant investments in a product that is rapidly losing market 
share and projected to experience a significant decline in shipments 
over the analysis period. DOE took these manufacturers' concerns into 
account when selecting the standards for IRLs in this final rule.
5. Other Comments From Interested Parties
    During the NOPR public meeting and comment period, interested 
parties commented on the assumptions, methodology, and results of the 
NOPR MIA. DOE received comments about the potential high cost to 
manufacturers versus the relatively low energy savings for the NOPR 
standards proposed; the potential negative impacts on competition due 
to standards; and the potential impact of standards on alternative 
lighting technologies. These comments are addressed in the following 
sections.
a. High Cost to Manufacturers Versus Relatively Low Energy Savings
    NEMA and GE commented that the pending IRL standards as proposed in 
the NOPR would have a significant negative impact on IRL manufacturers' 
INPV while only marginally contributing to the projected energy 
savings. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 3-5 & GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
49 at pp. 217-218) DOE agrees that as proposed in the NOPR, the IRL 
standards at TSL 1 could reduce IRL manufacturers' INPV by up to 29.5 
percent and would save an estimated 0.013 quads. DOE carefully examines 
all potential burdens, such as a potential decrease in manufacturers' 
INPV and the cumulative regulatory burden placed on manufacturers by 
additional regulations, against potential benefits, such as energy 
savings and consumer benefits, when determining final standards. Both 
the benefits and burdens for this rulemaking were closely examined 
before making a final decision regarding the IRL standards. See section 
VII.C.3 of this final rule for a complete description of the potential 
benefits and burdens of IRL standards.
b. Impacts on Competition
    A couple of interested parties commented that DOE should use the 
Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) to examine whether potential energy 
conservation standards could significantly lessen competition in an 
industry. (Kidwell, No. 53 at pp. 1-6 & Miller, No. 50 at pp. 10-11, 
13) The HHI is used by DOJ to examine market consolidation in the case 
of potential mergers. In these cases there is clear market share 
information before and after the event being analyzed, a potential 
merger. However, when examining potential energy conservation standards 
it is more difficult to accurately predict how individual manufacturers 
will respond to potential standards.
    The decision of an individual manufacturer to make an upfront 
investment in order to comply with potential standards and remain in an 
existing market as opposed to exit the market is a complex business. 
For the GSFL and IRL rulemakings there is no technical reason any of 
the major manufacturers could not continue to manufacture compliant 
products, could maintain their current market share within an industry, 
or would be forced to exit the market. DOE acknowledges that both the 
GSFL and IRL markets are moderately concentrated markets, according to 
the HHI. However, based on manufacturer interviews, DOE does not 
believe there is any technical or proprietary reason the market share 
of either the GSFL or IRL markets would substantially change due to the 
energy conservation standards established in this final rule. 
Therefore, an analysis using the HHI would not be able to determine if 
standards lessened competition, since the market share before the 
standards would be similar to the market share after the standards.
c. Impact of GSFL and IRL Standards on Alternative Lighting 
Technologies
    NEEP commented that the MIA should account for the potential growth 
in other lighting technologies (i.e., LEDs), since alternative lighting 
sales are projected to take market share away from GSFLs and IRLs in 
the future.

[[Page 4097]]

(NEEP, No. 57 at p.3) DOE's shipment analysis does predict that LEDs 
and other alternative lighting technologies will significantly take 
more and more market share away from GSFLs and IRLs in future years. 
This growing LED market share is modeled in the base case of the 
shipment analysis when no energy conservation standards are enacted, 
and is therefore independent from any GSFL or IRL standards that are 
being analyzed in this rulemaking.
    The shipment analysis does not anticipate that consumers will shift 
to LEDs as a result of potential GSFL or IRL standards and therefore 
the total number of lighting hours fulfilled by GSFLs and IRLs is the 
same in the base case as in the standards cases. Since DOE is 
attempting to model the direct impacts of the GSFL and IRL standards 
independently from other external factors that are occurring in the 
GSFL and IRL markets, DOE does not believe it should include revenue 
from the sale of alternative lighting technologies in the MIA for GSFLs 
and IRLs. See the shipments analysis in chapter 11 of the final rule 
TSD for a complete description of how GSFL and IRL shipments change in 
response to potential GSFL and IRL standards.
6. Manufacturer Interviews
    DOE interviewed manufacturers representing more than 90 percent of 
covered GSFL and more than 80 percent of covered IRL sales in the 
United States. The NOPR interviews were in addition to the preliminary 
interviews DOE conducted as part of the preliminary analysis. DOE 
outlined the key issues for the rulemaking for GSFL and IRL 
manufacturers in the NOPR. 79 FR at 24136-7 (April 29, 2014) DOE 
considered the information received during these interviews in the 
development of the NOPR and this final rule. Comments on the NOPR 
regarding the impact of potential amended standards on manufacturers 
were discussed in the previous sections. DOE did not conduct interviews 
with manufacturers between the publication of the NOPR and this final 
rule. Also, DOE did not receive any comments on the manufacturer key 
issues identified in the NOPR.

L. Emissions Analysis

    In the emissions analysis, DOE estimated the reduction in power 
sector emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides 
(NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and mercury (Hg) 
from potential energy conservation standards for GSFLs and IRLs. In 
addition, DOE estimates emissions impacts in production activities 
(extracting, processing, and transporting fuels) that provide the 
energy inputs to power plants. These are referred to as ``upstream'' 
emissions. Together, these emissions account for the full-fuel-cycle 
(FFC). In accordance with DOE's FFC Statement of Policy (76 FR 51282 
(Aug. 18, 2011)),\68\ the FFC analysis also includes impacts on 
emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide 
(N2O), both of which are recognized as greenhouse gases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ DOE's FFC was amended in 2012 for reasons unrelated to the 
inclusion of CH4 and N2O. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 
17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE primarily conducted the emissions analysis using emissions 
factors for CO2 and most of the other gases derived from 
data in AEO 2014. Combustion emissions of CH4 and 
N2O were estimated using emissions intensity factors 
published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), GHG Emissions 
Factors Hub.\69\ DOE developed separate emissions factors for power 
sector emissions and upstream emissions. The method that DOE used to 
derive emissions factors is described in chapter 14 of the final rule 
TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ http://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/inventory/ghg-emissions.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For CH4 and N2O, DOE calculated emissions 
reduction in tons and also in terms of units of carbon dioxide 
equivalent (CO2eq). Gases are converted to CO2eq 
by multiplying the physical units by the gas' global warming potential 
(GWP) over a 100-year time horizon. Based on the Fifth Assessment 
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,\70\ DOE used 
GWP values of 28 for CH4 and 265 for N2O.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science 
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment 
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, 
T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. 
Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge 
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 
Chapter 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EIA prepares the Annual Energy Outlook using NEMS. Each annual 
version of NEMS incorporates the projected impacts of existing air 
quality regulations on emissions. AEO 2014 generally represents current 
legislation and environmental regulations, including recent government 
actions, for which implementing regulations were available as of 
October 31, 2013.
    SO2 emissions from affected electric generating units 
(EGUs) are subject to nationwide and regional emissions cap-and-trade 
programs. Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions cap on 
SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous states and the 
District of Columbia (DC). SO2 emissions from 28 eastern 
states and DC were also limited under the Clean Air Interstate Rule 
(CAIR; 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005)), which created an allowance-based 
trading program that operates along with the Title IV program. CAIR was 
remanded to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit but it remained 
in effect.\71\ In 2011, EPA issued a replacement for CAIR, the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). On August 
21, 2012, the DC Circuit issued a decision to vacate CSAPR.\72\ The 
court ordered EPA to continue administering CAIR. The emissions factors 
used for this rule, which are based on AEO 2014, assume that CAIR 
remains a binding regulation through 2040.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008); 
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    \72\ See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 
(D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 81 U.S.L.W. 3567, 81 U.S.L.W. 3696, 
81 U.S.L.W. 3702 (U.S. June 24, 2013) (No. 12-1182).
    \73\ On April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the 
judgment of the D.C. Circuit and remanded the case for further 
proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. The Supreme 
Court held in part that EPA's methodology for quantifying emissions 
that must be eliminated in certain states due to their impacts in 
other downwind states was based on a permissible, workable, and 
equitable interpretation of the Clean Air Act provision that 
provides statutory authority for CSAPR. See EPA v. EME Homer City 
Generation, No 12-1182, slip op. at 32 (U.S. April 29, 2014). On 
October 23, 2014, the DC Circuit lifted the stay of CSAPR and CSAPR 
is scheduled to go into effect (and the CAIR will sunset) as of 
January 1, 2015. Because DOE is using emissions factors based on AEO 
2014 for this rule, the final rule assumes that CAIR, not CSAPR, is 
the regulation in force. The difference between CAIR and CSAPR is 
not relevant for the purpose of DOE's analysis of SO2 
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The attainment of emissions caps is typically flexible among EGUs 
and is enforced through the use of emissions allowances and tradable 
permits. Beginning in 2016, however, SO2 emissions will 
decline significantly as a result of the Mercury and Air Toxics 
Standards (MATS) for power plants. 77 FR 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012). In the 
final MATS rule, EPA established a standard for hydrogen chloride as a 
surrogate for acid gas hazardous air pollutants (HAP), and also 
established a standard for SO2 (a non-HAP acid gas) as an 
alternative equivalent surrogate standard for acid gas HAP. The same 
controls are used to reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas; thus, 
SO2 emissions will be reduced as a result of the control 
technologies installed on coal-fired power plants to comply with the 
MATS requirements for acid gas. AEO 2014 assumes that, in order to 
continue operating, coal plants must have either flue gas 
desulfurization or dry sorbent injection

[[Page 4098]]

systems installed by 2016. Both technologies, which are used to reduce 
acid gas emissions, also reduce SO2 emissions. Under the 
MATS, emissions will be far below the cap established by CAIR, so it is 
unlikely that excess SO2 emissions allowances resulting from 
the lower electricity demand would be needed or used to permit 
offsetting increases in SO2 emissions by any regulated EGU. 
Therefore, DOE believes that energy efficiency standards will reduce 
SO2 emissions in 2016 and beyond
    CAIR established a cap on NOX emissions in 28 eastern 
States and the District of Columbia.\74\ Energy conservation standards 
are expected to have little effect on NOX emissions in those 
States covered by CAIR because excess NOX emissions 
allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand could be used to 
permit offsetting increases in NOX emissions. However, 
standards would be expected to reduce NOX emissions in the 
States not affected by the caps, so DOE estimated NOX 
emissions reductions from the standards considered in this rule for 
these States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ CSAPR also applies to NOX, and it would 
supersede the regulation of NOX under CAIR. As stated 
previously, the current analysis assumes that CAIR, not CSAPR, is 
the regulation in force. The difference between CAIR and CSAPR with 
regard to DOE's analysis of NOX is slight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MATS limit mercury emissions from power plants, but they do not 
include emissions caps. DOE estimated mercury emissions reduction using 
emissions factors based on AEO 2014, which incorporates the MATS.

M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

    As part of the development of this rule, DOE considered the 
estimated monetary benefits from the reduced emissions of 
CO2 and NOX that are expected to result from each 
of the TSLs considered. In order to make this calculation similar to 
the calculation of the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE considered the 
reduced emissions expected to result over the lifetime of products 
shipped in the forecast period for each TSL. This section summarizes 
the basis for the monetary values used for each of these emissions and 
presents the values considered in this rulemaking.
    For this rule, DOE is relying on a set of values for the social 
cost of carbon (SCC) that was developed by an interagency process. A 
summary of the basis for these values is provided in the following 
section, and a more detailed description of the methodologies used is 
provided as an appendix to chapter 15 of the final rule TSD.
1. Social Cost of Carbon
    The SCC is an estimate of the monetized damages associated with an 
incremental increase in carbon emissions in a given year. It is 
intended to include (but is not limited to) changes in net agricultural 
productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood risk, 
and the value of ecosystem services. Estimates of the SCC are provided 
in dollars per metric ton of carbon dioxide. A domestic SCC value is 
meant to reflect the value of damages in the United States resulting 
from a unit change in carbon dioxide emissions, while a global SCC 
value is meant to reflect the value of damages worldwide.
    Under section 1(b)(6) of Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), agencies must, to 
the extent permitted by law, assess both the costs and the benefits of 
the intended regulation and, recognizing that some costs and benefits 
are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a 
reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation 
justify its costs. The purpose of the SCC estimates presented here is 
to allow agencies to incorporate the monetized social benefits of 
reducing CO2 emissions into cost-benefit analyses of 
regulatory actions that have small, or ``marginal,'' impacts on 
cumulative global emissions. The estimates are presented with an 
acknowledgement of the many uncertainties involved and with a clear 
understanding that they should be updated over time to reflect 
increasing knowledge of the science and economics of climate impacts.
    As part of the interagency process that developed the SCC 
estimates, technical experts from numerous agencies met on a regular 
basis to consider public comments, explore the technical literature in 
relevant fields, and discuss key model inputs and assumptions. The main 
objective of this process was to develop a range of SCC values using a 
defensible set of input assumptions grounded in the existing scientific 
and economic literatures. In this way, key uncertainties and model 
differences transparently and consistently inform the range of SCC 
estimates used in the rulemaking process.
a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    When attempting to assess the incremental economic impacts of 
carbon dioxide emissions, the analyst faces a number of challenges. A 
report from the National Research Council points out that any 
assessment will suffer from uncertainty, speculation, and lack of 
information about: (1) Future emissions of greenhouse gases; (2) the 
effects of past and future emissions on the climate system; (3) the 
impact of changes in climate on the physical and biological 
environment; and (4) the translation of these environmental impacts 
into economic damages. As a result, any effort to quantify and monetize 
the harms associated with climate change will raise serious questions 
of science, economics, and ethics and should be viewed as provisional.
    Despite the limits of both quantification and monetization, SCC 
estimates can be useful in estimating the social benefits of reducing 
carbon dioxide emissions. The agency can estimate the benefits from 
reduced (or costs from increased) emissions in any future year by 
multiplying the change in emissions in that year by the SCC values 
appropriate for that year. The NPV of the benefits can then be 
calculated by multiplying each of these future benefits by an 
appropriate discount factor and summing across all affected years.
    It is important to emphasize that the interagency process is 
committed to updating these estimates as the science and economic 
understanding of climate change and its impacts on society improves 
over time. In the meantime, the interagency group will continue to 
explore the issues raised by this analysis and consider public comments 
as part of the ongoing interagency process.
b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon Values
    In 2009, an interagency process was initiated to offer a 
preliminary assessment of how best to quantify the benefits from 
reducing carbon dioxide emissions. To ensure consistency in how 
benefits are evaluated across Federal agencies, the Administration 
sought to develop a transparent and defensible method, specifically 
designed for the rulemaking process, to quantify avoided climate change 
damages from reduced CO2 emissions. The interagency group 
did not undertake any original analysis. Instead, it combined SCC 
estimates from the existing literature to use as interim values until a 
more comprehensive analysis could be conducted. The outcome of the 
preliminary assessment by the interagency group was a set of five 
interim values: global SCC estimates for 2007 (in 2006$) of $55, $33, 
$19, $10, and $5 per metric ton of CO2. These interim values 
represented the first sustained interagency effort within the U.S. 
government to develop an SCC for use in regulatory analysis.

[[Page 4099]]

The results of this preliminary effort were presented in several 
proposed and final rules.
c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions
    After the release of the interim values, the interagency group 
reconvened on a regular basis to generate improved SCC estimates. 
Specifically, the group considered public comments and further explored 
the technical literature in relevant fields. The interagency group 
relied on three integrated assessment models commonly used to estimate 
the SCC: the FUND, DICE, and PAGE models. These models are frequently 
cited in the peer-reviewed literature and were used in the last 
assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 
Each model was given equal weight in the SCC values that were 
developed.
    Each model takes a slightly different approach to model how changes 
in emissions result in changes in economic damages. A key objective of 
the interagency process was to enable a consistent exploration of the 
three models while respecting the different approaches to quantifying 
damages taken by the key modelers in the field. An extensive review of 
the literature was conducted to select three sets of input parameters 
for these models: climate sensitivity, socio-economic and emissions 
trajectories, and discount rates. A probability distribution for 
climate sensitivity was specified as an input into all three models. In 
addition, the interagency group used a range of scenarios for the 
socio-economic parameters and a range of values for the discount rate. 
All other model features were left unchanged, relying on the model 
developers' best estimates and judgments.
    The interagency group selected four sets of SCC values for use in 
regulatory analyses.\75\ Three sets of values are based on the average 
SCC from three integrated assessment models, at discount rates of 2.5 
percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent. The fourth set, which represents the 
95th-percentile SCC estimate across all three models at a 3-percent 
discount rate, is included to represent higher-than-expected impacts 
from climate change further out in the tails of the SCC distribution. 
The values grow in real terms over time. Additionally, the interagency 
group determined that a range of values from 7 percent to 23 percent 
should be used to adjust the global SCC to calculate domestic 
effects,\76\ although preference is given to consideration of the 
global benefits of reducing CO2 emissions. Table VI.11 
presents the values in the 2010 interagency group report, which is 
reproduced in appendix 15A of the final rule TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under 
Executive Order 12866. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 
Carbon, United States Government, February 2010. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-for-RIA.pdf.
    \76\ It is recognized that this calculation for domestic values 
is approximate, provisional, and highly speculative. There is no a 
priori reason why domestic benefits should be a constant fraction of 
net global damages over time.

                     Table VI.11--Annual SCC Values From 2010 Interagency Report, 2010-2050
                                      [In 2007 dollars per metric ton CO2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Discount rate %
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         5               3              2.5              3
                      Year                       ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       95th
                                                      Average         Average         Average       Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010............................................             4.7            21.4            35.1            64.9
2015............................................             5.7            23.8            38.4            72.8
2020............................................             6.8            26.3            41.7            80.7
2025............................................             8.2            29.6            45.9            90.4
2030............................................             9.7            32.8            50.0           100.0
2035............................................            11.2            36.0            54.2           109.7
2040............................................            12.7            39.2            58.4           119.3
2045............................................            14.2            42.1            61.7           127.8
2050............................................            15.7            44.9            65.0           136.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SCC values used for the rule were generated using the most 
recent versions of the three integrated assessment models that have 
been published in the peer-reviewed literature.\77\ Table VI.12 shows 
the updated sets of SCC estimates from the 2013 interagency update in 
five-year increments from 2010 to 2050. Appendix 15B of the final rule 
TSD provides the full set of values. The central value that emerges is 
the average SCC across models at 3-percent discount rate. However, for 
purposes of capturing the uncertainties involved in regulatory impact 
analysis, the interagency group emphasizes the importance of including 
all four sets of SCC values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for 
Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Interagency 
Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government. 
May 2013; revised November 2013. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf.

                     Table VI.12--Annual SCC Values From 2013 Interagency Update, 2010-2050
                                      [In 2007 dollars per metric ton CO2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Discount rate %
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         5               3              2.5              3
                      Year                       ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       95th
                                                      Average         Average         Average       Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010............................................              11              32              51              89
2015............................................              11              37              57             109
2020............................................              12              43              64             128

[[Page 4100]]

 
2025............................................              14              47              69             143
2030............................................              16              52              75             159
2035............................................              19              56              80             175
2040............................................              21              61              86             191
2045............................................              24              66              92             206
2050............................................              26              71              97             220
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to recognize that a number of key uncertainties 
remain, and that current SCC estimates should be treated as provisional 
and revisable since they will evolve with improved scientific and 
economic understanding. The interagency group also recognizes that the 
existing models are imperfect and incomplete. The National Research 
Council report mentioned above points out that there is tension between 
the goal of producing quantified estimates of the economic damages from 
an incremental ton of carbon and the limits of existing efforts to 
model these effects. There are a number of analytical challenges that 
are being addressed by the research community, including research 
programs housed in many of the Federal agencies participating in the 
interagency process to estimate the SCC. The interagency group intends 
to periodically review and reconsider those estimates to reflect 
increasing knowledge of the science and economics of climate impacts, 
as well as improvements in modeling.
    In summary, in considering the potential global benefits resulting 
from reduced CO2 emissions, DOE used the values from the 
2013 interagency report, adjusted to 2013$ using the Gross Domestic 
Product price deflator. For each of the four SCC cases specified, the 
values used for emissions in 2015 were $12.0, $40.5, $62.4, and $119 
per metric ton avoided (values expressed in 2013$). DOE derived values 
after 2050 using the relevant growth rates for the 2040-2050 period in 
the interagency update.
    DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions reduction estimated for 
each year by the SCC value for that year in each of the four cases. To 
calculate a present value of the stream of monetary values, DOE 
discounted the values in each of the four cases using the specific 
discount rate that had been used to obtain the SCC values in each case.
    The Associations objected to DOE's continued use of the SCC in the 
cost-benefit analysis performed in connection with this proposed rule, 
and they believe the SCC should be withdrawn as a basis for the rule. 
They stated that the SCC calculation should not be used in any 
rulemaking or policymaking until it undergoes a more rigorous notice, 
review, and comment process. (The Associations, No. 51 at p. 4) In 
contrast, the Joint Commenters stated that the current SCC values are 
sufficiently robust and accurate to continue to be the basis for 
regulatory analysis going forward. They argued that, if anything, 
current values are significant underestimates of the SCC. They stated 
that the interagency working group's analytic process was science-
based, open, and transparent, and the SCC is an important and accepted 
tool for regulatory policy-making, based on well-established law and 
fundamental economics. (The Joint Comment, 48 at p. 1)
    NEMA presented a critique--based largely on the writing of Robert 
Pindyck of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology--of the integrated 
assessment models (IAMs) used in projecting future damages from 
CO2 emissions. The critique included strong criticisms of 
the IAMs' climate sensitivity analysis and damage function. NEMA argued 
that given the enormous uncertainty in the IAMs, these models--even 
``averaged'' as the Interagency Working Group has done--are poor tools 
for agency decision-making, particularly with respect to products 
regulated by EPCA that are not themselves a source of emissions. (NEMA, 
No. 54 at pp. 39-44)
    DOE acknowledges the limitations of the SCC estimates, which are 
discussed in detail in the 2010 interagency working group's report. 
Specifically, uncertainties in the assumptions regarding climate 
sensitivity, as well as other model inputs such as economic growth and 
emissions trajectories, are discussed and the reasons for the specific 
input assumptions chosen are explained. However, the three integrated 
assessment models used to estimate the SCC are frequently cited in the 
peer-reviewed literature and were used in the last assessment of the 
IPCC. In addition, new versions of the models that were used in 2013 to 
estimate revised SCC values were published in the peer-reviewed 
literature (see appendix 15B of the final rule TSD for discussion). 
Although uncertainties remain, the revised estimates used for this rule 
are based on the best available scientific information on the impacts 
of climate change. The current estimates of the SCC have been developed 
over many years, and with input from the public. In November 2013, OMB 
announced a new opportunity for public comment on the interagency 
technical support document underlying the revised SCC estimates. 78 FR 
70586. OMB is reviewing comments and considering whether further 
revisions to the SCC estimates are warranted. DOE stands ready to work 
with OMB and the other members of the interagency working group on 
further review and revision of the SCC estimates as appropriate.
    NEMA stated that the monetized benefits of carbon emission 
reductions are informative at some level, but should not be considered 
as determinative in the Secretary's decision-making under EPCA. NEMA 
believes that DOE should base its net benefit determination for 
justifying a particular energy conservation on the traditional criteria 
relied upon by DOE: impacts on manufacturers, consumers, employment, 
energy savings, and competition. (NEMA, 54 at pp. 38 and 44) In a 
similar vein, the Associations believe the SCC should be withdrawn as a 
basis for the proposed rule. (The Associations, No. 51, p. 4)
    The monetized benefits of carbon emission reductions are one factor 
that DOE considers in its evaluation of the economic justification of 
proposed standards. As shown in Table VII.58, the benefits of these 
standards in terms of

[[Page 4101]]

consumer operating cost savings exceed the incremental costs of the 
standards-compliant products. The benefits of CO2 emission 
reductions were considered by DOE, but were not determinative in DOE's 
decision to adopt these standards, nor were they a primary basis of 
that decision.
2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions
    As noted previously, DOE has taken into account how amended energy 
conservation standards would reduce site NOX emissions 
nationwide and increase power sector NOX emissions in those 
22 States not affected by the CAIR. DOE estimated the monetized value 
of net NOX emissions reductions resulting from each of the 
TSLs considered for this rule based on estimates found in the relevant 
scientific literature. Estimates of monetary value for reducing 
NOX from stationary sources range from $476 to $4,893 per 
ton in 2013$.\78\ DOE calculated monetary benefits using a medium value 
for NOX emissions of $2,684 per short ton and real discount 
rates of 3 percent and 7 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, 2006 Report to Congress on the Costs and 
Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, 
Local, and Tribal Entities (2006) (Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/2006_cb/2006_cb_final_report.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is evaluating appropriate monetization of avoided 
SO2 and Hg emissions in energy conservation standards 
rulemakings. It has not included monetization in the current analysis.

N. Utility Impact Analysis

    The utility impact analysis estimates several effects on the power 
generation industry that would result from the adoption of new or 
amended energy conservation standards. In the utility impact analysis, 
DOE analyzes the changes in installed electricity capacity and 
generation that would result for each TSL. The utility impact analysis 
is based on published output from NEMS. Each year, NEMS is updated to 
produce the AEO reference case as well as a number of side cases that 
estimate the economy-wide impacts of changes to energy supply and 
demand. DOE uses those published side cases that incorporate 
efficiency-related policies to estimate the marginal impacts of reduced 
energy demand on the utility sector. The output of this analysis is a 
set of time-dependent coefficients that capture the change in 
electricity generation, primary fuel consumption, installed capacity 
and power sector emissions due to a unit reduction in demand for a 
given end use. These coefficients are multiplied by the stream of 
energy savings calculated in the NIA to provide estimates of selected 
utility impacts of new or amended energy conservation standards. 
Chapter 16 of the final rule TSD describes the utility impact analysis 
in further detail.

O. Employment Impact Analysis

    Employment impacts from new or amended energy conservation 
standards include direct and indirect impacts. Direct employment 
impacts are any changes in the number of employees of manufacturers of 
the product subject to standards; the MIA addresses those impacts. 
Indirect employment impacts are changes in national employment that 
occur due to the shift in expenditures and capital investment caused by 
the purchase and operation of more efficient product. Indirect 
employment impacts from standards consist of the jobs created or 
eliminated in the national economy, other than in the manufacturing 
sector being regulated, due to: (1) Reduced spending by end users on 
energy; (2) reduced spending on new energy supply by the utility 
industry; (3) increased consumer spending on the purchase of new 
product; and (4) the effects of those three factors throughout the 
economy.
    One method for assessing the possible effects on the demand for 
labor of such shifts in economic activity is to compare sector 
employment statistics developed by the Labor Department's Bureau of 
Labor Statistics (BLS). BLS regularly publishes its estimates of the 
number of jobs per million dollars of economic activity in different 
sectors of the economy, as well as the jobs created elsewhere in the 
economy by this same economic activity. Data from BLS indicate that 
expenditures in the utility sector generally create fewer jobs (both 
directly and indirectly) than expenditures in other sectors of the 
economy. There are many reasons for these differences, including wage 
differences and the fact that the utility sector is more capital-
intensive and less labor-intensive than other sectors. Energy 
conservation standards have the effect of reducing consumer utility 
bills. Because reduced consumer expenditures for energy likely lead to 
increased expenditures in other sectors of the economy, the general 
effect of efficiency standards is to shift economic activity from a 
less labor-intensive sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more labor-
intensive sectors (e.g., the retail and service sectors). Based on the 
BLS data, DOE expects that net national employment may increase because 
of shifts in economic activity resulting from amended standards.
    For the standard levels considered for the final rule, DOE 
estimated indirect national employment impacts using an input/output 
model of the U.S. economy called Impact of Sector Energy Technologies, 
Version 3.1.1 (ImSET).\79\ ImSET is a special-purpose version of the 
``U.S. Benchmark National Input-Output'' (I-O) model, which was 
designed to estimate the national employment and income effects of 
energy-saving technologies. The ImSET software includes a computer-
based I-O model having structural coefficients that characterize 
economic flows among the 187 sectors. ImSET's national economic I-O 
structure is based on a 2002 U.S. benchmark table, specially aggregated 
to the 187 sectors most relevant to industrial, commercial, and 
residential building energy use. DOE notes that ImSET is not a general 
equilibrium forecasting model, and understands the uncertainties 
involved in projecting employment impacts, especially changes in the 
later years of the analysis. Because ImSET does not incorporate price 
changes, the employment effects predicted by ImSET may over-estimate 
actual job impacts over the long run. DOE used ImSET only to estimate 
short-term employment impacts. For more details on the employment 
impact analysis, see chapter 17 of the final rule TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Roop, J. M., M. J. Scott, and R. W. Schultz, ImSET: Impact 
of Sector Energy Technologies, 2005. Pacific Northwest National 
Laboratory. Richland, WA. Report No. PNNL-15273. http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-15273.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

P. Proposed Standards in April 2014 NOPR

    In the NOPR, DOE proposed to adopt new and amended standards for 
all GSFL product classes and amended standards for all IRL product 
classes. For GSFLs, DOE proposed adopting TSL 5, which represented the 
max tech and maximum NES. Specifically, TSL 5 would set energy 
conservation standards at EL 2 for the 4-foot MBP, 8-foot SP slimline, 
8-foot RDC HO, and T5 MiniBP SO product classes. For IRLs, DOE proposed 
adopting TSL 1, which was EL 1 and represented max tech. DOE received 
general comments on the proposed standards.
    Miller stated that there are three problems that DOE states it is 
trying to address by setting efficacy standards for GSFLs and IRLs: 
lack of consumer information, asymmetric information about the benefits 
of energy-efficient commercial appliances, and externalities related to 
greenhouse gas

[[Page 4102]]

emissions. However, two of the problems cited by DOE--lack of consumer 
information about energy efficiency and information asymmetry--are not 
addressed in its proposed efficacy standards. Additionally, DOE does 
not explain why GSFL and IRL consumers would suffer from either 
informational deficits or cognitive biases that would cause them to 
purchase products with high lifetime costs without demanding higher 
price, higher efficacy products. Miller further states that this 
asymmetric information, if it exists, could be remedied by improved 
labeling or other types of consumer education campaigns rather than 
banning products from the marketplace, especially given the projected 
penetration rates of LEDs. (Miller, No. 50 at p. 11)
    Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review'' requires Federal agencies to identify the problem that it 
intends to address, including, where applicable, the failures of 
private markets or public institutions that warrant new agency action, 
as well as to assess the significance of that problem. 58 FR 51735 
(Oct. 4, 1993) Section 1(b) also states that agencies should adhere to 
the listed principles to the extent permitted by law. DOE's standards 
rulemaking process is intended to fulfill the requirements of EPCA. Any 
amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the 
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically 
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) 
Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in 
the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) The 
proposed standards, and the standards established in this final rule, 
meet these criteria. By adopting standards that achieve maximum 
improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and 
economically justified, this rulemaking is indirectly addressing any 
potential lack of consumer information regarding energy efficiency and 
asymmetric information regarding these products. Alternative remedies 
proposed by Miller, such as labeling and consumer information, are 
covered by other programs established by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6294 and 42 
U.S.C. 6307) However, the existence of such programs does not obviate 
DOE's legal requirement to adhere to the standards rulemaking process 
laid out in EPCA.
    Miller stated that DOE's approach is contrary to instruction to 
agencies in Executive Order 13563, which requires agencies to identify 
and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain 
flexibility and freedom of choice for the public. Miller noted that 
this included warnings, appropriate default rules, and disclosure 
requirements, and providing clear and intelligible information to the 
public. (Miller, No. 50 at p. 11)
    DOE identified and evaluated non-regulatory approaches to improving 
the efficacy of GSFLs and IRLs, as described in chapter 18 of the final 
rule TSD. DOE currently does not have statutory authority to implement 
most of these alternatives. Furthermore, DOE concluded that all of the 
non-regulatory alternatives would save less energy and have a lower NPV 
than adopted standards.
    Regarding warnings, default rules, and disclosure requirements, in 
this final rule notice DOE clearly describes amendments to existing 
standards being adopted in this rule and explains that compliance to 
the new and amended standards will be required three years after the 
publication date of this notice. See section VI.G.13 for compliance 
date information. DOE has held public meetings and invited comments 
from stakeholders in the framework, preliminary analysis, and NOPR 
stages of this rulemaking and held interviews with manufacturers at the 
preliminary and NOPR stages. At each stage DOE has published documents, 
including this final notice, that clearly lay out the methodology, 
assumptions, analysis, and results, as well as describe in detail 
comments received from stakeholders and DOE's responses.
    Miller also stated that DOE's proposal does not maintain 
flexibility and freedom of choice for purchasers of GSFLs and IRLs, and 
the resulting benefits do not justify the costs as required both by 
statute and by Executive Order. (Miller, No. 50 at p. 12)
    DOE determined that the proposed levels in the NOPR and the 
standard being adopted do not lessen the utility or performance of 
GSFLs and IRLs. DOE has ensured that the typical characteristics of 
lamps meeting the existing standard, such as shape, CCT, CRI, lifetime, 
and lumen package are represented at the higher efficacy levels 
proposed in the NOPR and being adopted in this rule. Further, consumers 
will continue to have a range of purchasing choices under the adopted 
standards. For further comments and discussion on the impact of higher 
efficacy levels on product availability, see section VI.D.2 for GSFLs 
and section VI.D.3 for IRLs.
    Miller stated that if DOE proceeds to issue the standards as 
proposed in the NOPR, DOE should commit to retrospective review to 
assess whether the rule meets the statutory standard of achieving the 
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is both technologically 
feasible and economically justified, while also resulting in a 
significant conservation of energy. Miller outlined a number of metrics 
to consider in a retrospective review. These included quantifying 
environmental benefits and security, reliability, and costs of 
maintaining the nation's energy system as a result of standards; and 
potentialities such as a rebound effect, impedance of LED technology, 
adverse impacts on manufacturers, increased mercury, and loss of 
product utility and optionality as a result of standards. (Miller, No. 
50 at p. 12) Miller also noted that DOE should commit to measuring 
metrics and assumptions of this final rule on a regular basis and 
collecting information for this purpose. (Miller, No. 50 at p. 9)
    As stated in DOE's Final Plan for the Retrospective Review of 
Existing Rules, dated August 23, 2011,\80\ DOE is committed to 
maintaining a consistent culture of retrospective review and analysis. 
In the plan, DOE sets forth a process for identifying significant rules 
that are obsolete, unnecessary, unjustified, excessively burdensome, or 
counterproductive. Once such rules have been identified, DOE will, 
after considering public input on any proposed change, determine what 
action is necessary or appropriate. DOE will continually engage in 
review of its rules to determine whether there are burdens on the 
public that can be avoided by amending or rescinding existing 
requirements. DOE's consideration of appliance standards within the 
context of retrospective review is discussed at pages 9-10 of the final 
plan. Since the release of its final plan, DOE has issued a number of 
reports documenting its progress in the retrospective review of its 
regulations.\81\ DOE has also issued a number of Requests for 
Information seeking input from the public on its retrospective review 
efforts, most recently on July 3, 2014. 79 FR at 37963 (April 29, 
2014). DOE encourages all interested parties to provide input in DOE's 
retrospective review process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Available at http://energy.gov/gc/services/open-government/restrospective-regulatory-review.
    \81\ These reports are also available at http://energy.gov/gc/services/open-government/restrospective-regulatory-review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CA IOUs and ASAP endorsed the NOPR analyses and stated they would 
support a final rule similar to the rule proposed in the NOPR. (CA 
IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 245; ASAP, Public Meeting 
Transcript,

[[Page 4103]]

No. 49 at pp. 16, 244) EEOs stated the proposed standards would build 
on the achievements of the 2009 Lamps Rule, which had increased minimum 
efficacy by 19 percent for GSFLs and 62 percent for IRLs, by further 
increasing efficacy by 4 percent for GSFLs and 8 percent for IRLs. 
Specifically, EEOs highlighted the potential savings from the proposed 
standards for GSFLs, but noted that potential savings from proposed IRL 
standards are also significant. EEOs also pointed out that the proposed 
standards were cost-effective for both commercial and residential 
consumers. (EEOs, No. 55 at p. 2) GE, however, found the standard 
levels proposed in the NOPR problematically high, especially with 
regards to the increased burden on the industry. (GE, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 49 at p. 243)
    When considering establishing new or amending existing standards, 
DOE weighs the benefits and burdens of such standards. In the NOPR, for 
GSFL TSL 5 and IRL TSL 1, DOE determined that the benefits of energy 
savings, positive NPV of total consumer benefits, positive impacts on 
consumers, emission reductions and the estimated monetary value of the 
emissions reductions would outweigh the potential reduction in industry 
value. In the following sections DOE discusses comments received 
specifically on the proposed standards for GSFLs and IRLs.
1. GSFLs Proposed Standards
    DOE also received several comments specific to the GSFL standards 
proposed in the NOPR. ASAP noted that the proposed GSFL standards, in 
combination with the GSFL standards from the 2009 Lamps Rule and the 
ballast standards from the 2011 Ballast Rule, would result in 
substantial energy savings, in particular due to their impact on the 
commercial sector. ASAP stated and CA IOUs agreed that this is an 
example of how standards can couple with utility-based and voluntary 
programs to shift lighting efficiency. (ASAP, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 13-15; CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 49 at p. 20) CA IOUs further commented that the proposed GSFL 
standards are designed to push the fluorescent lamp market to ``best-
in-class'' and the resulting energy savings estimate of 3.5 quads is 
significant. (CA IOUs, No. 56 at pp. 1-2) NEEP noted that the proposed 
max-tech efficacy levels for GSFL would bring over 2 TWhs of annual 
electricity reduction to the NEEP region in 2020 and more than 100 MWs 
of capacity reductions (9.8TWhs and 573 MW nationally). NEEP continued 
that the very aggressive energy efficiency programs administered in the 
region have made the proposed standards practical. (NEEP, No. 57 at p. 
1)
    NEMA, however, disagreed, stating that the proposed higher 
performance levels would result in the unavailability of extended life 
lamps, inability for manufacturers to repeatedly and consistently 
produce products for testing and enforcement problems, price increases, 
minimal efficiency gains, consumer diversion to full-wattage lamps with 
reduced energy savings, and a significant financial impact to U.S. 
industry without sufficient payback. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 16)
    As previously noted, in the NOPR analysis, DOE proposed TSL 5 for 
GSFLs, which required adopting the proposed EL 2 for the 4-foot MBP 
lamps, 8-foot slimline lamps, 8-foot RDC HO, 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO, and 
EL 1 for 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO. 79 FR 24068, 24174 Based on an assessment 
of catalog and certification data, DOE found that these levels are 
technologically feasible (see chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for the further 
details on the engineering analysis) and maintained the GSFLs with 
typical lifetimes (see section VI.D.2.g for further discussion). 
Although DOE proposed TSL 5 in the NOPR, as discussed in section 
VII.C.1, in this final rule DOE found that the burdens of TSL 5 
outweigh the benefits and is therefore adopting a lower standard level.
    NEMA recommended alternative standards for the GSFL product classes 
than those proposed in the NOPR. For lamps with CCT W) and 2-foot U-shaped (84.0 lm/W) product classes and 
standards be amended to 98.0 lm/W for the 8-foot SP slimline product 
class; 94.0 lm/W for the 8-foot RDC HO product class; 90.0 lm/W for the 
4-foot T5 MiniBP SO product class; and 80.0 lm/W for the 4-foot T5 
MiniBP HO product class. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 27-28) For lamps with CCT 
> 4,500 K, NEMA recommended that the current standards be maintained 
for 4-foot MBP lamps (88 lm/W); 2-foot U-shaped lamps (81 lm/W); and 8-
foot SP slimline lamps (93.0 lm/W) and standards be amended to 90 lm/W 
for the 8-foot RDC HO product class; 84 lm/W for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP 
SO; and 76 lm/W for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO product class. (NEMA, No. 
54 at p. 28)
    CA IOUs noted that DOE has proposed a standard for the 4-foot MBP 
lamps that can be achieved by an 800 series, full-wattage, and high-
lumen T8 lamp. CA IOUs mentioned that their rebate and incentive 
programs have encouraged the adoption of these third generation T8 
lamps and have utilized them in cost-effective installations to achieve 
large energy savings, and also mentioned that the standards would 
further encourage this market transformation without adversely 
impacting product performance. (CA IOUs, No. 56 at pp. 1-2) NEEP 
commented that about two-thirds of the savings would be lost if the 
levels of the 4-foot MBP lamps were weakened, therefore DOE should 
maintain these levels as the higher performing lamps are available and 
cost-effective. (NEEP, No. 57 at p. 1)
    Based on catalog and certification data, for the 4-foot MBP product 
class DOE determined that there were two higher efficacy levels than 
the existing standard: EL 1 representing a standard 800 series full 
wattage lamp and EL 2 representing an improved 800 series full wattage 
lamp in which the phosphor mix and/or coating is enhanced to increase 
efficacy. DOE developed standards for the 2-foot U-shaped product class 
by scaling from standards for the 4-foot MBP product class. DOE 
developed a scaling factor based on the efficacy difference of 
comparable 4-foot MBP and 2-foot U-shaped product lines, and in this 
final rule confirmed this scaling factor using updated certification 
data. For this final rule, DOE used updated catalog and certification 
data for all products and confirmed the higher efficacy levels above 
the existing standard for the 4-foot MBP and 2-foot U-shaped lamps. 
Therefore, DOE found that higher efficacy levels than the current 
standards for the 4-foot MBP, 2-foot U-shaped, and 8-foot SP slimline 
lamps are feasible and reflect the performance of products currently on 
the market. See section VI.D.2.g for the detailed engineering analysis 
of these lamp types.
    In the NOPR for lamps with CCT W for 4-foot MBP lamps; EL 2 at 99.0 lm/W for 
the 8-foot SP slimline lamps; EL 2 at 97.6 lm/W for the 8-foot RDC HO 
lamps; EL 2 at 97.1 lm/W for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO lamps; and EL 1 at 
82.7 lm/W for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps. DOE determined the 
efficacies at these levels based on commercially available lamps using 
both catalog and certification data, and therefore found that these 
efficacies are accurate representation of higher performing products on 
the market. For this final rule, DOE analyzed updated catalog and 
certification data and confirmed these efficacy levels with the 
exception of T5 MiniBP SO lamps which was adjusted to be 95 lm/W

[[Page 4104]]

based on certification data. See section VI.D.2.g for the detailed 
engineering analysis of these lamps.
    In the NOPR, for lamps with CCT > 4,500 K, the proposed TSL 5 
required EL 2 at 90.6 lm/W for 4-foot MBP lamps; EL 2 at 94.1 lm/W for 
the 8-foot SP slimline lamps; EL 2 at 95.6 lm/W for the 8-foot RDC HO 
lamps; EL 2 at 91.3 lm/W for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO lamps; and EL 1 at 
78.6 lm/W for the T5 MiniBP HO lamps. Standards for GSFLs with CCT > 
4,500 K were scaled from corresponding GSFLs with CCT  4,500 K: EL 2 
for the 4-foot MBP was adjusted to 89.3 lm/W; EL 2 for the 8-foot SP 
slimline was adjusted to 96.0 lm/W; EL 2 for the 8-foot RDC HO lamps 
was adjusted to 93.7 lm/W; EL 2 for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO was 
adjusted to 89.3 lm/W; and EL 1 for the T5 MiniBP HO was adjusted to 
76.9 lm/W. See chapter 5 of this final rule TSD for the detailed 
engineering analysis of GSFL scaling.
    DOE conducted a comprehensive analysis of all GSFL products 
available on the market and utilized both catalog and certification 
data to determine the efficacy levels for each product class. After 
weighing the benefits and burdens in this final rule analysis, DOE is 
adopting TSL 4 which will require EL 2 for the 4-foot MBP lamps and the 
4-foot T5 MiniBP SO lamps; EL 1 for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps; and 
maintain existing standards for the 8-foot SP slimline and 8-foot RDC 
HO lamps. See section VII.C.1 for a discussion on the benefits and 
burdens of GSFL standards.
    People's Republic of China (P.R. China) commented that for the 8-
foot SP slimline lamps with a CCT > 4,500 K the standard proposed in 
the NOPR increases existing standards by 1.2 percent, while for the 4-
foot T5 MiniBP SO lamps with a CCT  4,500 K and the 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO with CCT W lamps. NEMA 
remarked that forcing all products to use specialized rare earth 
phosphor mixes is extremely risky for argon-based lamps as the proposed 
standard is at the high end of the technology limits, and DOE cannot 
risk having only krypton based lamps available due to their lack of 
dimmability. Thus, EL 2 cannot be used for 4-foot MBP lamps. (NEMA, No. 
54 at p. 14)
    EL 2 for the 4-foot MBP lamps was based on the performance of full 
wattage, argon-based lamps that are currently on the market. DOE 
acknowledges that supply and demand of rare earth phosphors should be 
considered when evaluating amended standards for GSFLs. DOE conducted 
LCC and NIA sensitivities for a scenario with increased rare earth 
phosphor prices in the NOPR. With regards to impacts on consumers, DOE 
found that proposed efficacy levels remained achievable even with 
increased phosphor prices. In the NIA, DOE found that the ranking of 
TSLs by NPV remained unchanged in the high rare earth phosphor price 
scenario. For this final rule, DOE conducted these sensitivities with 
an updated phosphor price and reached the same conclusions. See chapter 
12 and appendix 7B of the final rule TSD for more detail on DOE's 
assessment of impact of rare earth phosphors.
    DOE also received a comment regarding the LCC results for GSFLs and 
the impact on the proposed standard. For 8-foot RDC HO lamps, 
Westinghouse questioned the economic justification behind consumers 
losing 16-17 percent of the value of the product over its average 
lifetime. (Westinghouse, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 152)
    The LCC analysis is one of the factors that DOE considers when 
weighing the benefits and burdens of TSLs. In the NOPR the 8-foot RDC 
HO product class showed negative LCC savings at the proposed TSL 5. In 
the final rule, DOE is adopting TSL 4 which does not amend the standard 
level for 8-foot HO lamps. As discussed below, TSL 4 includes a 
combination of ELs that maximizes NPV; in addition to 8-foot HO lamps, 
TSL 4 also does not amend the standard level for 8-foot slimline lamps.
    Additionally, DOE received a comment on choosing between TSL 4 and 
TSL 5, as presented in the NOPR. NEMA commented that TSL 5 is very 
similar to TSL 4 in national energy use, but has a significantly higher 
conversion cost for manufacturers and the most negative INPV. NEMA 
commented that the NOPR shows a modest national energy savings 
difference between TSL 4 and TSL 5 in the proposed GSFL rule, as 
computed by the DOE for the NOPR (3.0 v. 3.5 quads over 30 years). NEMA 
claimed that the reason for this is because, considering all the 
assumptions and estimates used to calculate the savings, the energy 
savings estimate of both levels is within +/- 5 percent or well within 
the uncertainty of both projections. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 27) NEMA 
further claimed that there is more manufacturing investment required to 
go from TSL 4 ($13M) to TSL 5 ($38.6M) (79 FR at 24160, Table VII.30 
[April 29, 2014]), and DOE has a legislative and executive mandated 
obligation to reduce or eliminate the regulatory burden of TSL 5. NEMA 
claimed that TSL 5 would require an additional investment in production 
lines that are projected to decline in future years without generating 
meaningful incremental national energy savings and that this is not an 
acceptable or reasonable decision for the U.S. government to make. NEMA 
commented that the money would be better invested into research in new 
technologies with a larger energy savings impact. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 
27)
    NEMA noted that that primary difference between TSL 4 and TSL 5 is 
that the 8-foot slimline and 8-foot RDC HO categories jump from EL 0 to 
EL 2, but NEMA added that they should not be moved any higher than EL 
1, as they would not increase national energy savings and will be 
costly to the manufacturer. NEMA further commented that it is 
unreasonable to assume that manufacturers or consumers would make the 
investment to switch from a T8 to T5 system, nor from 8-foot 
fluorescent systems to T5 systems, due to the cost involved with their 
lack of interchangeability. NEMA stated that DOE must remove these 
false assumptions and restructure the energy savings projections. 
(NEMA, No. 54 at p. 15)
    In the NOPR, TSL 4 represented the maximum NPV that was achievable 
in the analysis from any combination of ELs. DOE determined that the 
increase in energy savings at TSL 5 compared to TSL 4, as well as 
generally positive

[[Page 4105]]

impact on consumers, emission reductions and the estimated monetary 
value would outweigh the potential reduction in industry value 
experienced at TSL 5 compared to TSL 4. Therefore, DOE proposed TSL 5 
as it represented maximum national energy savings. Further, the 
uncertainty in key variables, such as energy price forecast or product 
price trends would generally affect TSL 4 and TSL 5 in the same way, so 
DOE would expect the relative ranking to remain.
    The switching from 4-foot MBP or 8-foot SP slimline systems was 
allowed only in new construction and renovation and based on DOE 
research that indicated there are comparable luminaires. DOE is aware 
that there are physical and optical differences between T8 and T5 lamps 
and the potential for substitution of 4-foot MBP T8 or 8-foot SP 
slimline T8 with T5 MiniBP SO lamps is only assumed at the time of new 
construction and renovation, when a new luminaire would be specified. 
DOE's analysis indicates that there exist T5 luminaires that compete 
directly with 4-foot MBP T8 luminaires in most applications in the 
largest luminaire markets (e.g., commercial offices, education, 
industrial) and in some cases, luminaire manufacturers offer 
essentially identical luminaires in 4-foot MBP T8 and T5 MiniBP 
versions. For these same reasons, DOE also assumed switching between 8-
foot SP slimline with T5 MiniBP SO is possible. See appendix 11C of the 
final rule TSD for examples of these luminaires and a discussion of 
DOE's analysis of the substitution potential for 4-foot MBP and T5 
MiniBP SO Lamps.
    Further, in this final rule, DOE modified TSL 4 slightly so that 
maximum NPV is achieved from a combination of ELs that minimizes the 
net burden on a consumer for a product class that may have negative NPV 
in the absence of product class switching (e.g., consumers substituting 
a T8 system with T5 system). This modification resulted in only one EL 
change between the TSL 4 proposed in the NOPR and the TSL 4 presented 
in this rule: For the 8-foot RDC HO product class the efficacy level in 
the TSL 4 presented for this final rule is at the baseline rather than 
EL 1. DOE is adopting TSL 4 in this final rule for GSFLs. See section 
VII.C.1 for a discussion on the benefits and burdens of GSFL standards.
2. IRL Proposed Standards
    DOE received several comments regarding the proposed TSL 1 for IRLs 
in the NOPR. NEMA commented that 130 V lamps are no longer available, 
so there is no reason to establish a new standard for them since there 
will be no energy savings. (NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at 
pp. 37-38) Philips added that 130 V lamps cannot be produced. (Philips, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 37) GE stated that the proposed 
130 V lamp standard exceeds the capability of making a practical lamp 
as the proposed efficacy level of the 130 V lamps is 15 percent higher 
than that for the 120 V lamps. GE added that the only way to reach this 
efficacy is to decrease lifetime by two thirds if operated at 120 V and 
even lower if operated at 130 V, making it impractical to sell. GE 
stated that the proposed regulations raise the efficacy level 5 percent 
higher and that this is just as impossible as the last standard. (GE, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 40-42)
    CA IOUs disagreed, stating that not setting a standard for 130 V 
lamps leaves the door open to potential loopholes. CA IOUs cited the 
example that DOE exempted certain BR and ER lamps and these lamps have 
grown in market share. Therefore, the CA IOUs stated that products that 
are not on the market now but might be in the future should be 
regulated. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 39)
    DOE is aware that at the time of this final rule there are no 130 V 
IRLs covered by this rulemaking on the market. However, DOE did not 
find any evidence that permanently precludes these lamps from becoming 
commercially available. DOE's research also does not indicate that the 
lamps are not being manufactured solely due to technological barriers. 
DOE remains concerned that if 130 V lamps do become available and 
standards for 120 V lamps are raised and not for the 130 V lamps, there 
may be a potential migration to the 130 V lamps that would result in 
increased energy consumption. See section VI.C.2 and VI.D.3.f for 
further discussion. Therefore, when considering higher efficacy 
standards for the less than 125 V product class in TSL 1, DOE also 
considered higher efficacy standards for the greater than or equal to 
125 V product class.
    DOE also received overall comments on the merit of proposing TSL 1, 
which represented max tech (EL 1) for IRLs. CA IOUs and NEEP commented 
that they support the DOE's proposal to increase the stringency of IRL 
standards, but stated that the standards proposed in the NOPR could be 
higher. (NEEP, No. 57 at p. 3; CA IOU, No. 56 at p. 4) NEEP stated that 
additional ELs should be established that represent the maximum 
technologically feasible level and typically evaluates the maximum 
commercially available level. NEEP noted that there were products in 
DOE's certification database with higher efficacies than the proposed 
standard, which should have been considered in the analysis. (NEEP, No. 
57 at p. 3) CA IOUs agreed with DOE's proposal to adopt a standard that 
can be met with HIR design strategy. CA IOUs continued that they have 
incentive programs that promote a shift towards higher efficiency 
technology, such as LEDs, but are not able to promote and incentivize 
the highest efficacy incandescent products. CA IOUs mentioned that DOE 
would be the biggest driver in promoting this shift to high-efficacy 
IRLs, and noted that the HIR technology is a proven and cost-effective 
design. (CA IOUs, No. 56 at p. 4) ASAP stated that the proposed IRL 
standard will help ensure that buyers have a choice of efficient 
options in that market place, including LEDs or very efficacious 
incandescent lamps. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 15-
16)
    NEMA, however, disagreed, stating that the limited benefits to the 
nation from amended standards for IRLs do not justify the burden on the 
manufacturers and consumers of IRLs. With regards to negative impacts 
on manufacturers, NEMA presented a graph that plotted the percentage 
INPV and the estimated energy savings from DOE's appliance efficiency 
rulemakings since 2008. NEMA also calculated and plotted the midpoint 
average percentage INPV as -10.95 percent and average projected energy 
savings at 2.156 of these rulemakings. NEMA noted on this graph that 
with the exception of the proposed GSFL standards, all lighting 
rulemakings have resulted in INPV more negative than the midpoint INPV, 
and the proposed IRL standards are the second most severe in negative 
impacts to manufacturers. Further, on NEMA's graph, the proposed IRLs 
standards result in the lowest energy savings compared to the average 
projected energy savings of 2.156 quads. NEMA stated that on this basis 
alone, the proposed IRL standards deviate from the norms and should not 
be deemed economically justified. NEMA also provided a summary of the 
negative INPV from various product rulemakings that result in a 
cumulative regulatory burden on IRL manufacturers. NEMA noted that the 
imposition of the burden of the proposed IRL standards in addition to 
this cumulative regulatory burden called for ``alternatives to direct 
regulation'' per Executive Order 12866, which in this case would be to 
not amend the existing IRL standards as only one TSL is proposed. NEMA 
also

[[Page 4106]]

stated that the IRL standards proposed in the NOPR would result in an 
increase in prices that would drive consumers to alternate technologies 
and manufacturers to exit the IRL market and result in the loss of all 
or most domestic employment in IRL manufacturing. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 
2-4)
    With regards to impact on consumers, NEMA emphasized that the 
proposed IRL standards would require IRL consumers to accept a 30-50 
percent increase in price. Further, NEMA predicted that due to initial 
costs, consumers would choose to purchase the less efficacious, 
unregulated higher wattage IRLs. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 2, 10) NEMA 
suggested that regulations allowing lower priced lamps at 60 W or below 
as substitutes for 90 W IRLs would move consumers to more energy 
efficient options. In contrast, the proposed IRL standards would limit 
consumer options to higher-end commercial products that utilize HIR. 
NEMA explained that halogen PAR lamps would not meet the proposed 
standards unless life was reduced by at least 20 percent, which would 
be a loss to consumer utility. Therefore, NEMA concluded that for these 
reasons the IRL standards proposed in the NOPR would increase rather 
than decrease national energy use. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 2, 10) GE noted 
the positive LCC saving results for IRLs were likely based mainly on 
commercial customers that use PAR38 lamps and would be very different 
for the residential consumers. GE questioned how a standard that has no 
economic benefits could be adopted. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
49 at p. 152)
    DOE is aware that TSL 1 for IRLs resulted in negative impacts on 
industry and would increase end-user prices. Regarding the LCC 
assessment, DOE analyzed both the IRL commercial and residential 
sectors at TSL 1 and found them to be positive for both representative 
lamp units. As noted previously, in addition to the impact on 
manufacturers and consumers, DOE weighed other factors when determining 
whether or not TSL 1 was economically justified. In the NOPR, DOE found 
that at TSL 1 for IRLs, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of 
consumer benefits, positive impacts on consumers (as indicated by 
positive average LCC savings and the large percentage of consumers who 
would experience LCC benefits), emission reductions and the estimated 
monetary value of the emissions reductions would outweigh the potential 
reduction in industry value. In this final rule analysis, after 
reevaluating the factors considered in weighing the benefits and 
burdens of a potential standard, DOE is not amending standards for IRLs 
in this rule. See section VII.C.3 for a discussion on the benefits and 
burdens of IRL standards.

VII. Analytical Results

A. Trial Standard Levels

    For the final rule, DOE develops TSLs for consideration. The GSFL 
and IRL TSLs are formed by grouping different efficacy levels, which 
are potential standard levels for each product class. TSL 5 is composed 
of the max tech efficacy levels. TSL 4 is composed of the combination 
of efficacy levels that yield the maximum NPV. TSL 3 is composed of 
efficacy levels that yield the maximum energy savings without using any 
of the EL 2 levels. For both TSL 4 and TSL 3 efficacy level 
combinations, to ensure that max NES and NPV were based on consumer 
options to save energy for each lamp type, DOE did not consider an 
efficacy level for a product class that did not result in energy 
savings from options within the product class. TSL 2 is composed of the 
efficacy levels that would bring all product classes to approximately 
the same level of rare earth phosphor. TSL 1 is composed of the levels 
that represent the least efficacious commercially available lamps. For 
IRLs, DOE considered one TSL, because only one efficacy level was 
analyzed (Table VII.2).
    DOE used data on the representative product classes from the 
engineering and pricing analyses described in section VI.D.2.b for 
GSFLs and section VI.D.3.a for IRLs to evaluate the benefits and 
burdens of each of the GSFL and IRL TSLs. DOE analyzed the benefits and 
burdens by conducting the analyses described in section VII.C for each 
TSL. Table VII.1 presents the GSFL TSLs analyzed and the corresponding 
efficacy level for each GSFL representative product class. Table VII.2 
presents the IRL TSL analyzed and the corresponding efficacy level for 
the representative IRL product class.

                          Table VII.1--Composition of TSLs for GSFLs by Efficacy Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    TSL 2 Same
  Representative product class     TSL 1 Current     phosphor     TSL 3 Best non-  TSL 4 Max NPV  TSL 5 Max tech
                                    market min         level           EL 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 4-foot medium bipin, CCT                    0               0               1               2               2
 2.5 inch diameter; A'' (not applicable) for the baselines. 
Chapter 8 of the final rule TSD provides a detailed description of the 
LCC and PBP analysis and the results. Appendix 8B of the NOPR TSD 
presents Monte Carlo simulation results performed by DOE as part of the 
LCC analysis and the appendix also presents sensitivity results, such 
as LCC savings under the AEO 2014 high-economic-growth and low-
economic-growth cases.
    The results for each TSL are relative to the energy-use 
distribution in the base case (no amended standards), based on energy 
consumption under conditions of actual product use. The rebuttable-
presumption PBP is based on test values under conditions prescribed by 
the DOE test procedure, as required by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
General Service Fluorescent Lamps
    Table VII.3 through Table VII.11 present the results for each of 
the five GSFL representative product classes that DOE analyzed. 
Specifically, these were the 4-foot MBP product class, 4-foot MiniBP SO 
product class, 4-foot MiniBP HO product class, 8-foot SP slimline 
product class, and 8-foot RDC HO product class. For GSFLs, results for 
the most common sector for each product class are presented. Chapter 8 
of the final rule TSD provides the LCC and PBP results for each product 
class in all relevant sectors.

[[Page 4108]]

                                Table VII.3--LCC and PBP Results for a 2-Lamp 4-Foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Instant Start System Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Rated                                                                             Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                    lamp                                                                            consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response           Efficacy level     efficacy    Design option \82\    Installed  Discounted                LLC          experience         period
                                                                                    lm/W                               cost     operating  LCC 2013$   savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2013$    cost 2013$               2013$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF         17.38      126.22     143.80        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1..............       90.0   Inst.                      34.60      126.22     147.97      -4.17      100.0          0        NER
                                                             EL 2..............       93.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF         30.12      105.71     136.03       7.77        0.0      100.0        3.1
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4   Inst.                      27.03      126.22     153.45      -9.65      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 2..............       96.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF         24.25      113.41     137.86       5.94        0.0      100.0        2.6
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                                                            32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                                                            28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF
                                                                                             Inst.
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF         60.77      126.00     167.94        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                     Lamp & Ballast          EL 1..............       90.0   Inst.                      77.99      112.69     158.80       9.14        0.0      100.0        0.4
                                      Replacement.           EL 2..............       93.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF         73.51      105.51     160.20       7.74        0.0      100.0        3.1
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4   Inst.                      70.42      109.77     161.36       6.58        0.0      100.0        2.9
                                                             EL 2..............       96.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF         67.64      108.63     157.45      10.49        0.0      100.0        1.9
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                                                            32.5 W T8 & 0.77 BF
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                                                            28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF
                                                                                             Inst.
Event III: New Construction and      Baseline..............  Baseline..........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF         63.61      126.00     169.54        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 Renovation.                         New Lamp & Ballast      EL 1..............       90.0   Inst.                      80.84      112.69     160.40       9.14        0.0      100.0        0.4
                                      Purchase.              EL 2..............       93.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF         76.35      105.51     161.79       7.74        0.0      100.0        3.1
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4   Inst.                      73.26      109.77     162.96       6.58        0.0      100.0        2.9
                                                             EL 2..............       96.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF         70.49      108.63     159.04      10.49        0.0      100.0        1.9
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                                                            32.5 W T8 & 0.77 BF
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                                                            28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF
                                                                                             Inst.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ The lifetimes of the representative lamps units range from 4.8 to 5.5 years.

                              Table VII.4--LCC and PBP Results for a 2-Lamp 4-Foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Programmed Start System Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Rated                                                                             Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                    lamp                                                                            consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response           Efficacy level     efficacy    Design option \83\    Installed  Discounted                LLC          experience         period
                                                                                    lm/W                               cost     operating  LCC 2013$   savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2013$    cost 2013$               2013$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF         17.38      200.67     218.22        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1..............       90.0   Inst.                      33.47      200.67     225.18      -6.96      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 2..............       93.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF         30.12      168.52     198.82      19.41          0      100.0        3.1
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4   Inst.                      27.03      200.67     227.87      -9.65      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 2..............       96.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF         24.25      180.59     205.02      13.20        0.0      100.0        2.6
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                                                            32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                                                            28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF
                                                                                             Inst.
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF         61.98      200.67     255.15        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                     Lamp & Ballast          EL 1..............       90.0   Inst.                      78.07      200.67     262.11      -6.96      100.0        0.0        NER
                                      Replacement.           EL 1..............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF         78.07      168.05     229.49      25.66        0.0      100.0        0.3
                                                             EL 2..............       93.0   Inst.                      74.72      168.52     235.74      19.41        0.0      100.0        3.1
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF         71.63      200.67     264.80      -9.65      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4   Inst.                      71.63      168.05     232.18      22.97        0.0      100.0        2.3
                                                                                            26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                                                            32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                                                            32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............       96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.72 BF         68.85      180.59     241.95      13.20        0.0      100.0        2.6
                                                                                             Inst.
Event III: New Construction and      Baseline..............  Baseline..........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF         64.82      200.67     257.51        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 Renovation.                         New Lamp & Ballast      EL 1..............       90.0   Prog.                      80.91      200.67     264.46      -6.96      100.0        0.0        NER
                                      Purchase.              EL 1..............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF         80.91      168.05     231.84      25.66        0.0      100.0        0.3
                                                             EL 2..............       93.0   Prog.                      77.56      168.52     238.10      19.41        0.0      100.0        3.1
                                                                                            32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF
                                                                                             Prog.
                                                                                            26.6 W T8 & 0.72 BF
                                                                                             Prog.
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF         74.47      200.67     267.15      -9.65      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                             Prog.
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF         74.47      168.05     234.53      22.97        0.0      100.0        2.3
                                                                                             Prog.
                                                             EL 2..............       96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF         71.70      180.59     244.30      13.20        0.0      100.0        2.6
                                                                                             Prog.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ The lifetimes of the representative lamps units range from 6.9 to 9.2 years.

[[Page 4109]]

                                Table VII.5--LCC and PBP Results for a 4-Lamp 4-Foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Instant Start System Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Rated                                                                             Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                    lamp                                                                            consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response           Efficacy level     efficacy    Design option \84\    Installed  Discounted                LLC          experience         period
                                                                                    lm/W                               cost     operating  LCC 2013$   savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2013$    cost 2013$               2013$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF         28.26      248.52     277.17        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1..............       90.0   Inst.                      57.07      248.52     284.37      -7.21      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 2..............       93.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF         53.75      208.09     262.22      14.94        0.0      100.0        3.1
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4   Inst.                      47.56      248.52     296.46     -19.30      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 2..............       96.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF         42.01      265.66     265.66      11.51        0.0      100.0        2.7
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                                                            32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                                                            28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF
                                                                                             Inst.
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF         87.41      242.00     303.87        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                     Lamp & Ballast          EL 1..............       90.0   Inst.                     116.22      220.90     289.98      13.89        0.0      100.0        0.5
                                      Replacement.           EL 2..............       93.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF        112.90      202.40     289.76      14.12        0.0      100.0        3.2
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4   Inst.                     106.71      213.66     294.83       9.05        0.4       99.6        3.4
                                                             EL 2..............       96.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF        101.16      217.26     292.88      10.99        0.0      100.0        2.7
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                                                            32.5 W T8 & 0.74 BF
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                                                            28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF
                                                                                             Inst.
Event III: New Construction and      Baseline..............  Baseline..........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF         90.25      242.00     305.47        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 Renovation.                         New Lamp & Ballast      EL 1..............       90.0   Inst.                     119.06      220.90     305.47      13.89        0.0      100.0        0.5
                                      Purchase.              EL 2..............       93.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF        115.74      202.40     291.58      14.12        0.0      100.0        3.2
                                                                                             Inst.                                            291.35
                                                                                            26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.74 BF        109.55      213.66     296.42       9.05        0.4       99.6        3.4
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............       96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF        104.00      217.26     294.47      10.99        0.0      100.0        2.7
                                                                                             Inst.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ The lifetimes of the representative lamps units range from 4.8 to 5.5 years.

                              Table VII.6--LCC and PBP Results for a 4-Lamp 4-Foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Programmed Start System Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Rated                                                                             Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                    lamp                                                                            consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response           Efficacy level     efficacy    Design option \85\    Installed  Discounted                LLC          experience         period
                                                                                    lm/W                               cost     operating  LCC 2013$   savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2013$    cost 2013$               2013$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF         28.26      396.53     425.14        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1..............       90.0   Prog.                      55.17      396.53     436.96     -11.82      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 2..............       93.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF         53.75      332.51     386.60      38.54        0.0      100.0        3.1
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4   Prog.                      47.56      396.53     444.44     -19.30      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 2..............       96.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.89 BF         42.01      356.54     398.90      26.24        0.0      100.0        2.7
                                                                                             Prog.
                                                                                            32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF
                                                                                             Prog.
                                                                                            28.4 W T8 & 0.89 BF
                                                                                             Prog.
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF         89.27      396.53     475.65        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                     Lamp & Ballast          EL 1..............       90.0   Prog.                     116.18      378.87     469.82       5.83        0.3       99.7        1.0
                                      Replacement.           EL 2..............       93.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF        114.75      332.51     437.11      38.54        0.0      100.0        3.1
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4   Prog.                     108.57      378.87     477.30      -1.64       74.2       25.8        8.4
                                                             EL 2..............       96.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF        103.02      340.36     433.24      42.42        0.0      100.0        1.9
                                                                                             Prog.
                                                                                            32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF
                                                                                             Prog.
                                                                                            28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF
                                                                                             Prog.
Event III: New Construction and      Baseline..............  Baseline..........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF         92.11      396.53     478.01        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 Renovation.                         New Lamp & Ballast      EL 1..............       90.0   Prog.                     119.02      378.87     472.17       5.83        0.3       99.7        1.0
                                      Purchase.              EL 2..............       93.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF        117.59      332.51     439.47      38.54        0.0      100.0        3.1
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4   Prog.                     111.41      378.87     479.65      -1.64       74.2       25.8        8.4
                                                             EL 2..............       96.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF        105.86      340.36     435.59      42.42        0.0      100.0        1.9
                                                                                             Prog.
                                                                                            32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF
                                                                                             Prog.
                                                                                            28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF
                                                                                             Prog.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ The lifetimes of the representative lamps units range from 6.9 to 9.2 years.

[[Page 4110]]

                               Table VII.7--LCC and PBP Results for a 2-Lamp 4-Foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Instant Start System Operating in the Residential Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Rated                                                                             Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                    lamp                                                                            consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response           Efficacy level     efficacy    Design option \86\    Installed  Discounted                LCC          experience         period
                                                                                    lm/W                               cost     operating  LCC 2013$   savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2013$    cost 2013$               2013$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF         10.59       49.49      60.09        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1..............       90.0   Inst.                      11.70       49.49      61.19      -1.10      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 2..............       93.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF         23.33       41.51      64.84      -4.75       94.0        6.0       16.9
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4   Inst.                      20.24       49.49      69.74      -9.65      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 2..............       96.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF         17.47       44.51      61.97      -1.88       86.3       13.7       14.6
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                                                            32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                                                            28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF
                                                                                             Inst.
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF         53.44       49.49     102.93        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                     Lamp & Ballast          EL 1..............       90.0   Inst.                      54.54       46.98     101.53       1.41        0.8       99.2        4.7
                                      Replacement.           EL 2..............       93.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF         66.18       41.51     107.69      -4.75       94.0        6.0       16.9
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4   Inst.                      63.09       46.98     110.07      -7.14      100.0        0.0       40.8
                                                             EL 2..............       96.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF         60.31       42.24     102.56       0.38       43.8       56.2       10.1
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                                                            32.5 W T8 & 0.83 BF
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                                                            28.4 W T8 & 0.83 BF
                                                                                             Inst.
Event III: New Construction and      Baseline..............  Baseline..........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF         56.28       49.49     105.77        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 Renovation.                         New Lamp & Ballast      EL 1..............       90.0   Inst.                      57.38       46.98     104.37       1.41        0.8       99.2        4.7
                                      Purchase.              EL 2..............       93.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.838 BF        69.02       41.51     110.53      -4.75       94.0        6.0       16.9
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4   Inst.                      65.93       46.98     112.91      -7.14      100.0        0.0       40.8
                                                             EL 2..............       96.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF         63.15       42.24     105.40       0.38       43.8       56.2       10.1
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                                                            32.5 W T8 & 0.83 BF
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                                                            28.4 W T8 & 0.83 BF
                                                                                             Inst.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ The lifetimes of the representative lamps units are 15 years.

                              Table VII.8--LCC and PBP Results for a Two-Lamp 4-Foot 54 W T5 Miniature Bipin High Output System Operating in the Industrial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Rated                                                                             Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                    lamp                                       Discounted                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response           Efficacy level     efficacy    Design option \87\    Installed   operating     LCC        LLC          experience         period
                                                                                    lm/W                               cost       cost       2013$     savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2013$       2013$                 2013$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       83.6  53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog.      18.79      198.89     217.86        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1..............       92.9  53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog.      26.89      198.89     225.96      -8.11      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 1..............      102.0  49 W T5 & 1 BF Prog...      32.88      181.63     207.42      10.44        0.0      100.0        3.6
                                                             EL 1..............      102.1  47 W T5 & 1 BF Prog...      35.82      174.43     205.82      12.04        0.0      100.0        3.0
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       83.6  53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog.      73.59      198.89     250.82        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                     Lamp & Ballast........  EL 1..............       92.9  53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog.      81.69      198.89     258.93      -8.11      100.0        0.0        NER
                                      Replacement.           EL 1..............      102.0  49 W T5 & 1 BF Prog...      87.68      181.63     240.38      10.44        0.0      100.0        3.6
                                                             EL 1..............      102.1  47 W T5 & 1 BF Prog...      90.62      174.43     238.78      12.04        0.0      100.0        3.0
Event III: New Construction and      Baseline..............  Baseline..........       83.6  53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog.      76.43      198.89     252.53        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 Renovation.                         New Lamp & Ballast      EL 1..............       92.9  53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog.      84.54      198.89     260.63      -8.11      100.0        0.0        NER
                                      Purchase.              EL 1..............      102.0  49 W T5 & 1 BF Prog...      90.52      181.63     242.09      10.44        0.0      100.0        3.6
                                                             EL 1..............      102.1  47 W T5 & 1 BF Prog...      93.46      174.43     240.49      12.04        0.0      100.0        3.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ The lifetimes of the representative lamps units range from 5.1 to 7.2 years.

[[Page 4111]]

                            Table VII.9--LCC and PBP Results for a Two-Lamp 4-Foot 28 W T5 Miniature Bipin Standard Output System Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Rated                                                                             Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                    lamp                                       Discounted                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response           Efficacy level     efficacy    Design option \88\    Installed   operating     LCC        LLC          experience         period
                                                                                    lm/W                               cost       cost       2013$     savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2013$       2013$                 2013$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       94.6  27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog.      15.48      168.05     183.71        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1..............      104.3  27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog.      19.38      168.05     187.62      -3.91      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 2..............      109.7  27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog.      21.76      168.05     190.00      -6.29      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 2..............      111.5  26 W T5 & 1 BF Prog...      24.94      157.48     182.61       1.10       35.6       64.4        5.4
                                                             EL 2..............      116.0  25 W T5 & 1 BF Prog...      27.72      151.60     176.35       7.36        0.0      100.0        4.5
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       94.6  27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog.      69.04      168.05     219.39        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                     Lamp & Ballast........  EL 1..............      104.3  27.8 W T5 & 0.85 BF         72.94      147.48     202.73      16.66        0.0      100.0        1.1
                                                                                             Prog.
                                     Replacement.            EL 2..............      109.7  27.8 W T5 & 0.85 BF         75.32      147.48     205.11      14.28        0.0      100.0        1.8
                                                                                             Prog.
                                                             EL 2..............      111.5  26 W T5 & 0.85 BF Prog      78.50      138.30     199.12      20.28        0.0      100.0        1.9
                                                             EL 2..............      116.0  25 W T5 & 0.85 BF Prog      81.28      133.20     193.64      25.76        0.0      100.0        2.1
Event III: New Construction and      Baseline..............  Baseline..........       94.6  27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog.      71.88      168.05     221.29        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 Renovation.
                                     New Lamp & Ballast      EL 1..............      104.3  27.8 W T5 & 0.85 BF         75.79      147.48     204.63      16.66        0.0      100.0        1.1
                                      Purchase.                                              Prog.
                                                             EL 2..............      109.7  27.8 W T5 & 0.85 BF         78.17      147.48     207.01      14.28        0.0      100.0        1.8
                                                                                             Prog.
                                                             EL 2..............      111.5  26 W T5 & 0.85 BF Prog      81.34      138.30     201.01      20.28        0.0      100.0        1.9
                                                             EL 2..............      116.0  25 W T5 & 0.85 BF Prog      84.12      133.20     195.53      25.76        0.0      100.0        2.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ The lifetimes of the representative lamps units range from 6.9 to 8.1 years.

                                  Table VII.10--LCC and PBP Results for a Two-Lamp 8-Foot 59 W T8 Single Pin Slimline System Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Rated                                                                             Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                    lamp                                       Discounted                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response           Efficacy level     efficacy    Design option \89\    Installed   operating     LCC        LLC          experience         period
                                                                                    lm/W                               cost       cost       2013$     savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2013$       2013$                 2013$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       96.5  60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF         27.02      235.88     263.29        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                             Inst.
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1..............       98.2  60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF         29.72      235.88     266.00      -2.70      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............       99.0  60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF         34.89      235.88     271.17      -7.88      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............      105.6  54 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst      43.98      223.67     268.05      -4.75       93.5        6.5        6.6
                                                             EL 2..............      108.0  50 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst      51.41      207.38     259.19       4.10       18.4       81.6        4.1
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       96.5  60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF        103.85      232.93     301.36        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                             Inst.
                                     Lamp & Ballast........  EL 1..............       98.2  60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF        106.55      207.99     279.13      22.23        0.0      100.0        0.5
                                                                                             Inst.
                                      Replacement.           EL 2..............       99.0  60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF        111.72      207.99     284.31      17.06        0.0      100.0        1.5
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............      105.6  54 W T8 & 0.77 BF Inst     120.81      197.22     282.62      18.75        0.0      100.0        2.3
                                                             EL 2..............      108.0  50 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst     128.24      204.71     297.54       3.83       21.5       78.5        4.1
Event III: New.....................  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       96.5  60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF        106.69      232.93     302.88        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                             Inst.
 Construction and                    New Lamp & Ballast....  EL 1..............       98.2  60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF        109.39      207.99     280.65      22.23        0.0      100.0        0.5
                                                                                             Inst.
 Renovation                           Purchase.              EL 2..............       99.0  60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF        114.57      207.99     285.82      17.06        0.0      100.0        1.5
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............      105.6  54 W T8 & 0.77 BF Inst     123.65      197.22     284.13      18.75        0.0      100.0        2.3
                                                             EL 2..............      108.0  50 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst     131.08      204.71     299.06       3.83       21.5       78.5        4.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ The lifetimes of the representative lamps units are 5.4 years.

[[Page 4112]]

                              Table VII.11--LCC and PBP Results for a Two-Lamp 8-Foot 86 W T8 Recessed Double Contact HO System Operating in the Industrial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Rated                                                                             Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                    lamp                                       Discounted                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response           Efficacy level     efficacy    Design option \90\    Installed   operating     LCC        LLC          experience         period
                                                                                    lm/W                               cost       cost       2013$     savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2013$       2013$                 2013$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       92.0  84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog      24.73      225.36     250.47        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1..............       95.2  84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog      34.39      225.36     260.13      -9.67      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 2..............       97.6  84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog      41.67      225.36     267.42     -16.95      100.0        0.0        NER
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       92.0  84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog     103.98      225.36     287.49        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                     Lamp & Ballast........  EL 1..............       95.2  84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog     113.65      225.36     297.16      -9.67      100.0        0.0        NER
                                      Replacement.           EL 2..............       97.6  84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog     120.93      225.36     304.44     -16.95      100.0        0.0        NER
Event III: New.....................  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       92.0  84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog     106.82      225.36     288.82        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 Construction and                    New Lamp & Ballast....  EL 1..............       95.2  84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog     116.49      225.36     298.49      -9.67      100.0        0.0        NER
 Renovation.                          Purchase.              EL 2..............       97.6  84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog     123.77      225.36     305.77     -16.95      100.0        0.0        NER
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ The lifetimes of the representative lamp units are 3.6 years.

[[Page 4113]]

Incandescent Reflector Lamps
    Table VII.12 through Table VII.15 present the commercial and 
residential sector LCC results for the IRL representative product 
class, the standard spectrum IRLs with diameters greater than 2.5 
inches, input voltages less than 125 V.

[[Page 4114]]

                                  Table VII.12--LCC and PBP Results for a 55 W PAR38 2,500 Hour HIR EL 1 Representative Lamp Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Rated                                                                             Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                    lamp                                       Discounted                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response           Efficacy level     efficacy        Lamp option       Installed   operating     LCC        LLC          experience         period
                                                                                    lm/W                               cost       cost       2013$     savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2013$       2013$                 2013$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure;.............  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       17.8  60W, 1500hrs, Improved      10.67        9.88      20.54        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                             Halogen.
 or Event III: New Construction and  Lamp Replacement or     EL 1..............       17.8  55W, 2500hrs, HIR.....      13.25        9.05      17.00       3.54        0.0      100.0        3.0
 Renovation                           New Lamp Purchase.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Table VII.13--LCC and PBP Results for a 55 W PAR38 2,500 Hour HIR EL 1 Representative Lamp Operating in the Residential Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Rated                                                                             Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                    lamp                                       Discounted                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response           Efficacy level     efficacy        Lamp option       Installed   operating     LCC        LLC          experience         period
                                                                                    lm/W                               cost       cost       2013$     savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2013$       2013$                 2013$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure;.............  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       17.8  60W, 1500hrs, Improved       9.52       10.92      20.45        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                             Halogen.
 or Event III: New Construction and  Lamp Replacement or     EL 1..............       17.8  55W, 2500hrs, HIR.....      12.10       10.01      17.74       2.71        0.0      100.0        5.2
 Renovation                           New Lamp Purchase.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             Table VII.14--LCC and PBP Results for a 55 W PAR38 4,200 Hour Improved HIR EL 1 Representative Lamp Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Rated                                                                             Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                    lamp                                       Discounted                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response           Efficacy level     efficacy        Lamp option       Installed   operating     LCC        LLC          experience         period
                                                                                    lm/W                               cost       cost       2013$     savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2013$       2013$                 2013$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure;.............  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       17.8  60W, 1500hrs, Improved      10.67        9.88      20.54        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                             Halogen.
 or Event III: New Construction and  Lamp Replacement or     EL 1..............       20.4  55W, 4200hrs, Improved      15.15        9.05      14.46       6.08        0.0      100.0        5.2
 Renovation                           New Lamp Purchase.                                     HIR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4115]]

                             Table VII.15--LCC and PBP Results for a 55 W PAR38 4,200 Hour Improved HIR EL 1 Representative Lamp Operating in the Residential Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Rated                                                                             Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                    lamp                                       Discounted                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response           Efficacy level     efficacy        Lamp option       Installed   operating     LCC        LLC          experience         period
                                                                                    lm/W                               cost       cost       2013$     savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2013$       2013$                 2013$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure; or Event      Baseline..............  Baseline..........       17.8  60W, 1500hrs, Improved       9.52       10.92      20.45        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 III: New Construction and                                                                   Halogen.
 Renovation.
                                     Lamp Replacement or     EL 1..............       20.4  55W, 4200hrs, Improved      14.00       10.01      15.87       4.58        0.0      100.0        9.0
                                      New Lamp Purchase.                                     HIR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4116]]

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    Certain consumer subgroups may be disproportionately affected by 
standards. Using the LCC spreadsheet model, DOE determined the impact 
of the TSLs on the following consumer subgroups: low-income consumers 
and institutions that serve low-income populations.
    To reflect conditions faced by the identified subgroups, DOE 
adjusted particular inputs to the LCC model. For low-income consumers, 
DOE only used RECS data for consumers living below the poverty line. 
For institutions serving low-income populations, DOE assumed that the 
majority of these institutions are small nonprofits, and used a higher 
discount rate of 8.2 percent (versus 3.6 percent for the main 
commercial sector analysis). DOE found the differences between the LCC 
and PBP results for the subgroups analyzed and the primary LCC and PBP 
analysis to be minimal. See chapter 9 of the final rule TSD further 
details of the consumer subgroup analysis.
General Service Fluorescent Lamps
    Table VII.16 through Table VII.24 show the LCC impacts and payback 
periods for the identified subgroups for GSFLs. Entries of ``NER'' 
indicate standard levels that do not reduce operating costs.

[[Page 4117]]

   Table VII.16--LCC and PBP Subgroup Results for Institutions Serving Low-Income Populations for a 2-Lamp 4-Foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Instant Start System Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Rated                                                                             Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                    lamp                                       Discounted                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response           Efficacy level     efficacy       Design option      Installed   operating     LCC        LLC          experience         period
                                                                                    lm/W                               cost       cost       2013$     savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2013$       2013$                 2013$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure                Baseline..............  Baseline..........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF         17.38      110.26     127.79        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                             Inst.
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1..............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF         32.05      110.26     132.38      -4.59        100          0        NER
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............       93.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF         30.12       92.34     122.61       5.18        1.3       98.7        3.1
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF         27.03      110.26     137.44      -9.65      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............       96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF         24.25       99.07     123.47       4.32        0.0      100.0        2.6
                                                                                             Inst.
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF         60.77      110.06     156.30        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                             Inst.
                                     Lamp & Ballast........  EL 1..............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF         75.44       98.44     149.27       7.03        0.0      100.0        0.4
                                                                                             Inst.
                                      Replacement.           EL 2..............       93.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF         73.51       92.17     151.15       5.15        1.4       98.6        3.1
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.77 BF         70.42       95.89     151.78       4.53        0.3       99.7        2.9
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............       96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF         67.64       94.89     148.01       8.30        0.0      100.0        1.9
                                                                                             Inst.
Event III: New.....................  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF         63.61      110.06     158.18        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                             Inst.
 Construction and                    New Lamp & Ballast....  EL 1..............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF         78.28       98.44     151.15       7.03        0.0      100.0        0.4
                                                                                             Inst.
 Renovation.                          Purchase.              EL 2..............       93.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF         76.35       92.17     153.03       5.15        1.4       98.6        3.1
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.77 BF         73.26       95.89     153.66       4.53        0.3       99.7        2.9
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............       96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF         70.49       94.89     149.89       8.30        0.0      100.0        1.9
                                                                                             Inst.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table VII.17--LCC and PBP Subgroup Results for Institutions Serving Low-Income Populations for a 2-Lamp 4-Foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Programmed Start System Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Rated                                                                             Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                    lamp                                       Discounted                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response           Efficacy level     efficacy       Design option      Installed   operating     LCC        LLC          experience         period
                                                                                    lm/W                               cost       cost       2013$     savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2013$       2013$                 2013$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF         17.38      163.71     181.21        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                             Prog.
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1..............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF         30.05      163.71     187.69      -6.48      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                             Prog.
                                                             EL 2..............       93.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF         30.12      137.48     167.73      13.49        0.0      100.0        3.1
                                                                                             Prog.
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF         27.03      163.71     190.86      -9.65      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                             Prog.
                                                             EL 2..............       96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF         24.25      147.33     171.71       9.51        0.0      100.0        2.6
                                                                                             Prog.
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF         61.98      163.71     220.61        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                             Prog.
                                     Lamp & Ballast........  EL 1..............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF         74.65      163.71     227.09      -6.48      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                             Prog.
                                      Replacement.           EL 1..............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF         74.65      137.10     200.48      20.13        0.0      100.0        0.3
                                                                                             Prog.
                                                             EL 2..............       93.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF         74.72      137.48     207.12      13.49        0.0      100.0        3.1
                                                                                             Prog.
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF         71.63      163.71     230.26      -9.65      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                             Prog.
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF         71.63      137.10     203.65      16.97        0.0      100.0        2.3
                                                                                             Prog.
                                                             EL 2..............       96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF         68.85      147.33     211.11       9.51        0.0      100.0        2.6
                                                                                             Prog.
Event III: New.....................  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF         64.82      163.71     223.12        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                             Prog.
 Construction and                    New Lamp & Ballast....  EL 1..............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF         77.49      163.71     229.60      -6.48      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                             Prog.
 Renovation.                          Purchase.              EL 1..............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF         77.49      137.10     202.99      20.13        0.0      100.0        0.3
                                                                                             Prog.
                                                             EL 2..............       93.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF         77.56      137.48     209.64      13.49        0.0      100.0        3.1
                                                                                             Prog.
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF         74.47      163.71     232.77      -9.65      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                             Prog.
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF         74.47      137.10     206.16      16.97        0.0      100.0        2.3
                                                                                             Prog.
                                                             EL 2..............       96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF         71.70      147.33     213.62       9.51        0.0      100.0        2.6
                                                                                             Prog.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4118]]

   Table VII.18--LCC and PBP Subgroup Results for Institutions Serving Low-Income Populations for a 4-Lamp 4-Foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Instant Start System Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Rated                                                                             Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                    lamp                                                                            consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response           Efficacy level     efficacy       Design option      Installed  Discounted                LLC          experience         period
                                                                                    lm/W                               cost     operating  LCC 2013$   savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2013$    cost 2013$               2013$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF         28.26      217.09     245.65        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                             Inst.
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1..............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF         52.85      217.09     253.57      -7.92      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............       93.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF         53.75      181.77     235.82       9.83        1.9       98.1        3.1
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF         47.56      217.09     264.95     -19.30      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............       96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF         42.01      195.03     237.33       8.31        0.0      100.0        2.7
                                                                                             Inst.
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF         87.41      211.39     279.10        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                             Inst.
                                     Lamp & Ballast........  EL 1..............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF        112.00      192.97     268.59      10.51        0.0      100.0        0.5
                                                                                             Inst.
                                      Replacement.           EL 2..............       93.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF        112.90      176.80     269.99       9.11        2.2       97.8        3.2
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.74 BF        106.71      186.63     273.63       5.46        5.1       94.9        3.4
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............       96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF        101.16      189.78     271.23       7.86        0.0      100.0        2.7
                                                                                             Inst.
Event III: New.....................  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF         90.25      211.39     280.98        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                             Inst.
 Construction and                    New Lamp & Ballast      EL 1..............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF        114.84      192.97     270.47      10.51        0.0      100.0        0.5
                                                                                             Inst.
 Renovation.                         Purchase.               EL 2..............       93.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF        115.74      176.80     271.87       9.11        2.2       97.8        3.2
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.74 BF        109.55      186.63     275.51       5.46        5.1       94.9        3.4
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............       96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF        104.00      189.78     273.11       7.86        0.0      100.0        2.7
                                                                                             Inst.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table VII.19--LCC and PBP Subgroup Results for Institutions Serving Low-Income Populations for a 4-Lamp 4-Foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Programmed Start System Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Rated                                                                             Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                    lamp                                                                            consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response           Efficacy level     efficacy       Design option      Installed  Discounted                LLC          experience         period
                                                                                    lm/W                               cost     operating  LCC 2013$   savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2013$    cost 2013$               2013$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF         28.26      323.51     352.00        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                             Prog.
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1..............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF         49.53      323.51     363.05     -11.04      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                             Prog.
                                                             EL 2..............       93.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.89 BF         53.75      271.27     325.26      26.75        0.0      100.0        3.1
                                                                                             Prog.
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF         47.56      323.51     371.30     -19.30      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                             Prog.
                                                             EL 2..............       96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.89 BF         42.01      290.88     333.13      18.88        0.0      100.0        2.7
                                                                                             Prog.
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF         89.27      323.51     405.90        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                             Prog.
                                     Lamp & Ballast          EL 1..............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF        110.54      309.10     402.54       3.36        4.0       96.0        1.0
                                      Replacement                                            Prog.
                                                             EL 2..............       93.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.89 BF        114.75      271.27     379.15      26.75        0.0      100.0        3.1
                                                                                             Prog.
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF        108.57      309.10     410.79      -4.89       88.8       11.2        8.4
                                                                                             Prog.
                                                             EL 2..............       96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF        103.02      277.68     373.82      32.07        0.0      100.0        1.9
                                                                                             Prog.
Event III: New Construction and      Baseline..............  Baseline..........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF         92.11      323.51     408.41        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 Renovation.                                                                                 Prog.
                                     New Lamp & Ballast      EL 1..............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF        113.38      309.10     405.05       3.36        4.0       96.0        1.0
                                      Purchase.                                              Prog.
                                                             EL 2..............       93.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.89 BF        117.59      271.27     381.66      26.75        0.0      100.0        3.1
                                                                                             Prog.
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF        111.41      309.10     413.30      -4.89       88.8       11.2        8.4
                                                                                             Prog.
                                                             EL 2..............       96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF        105.86      277.68     376.33      32.07        0.0      100.0        1.9
                                                                                             Prog.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4119]]

              Table VII.20--LCC and PBP Subgroup Results for Low-Income Consumers for a 2-Lamp 4-Foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Instant Start System Operating in the Residential Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Rated                                                                             Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                    lamp                                                                            consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response           Efficacy level     efficacy       Design option      Installed  Discounted     LCC        LLC          experience         period
                                                                                    lm/W                               cost     operating    2013$     savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2013$    cost 2013$               2013$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF         10.60       49.49      60.09        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                             Inst.
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1..............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF         11.71       49.49      61.20      -1.10        100          0        NER
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............       93.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF         23.36       41.50      64.86      -4.77       93.3        6.7       16.9
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF         20.26       49.49      69.75      -9.66        100          0        NER
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............       96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF         17.48       44.50      61.98      -1.89       86.4       13.6       14.6
                                                                                             Inst.
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF         53.46       49.49     102.94        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                             Inst.
                                     Lamp & Ballast          EL 1..............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.83 BF         54.56       46.98     101.54       1.40        0.8       99.2        4.7
                                                                                             Inst.
                                      Replacement.           EL 2..............       93.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF         66.21       41.50     107.71      -4.77       93.3        6.7       16.9
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.83 BF         63.11       46.98     110.09      -7.15      100.0        0.0       40.8
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............       96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.83 BF         60.34       42.24     102.57       0.37       43.8       56.2       10.1
                                                                                             Inst.
Event III: New Construction and      Baseline..............  Baseline..........       89.2  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF         56.30       49.49     105.79        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 Renovation.                                                                                 Inst.
                                     New Lamp & Ballast      EL 1..............       90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.83 BF         57.40       46.98     104.38       1.40        0.8       99.2        4.7
                                      Purchase.                                              Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............       93.0  26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF         69.05       41.50     110.55      -4.77       93.3        6.7       16.9
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............       95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.83 BF         65.96       46.98     112.93      -7.15      100.0        0.0       40.8
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............       96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.83 BF         63.18       42.24     105.42       0.37       43.8       56.2       10.1
                                                                                             Inst.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table VII.21--LCC and PBP Subgroup Results for Institutions Serving Low-Income Populations for a Two-Lamp 4-Foot 54 W T5 Miniature Bipin High Output System Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Rated                                                                             Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                    lamp                                                                            consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response           Efficacy level     efficacy       Design option      Installed  Discounted     LCC        LLC          experience         period
                                                                                    lm/W                               cost     operating    2013$     savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2013$    cost 2013$               2013$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       83.6  53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog.      18.78      239.73     258.66        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1..............       92.9  53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog.      26.88      239.73     266.76      -8.10      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 1..............      102.0  49 W T5 & 1 BF Prog...      32.86      218.93     245.99      12.67        0.0      100.0        3.0
                                                             EL 1..............      102.1  47 W T5 & 1 BF Prog...      35.81      210.25     242.43      16.23        0.0      100.0        2.6
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       83.6  53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog.      73.57      239.73     295.57        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                     Lamp & Ballast          EL 1..............       92.9  53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog.      81.67      239.73     303.67      -8.10      100.0        0.0        NER
                                      Replacement.           EL 1..............      102.0  49 W T5 & 1 BF Prog...      87.65      218.93     282.90      12.67        0.0      100.0        3.0
                                                             EL 1..............      102.1  47 W T5 & 1 BF Prog...      90.60      210.25     279.34      16.23        0.0      100.0        2.6
Event III: New Construction and      Baseline..............  Baseline..........       83.6  53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog.      76.41      239.73     297.48        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 Renovation.
                                     New Lamp & Ballast      EL 1..............       92.9  53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog.      84.51      239.73     305.59      -8.10      100.0        0.0        NER
                                      Purchase.
                                                             EL 1..............      102.0  49 W T5 & 1 BF Prog...      90.49      218.93     284.81      12.67        0.0      100.0        3.0
                                                             EL 1..............      102.1  47 W T5 & 1 BF Prog...      93.44      210.25     281.25      16.23        0.0      100.0        2.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4120]]

   Table VII.22--LCC and PBP Subgroup Results for Institutions Serving Low-Income Populations for a Two-Lamp 4-Foot 28 W T5 Miniature Bipin Standard Output System Operating in the Commercial
                                                                                             Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Rated                                                                             Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                    lamp                                       Discounted                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response           Efficacy level     efficacy       Design option      Installed   operating     LCC        LLC          experience         period
                                                                                    lm/W                               cost       cost       2013$     savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2013$       2013$                 2013$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       94.6  27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog.      15.48      143.06     158.67        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1..............      104.3  27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog.      19.38      143.06     162.58      -3.91      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 2..............      109.7  27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog.      21.76      143.06     164.96      -6.29      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 2..............      111.5  26 W T5 & 1 BF Prog...      24.94      134.06     159.14      -0.47       71.2       28.8        5.4
                                                             EL 2..............      116.0  25 W T5 & 1 BF Prog...      27.72      129.06     154.58       4.09        2.5       97.5        4.5
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       94.6  27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog.      69.04      143.06     199.02        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                     Lamp & Ballast........  EL 1..............      104.3  27.8 W T5 & 0.85 BF         72.94      125.55     185.42      13.60        0.0      100.0        1.1
                                                                                             Prog.
                                      Replacement.           EL 2..............      109.7  27.8 W T5 & 0.85 BF         75.32      125.55     187.80      11.22        0.0      100.0        1.8
                                                                                             Prog.
                                                             EL 2..............      111.5  26 W T5 & 0.85 BF Prog      78.50      117.74     183.17      15.86        0.0      100.0        1.9
                                                             EL 2..............      116.0  25 W T5 & 0.85 BF Prog      81.28      113.39     179.27      19.75        0.0      100.0        2.1
Event III: New.....................  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       94.6  27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog.      71.88      143.06     201.16        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 Construction and                    New Lamp & Ballast....  EL 1..............      104.3  27.8 W T5 & 0.85 BF         75.79      125.55     187.56      13.60        0.0      100.0        1.1
                                                                                             Prog.
 Renovation.                          Purchase.              EL 2..............      109.7  27.8 W T5 & 0.85 BF         78.17      125.55     189.94      11.22        0.0      100.0        1.8
                                                                                             Prog.
                                                             EL 2..............      111.5  26 W T5 & 0.85 BF Prog      81.34      117.74     185.31      15.86        0.0      100.0        1.9
                                                             EL 2..............      116.0  25 W T5 & 0.85 BF Prog      84.12      113.39     181.41      19.75        0.0      100.0        2.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Table VII.23--LCC and PBP Subgroup Results for Institutions Serving Low-Income Populations for a Two-Lamp 8-Foot 59 W T8 Single Pin Slimline System Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Rated                                                                             Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                    lamp                                       Discounted                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response           Efficacy level     efficacy       Design option      Installed   operating     LCC        LLC          experience         period
                                                                                    lm/W                               cost       cost       2013$     savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2013$       2013$                 2013$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       96.5  60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF         27.02      206.75     234.09        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                             Inst.
Lamp Replacement                                             EL 1..............       98.2  60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF         29.72      206.75     236.79      -2.70      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............       99.0  60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF         34.89      206.75     241.97      -7.88      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............      105.6  54 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst      43.98      196.05     240.35      -6.26       99.8        0.2        6.6
                                                             EL 2..............      108.0  50 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst      51.41      181.77     233.51       0.58       59.9       40.1        4.1
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       96.5  60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF        103.85      204.17     279.48        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                                                                             Inst.
                                     Lamp & Ballast........  EL 1..............       98.2  60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF        106.55      182.31     260.33      19.15        0.0      100.0        0.5
                                                                                             Inst.
                                      Replacement.           EL 2..............       99.0  60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF        111.72      182.31     265.50      13.98        0.0      100.0        1.5
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............      105.6  54 W T8 & 0.77 BF Inst     120.81      172.87     265.14      14.34        0.0      100.0        2.3
                                                             EL 2..............      108.0  50 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst     128.24      179.43     279.14       0.34       63.2       36.8        4.1
Event III: New Construction and      Baseline..............  Baseline..........       96.5  60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF        106.69      204.17     281.25        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 Renovation.                                                                                 Inst.
                                     New Lamp & Ballast      EL 1..............       98.2  60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF        109.39      182.31     262.10      19.15        0.0      100.0        0.5
                                      Purchase.                                              Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............       99.0  60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF        114.57      182.31     267.27      13.98        0.0      100.0        1.5
                                                                                             Inst.
                                                             EL 2..............      105.6  54 W T8 & 0.77 BF Inst     123.65      172.87     266.91      14.34        0.0      100.0        2.3
                                                             EL 2..............      108.0  50 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst     131.08      179.43     280.91       0.34       63.2       36.8        4.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4121]]

  Table VII.24--LCC and PBP Subgroup Results for Institutions Serving Low-Income Populations for a Two-Lamp 8-Foot 86 W T8 Recessed Double Contact HO System Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Rated                                                                             Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                    lamp                                       Discounted                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response           Efficacy level     efficacy       Design option      Installed   operating     LCC        LLC          experience         period
                                                                                    lm/W                               cost       cost       2013$     savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2013$       2013$                 2013$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure..............  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       92.0  84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog      24.72      279.36     304.43        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                     Lamp Replacement......  EL 1..............       95.2  84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog      34.38      279.36     314.09      -9.66      100.0        0.0        NER
                                                             EL 2..............       97.6  84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog      41.66      279.36     321.37     -16.94      100.0        0.0        NER
Event II: Ballast Failure..........  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       92.0  84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog     103.96      279.36     345.38        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
                                     Lamp & Ballast........  EL 1..............       95.2  84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog     113.62      279.36     355.04      -9.66      100.0        0.0        NER
                                      Replacement.           EL 2..............       97.6  84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog     120.90      279.36     362.32     -16.94      100.0        0.0        NER
Event III: New.....................  Baseline..............  Baseline..........       92.0  84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog     106.80      279.36     346.85        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 Construction and                    New Lamp & Ballast....  EL 1..............       95.2  84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog     116.47      279.36     356.51      -9.66      100.0        0.0        NER
 Renovation.                          Purchase.              EL 2..............       97.6  84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog     123.74      279.36     363.79     -16.94      100.0        0.0        NER
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4122]]

Incandescent Reflector Lamps
    Table VII.25 through Table VII.28 show the LCC impacts and payback 
periods for the identified subgroups for IRLs.

[[Page 4123]]

     Table VII.25--LCC and PBP Subgroup Results for Institutions Serving Low-Income Populations for a 55 W PAR38 2,500 Hour HIR EL 1 Representative Lamp Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Rated                                                                             Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                    lamp                                       Discounted                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response           Efficacy level     efficacy        Lamp option       Installed   operating     LCC        LLC          experience         period
                                                                                    lm/W                               cost       cost       2013$     savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2013$       2013$                 2013$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure; or Event      Baseline..............  Baseline..........       17.8  60W, 1500hrs, Improved      10.67        9.46      20.13        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 III: New Construction and           ......................  ..................  .........   Halogen.               .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
 Renovation.                         Lamp Replacement or     EL 1..............       17.8  55W, 2500hrs, HIR.....      13.25        8.67      16.62       3.51        0.0      100.0        3.0
                                      New Lamp Purchase.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Table VII.26--LCC and PBP Subgroup Results for Low-Income Consumers for a 55 W PAR38 2,500 Hour HIR EL 1 Representative Lamp Operating in the Residential Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Rated                                                                             Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                    lamp                                       Discounted                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response           Efficacy level     efficacy        Lamp option       Installed   operating     LCC        LCC          experience         period
                                                                                    lm/W                               cost       cost       2013$     savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2013$       2013$                 2013$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure; or Event      Baseline..............  Baseline..........       17.8  60W, 1500hrs, Improved       9.53       10.77      20.31        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 III: New Construction and           ......................  ..................  .........   Halogen.               .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
 Renovation.                         Lamp Replacement or     EL 1..............       17.8  55W, 2500hrs, HIR.....      12.11        9.88      17.61       2.70        0.0      100.0        5.3
                                      New Lamp Purchase.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table VII.27--LCC and PBP Subgroup Results for Institutions Serving Low-Income Populations for a 55 W PAR38 4,200 Hour Improved HIR EL 1 Representative Lamp Operating in the Commercial Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Rated                                                                             Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                    lamp                                       Discounted                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response           Efficacy level     efficacy        Lamp option       Installed   operating     LCC        LLC          experience         period
                                                                                    lm/W                               cost       cost       2013$     savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2013$       2013$                 2013$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure; or Event      Baseline..............  Baseline..........       17.8  60W, 1500hrs, Improved      10.67        9.46      20.13        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 III: New Construction and           ......................  ..................  .........   Halogen.               .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
 Renovation.                         Lamp Replacement or     EL 1..............       20.4  55W, 4200hrs, Improved      15.15        8.67      14.08       6.05        0.0      100.0        5.2
                                      New Lamp Purchase.                                     HIR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4124]]

            Table VII.28--LCC and PBP Subgroup Results for Low-Income Consumers for a 55 W PAR38 4,200 Hour Improved HIR EL 1 Representative Lamp Operating in the Residential Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Life-cycle cost              Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Rated                                                                             Percentage of        Mean
                                                                                    lamp                                       Discounted                           consumers that      payback
               Event                        Response           Efficacy level     efficacy        Lamp option       Installed   operating     LCC        LLC          experience         period
                                                                                    lm/W                               cost       cost       2013$     savings  ----------------------   years
                                                                                                                      2013$       2013$                 2013$                  Net
                                                                                                                                                                  Net cost   benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event I: Lamp Failure; or Event      Baseline..............  Baseline..........       17.8  60W, 1500hrs, Improved       9.53       10.77      20.31        N/A        N/A        N/A        N/A
 III: New Construction and           ......................  ..................  .........   Halogen.               .........  ..........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
 Renovation.                         Lamp Replacement or     EL 1..............       20.4  55W, 4200hrs, Improved      14.01        9.88      15.74       4.57        0.0      100.0        9.2
                                      New Lamp Purchase.                                     HIR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4125]]

c. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback
    EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that an energy 
conservation standard is economically justified if the increased 
purchase cost for a product that meets the standard is less than three 
times the value of the first-year energy savings resulting from the 
standard. DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values that calculate the 
payback period for consumers of potential energy conservation 
standards, which include, but are not limited to, the 3-year payback 
period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. However, DOE 
routinely conducts a full economic analysis that considers the full 
range of impacts--including those on consumers, manufacturers, the 
nation, and the environment--as required under 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for 
DOE to evaluate the economic justification for a potential standard 
level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary 
determination of economic justification).
    Table VII.29 shows the GSFL payback periods that are less than 3 
years for the most common sector for each product class. There are no 
IRL payback periods less than 3 years.

                                 Table VII.29--GSFL Efficacy Levels With Rebuttable Payback Period Less Than Three Years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                 Mean
                                                                                                  Efficacy   Rated lamp                         payback
        Lamp description                 Sector               Event               Response          level     efficacy      Design option       period
                                                                                                                lm/W                             years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-Lamp 4-foot Medium Bipin        Commercial.........  Event I: Lamp        Lamp Replacement...        EL 2        96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF         2.6
 Instant Start.                                         Failure.                                                          Inst.
                                                       Event II: Ballast    Lamp & Ballast.....        EL 1        90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF         0.4
                                                        Failure.                                                          Inst.
                                                                             Replacement               EL 2        95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.77 BF         2.9
                                                                                                                          Inst.
                                                                                                       EL 2        96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF         1.9
                                                                                                                          Inst.
                                                       Event III: New       New Lamp & Ballast         EL 1        90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF         0.4
                                                        Construction and     Purchase.                                    Inst.
                                                        Renovation.
                                                                                                       EL 2        95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.77 BF         2.9
                                                                                                                          Inst.
                                                                                                       EL 2        96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF         1.9
                                                                                                                          Inst.
2-Lamp 4-foot Medium Bipin        Commercial.........  Event I: Lamp        Lamp Replacement...        EL 2        96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF         2.6
 Programmed Start.                                      Failure.                                                          Prog.
                                                       Event II: Ballast    Lamp & Ballast             EL 1        90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF         0.3
                                                        Failure.             Replacement.                                 Prog.
                                                                                                       EL 2        95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF         2.3
                                                                                                                          Prog.
                                                                                                       EL 2        96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF         2.6
                                                                                                                          Prog.
                                                       Event III: New       New Lamp & Ballast         EL 1        90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF         0.3
                                                        Construction and     Purchase.                                    Prog.
                                                        Renovation.
                                                                                                       EL 2        95.4  32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF         2.3
                                                                                                                          Prog.
                                                                                                       EL 2        96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF         2.6
                                                                                                                          Prog.
4-Lamp 4-foot Medium Bipin        Commercial.........  Event I: Lamp        Lamp Replacement...        EL 2        96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF         2.7
 Instant Start.                                         Failure.                                                          Inst.
                                                       Event II: Ballast    Lamp & Ballast             EL 1        90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF         0.5
                                                        Failure.             Replacement.                                 Inst.
                                                                                                       EL 2        96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF         2.7
                                                                                                                          Inst.
                                                       Event III: New       New Lamp & Ballast         EL 1        90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF         0.5
                                                        Construction and     Purchase.                                    Inst.
                                                        Renovation.
                                                                                                       EL 2        96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF         2.7
                                                                                                                          Inst.
4-Lamp 4-foot Medium Bipin        Commercial.........  Event I: Lamp        Lamp Replacement...        EL 2        96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.89 BF         2.7
 Programmed Start.                                      Failure.                                                          Prog.
                                                       Event II: Ballast    Lamp & Ballast             EL 1        90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF         1.0
                                                        Failure.             Replacement.                                 Prog.
                                                                                                       EL 2        96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF         1.9
                                                                                                                          Prog.
                                                       Event III: New       New Lamp & Ballast         EL 1        90.0  32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF         1.0
                                                        Construction and     Purchase.                                    Prog.
                                                        Renovation.
                                                                                                       EL 2        96.0  28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF         1.9
                                                                                                                          Prog.
T5 Miniature Bipin Standard       Commercial.........  Event II: Ballast    Lamp & Ballast             EL 1       104.3  27.8 W T5 & 0.85 BF         1.1
 Output.                                                Failure.             Replacement.                                 Prog.
                                                                                                       EL 2       109.7  27.8 W T5 & 0.85 BF         1.8
                                                                                                                          Prog.
                                                                                                       EL 2       111.5  26 W T5 & 0.85 BF           1.9
                                                                                                                          Prog.
                                                                                                       EL 2       116.0  25 W T5 & 0.85 BF           2.1
                                                                                                                          Prog.
                                                       Event III: New       New Lamp & Ballast         EL 1       104.3  27.8 W T5 & 0.85 BF         1.1
                                                        Construction and     Purchase.                                    Prog.
                                                        Renovation.

[[Page 4126]]

 
                                                                                                       EL 2       109.7  27.8 W T5 & 0.85 BF         1.8
                                                                                                                          Prog.
                                                                                                       EL 2       111.5  26 W T5 & 0.85 BF           1.9
                                                                                                                          Prog.
                                                                                                       EL 2       116.0  25 W T5 & 0.85 BF           2.1
                                                                                                                          Prog.
T8 Single Pin Slimline..........  Commercial.........  Event II: Ballast    Lamp & Ballast             EL 1        98.2  60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF         0.5
                                                        Failure.             Replacement.                                 Prog.
                                                                                                       EL 2        99.0  60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF         1.5
                                                                                                                          Prog.
                                                                                                       EL 2       105.6  54 W T8 & 0.77 BF           2.3
                                                                                                                          Prog.
                                                       Event III: New       New Lamp & Ballast         EL 1        98.2  60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF         0.5
                                                        Construction and     Purchase.                                    Prog.
                                                        Renovation.
                                                                                                       EL 2        99.0  60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF         1.5
                                                                                                                          Prog.
                                                                                                       EL 2       105.6  54 W T8 & 0.77 BF           2.3
                                                                                                                          Prog.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
    DOE performed MIAs to estimate the impact of amended energy 
conservation standards on manufacturers of GSFLs and IRLs. The 
following section describes the expected impacts on GSFL and IRL 
manufacturers at each TSL. Chapter 13 of the final rule TSD explains 
the MIA in further detail.
a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results
    The tables in this section depict the financial impacts 
(represented by changes in INPV) of potential amended energy standards 
on GSFL and IRL manufacturers, as well as the conversion costs that DOE 
estimates GSFL and IRL manufacturers would incur at each TSL. DOE 
separately breaks out the impacts on GSFL and IRL manufacturers. To 
evaluate the range of cash-flow impacts on the GSFL and IRL industries, 
DOE modeled three markup scenarios for GSFLs and two markup scenarios 
for IRLs that correspond to the range of anticipated market responses 
to potential amended standards. Each scenario results in a unique set 
of cash flows and corresponding industry values at each TSL.
    In the following discussion, the INPV results refer to the 
difference in industry value between the base case and the standards 
case that result from the sum of discounted cash flows from the base 
year (2015) through the end of the analysis period. The results also 
discuss the difference in cash flows between the base case and the 
standards case in the year before the compliance date for potential 
amended energy conservation standards. This figure represents the size 
of the required conversion costs relative to the cash flow generated by 
the GSFL and IRL industries in the absence of potential amended energy 
conservation standards.
Cash-Flow Analysis Results by TSL for General Service Fluorescent Lamps
    To assess the upper (less severe) bound of the range of potential 
impacts on GSFL manufacturers, DOE modeled a flat, or preservation of 
gross margin, markup scenario. This scenario assumes that in the 
standards case, manufacturers would be able to pass along all the 
higher production costs required for more efficacious products to their 
consumers. Specifically, the industry would be able to maintain its 
average base-case gross margin (as a percentage of revenue) despite the 
higher product costs in the standards case. In general, the larger the 
product price increases, the less likely manufacturers are to achieve 
the cash flow from operations calculated in this scenario because it is 
less likely that manufacturers would be able to fully mark up these 
larger cost increases.
    To assess the lower (more severe) bound of the range of potential 
impacts on the GSFL manufacturers, DOE modeled a two-tier markup 
scenario. The two-tiered markup scenario assumes manufacturers offer 
two different tiers of markups, one for lower efficacy levels and one 
for higher efficacy levels. This scenario models a situation where a 
reduction in premium markups reduces the profitability of higher 
efficacy products. During manufacturer interviews, manufacturers 
provided information on the range of typical efficacy levels in these 
two tiers and the change in profitability at each level. DOE used this 
information to estimate markups for GSFLs under a two-tier pricing 
strategy. In the standards case, DOE modeled the situation in which 
GSFL standards result in less product differentiation, compression of 
the higher markup tier, and an overall reduction in profitability.
    In addition to an upper and lower bound markup scenario, DOE also 
modeled the preservation of operating profit markup scenario. This 
scenario models the situation where manufacturers earn the same nominal 
operating profit in the standards case as they would earn in the base 
case, despite the higher production costs resulting from standards. 
While this scenario does not represent an upper or lower bound for this 
analysis, it displays the INPV results if manufacturers are able to 
implement a common pricing strategy following abrupt changes to MPCs, 
as is the case with energy conservation standards.
    Table VII.30 through Table VII.32 present the projected results for 
GSFLs under the flat, preservation of operating profit, and two-tier 
markup scenarios. DOE examined results for all five product classes (4-
foot MBP, 8-foot SP slimline, 8-foot RDC HO, 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO, and 
4-foot T5 MiniBP HO) together.

[[Page 4127]]

                         Table VII.30--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for General Service Fluorescent Lamps--Flat Markup Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                 Trial standard level
                                                              Units                Base case -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   1           2           3           4           5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV..........................................  (2013$ millions)................     1,551.6     1,601.1     1,599.8     1,682.0     1,978.4     1,996.2
Change in INPV................................  (2013$ millions)................  ..........        49.5        48.2       130.4       426.8       444.6
                                                (%).............................  ..........         3.2         3.1         8.4        27.5        28.7
Product Conversion Costs......................  (2013$ millions)................  ..........         0.9         2.0         5.1         7.8         9.2
Capital Conversion Costs......................  (2013$ millions)................  ..........         1.0        11.2         2.0        18.8        29.9
Total Conversion Costs........................  (2013$ millions)................  ..........         1.9        13.2         7.2        26.6        39.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Table VII.31--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for General Service Fluorescent Lamps--Preservation of Operating Profit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                 Trial standard level
                                                              Units                Base case -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   1           2           3           4           5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV..........................................  (2013$ millions)................     1,551.6     1,551.0     1,542.0     1,542.9     1,525.4     1,516.4
Change in INPV................................  (2013$ millions)................  ..........       (0.6)       (9.6)       (8.7)      (26.2)      (35.2)
                                                (%).............................  ..........         0.0        -0.6        -0.6        -1.7        -2.3
Product Conversion Costs......................  (2013$ millions)................  ..........         0.9         2.0         5.1         7.8         9.2
Capital Conversion Costs......................  (2013$ millions)................  ..........         1.0        11.2         2.0        18.8        29.9
Total Conversion Costs........................  (2013$ millions)................  ..........         1.9        13.2         7.2        26.6        39.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Table VII.32--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for General Service Fluorescent Lamps--Two Tier Markup Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                 Trial standard level
                                                              Units                Base case -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   1           2           3           4           5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV..........................................  (2013$ millions)................     1,551.6     1,508.7     1,495.1     1,477.4     1,221.6     1,183.9
Change in INPV................................  (2013$ millions)................  ..........      (42.9)      (56.5)      (74.2)     (330.0)     (367.7)
                                                (%).............................  ..........        -2.8        -3.6        -4.8       -21.3       -23.7
Product Conversion Costs......................  (2013$ millions)................  ..........         0.9         2.0         5.1         7.8         9.2
Capital Conversion Costs......................  (2013$ millions)................  ..........         1.0        11.2         2.0        18.8        29.9
Total Conversion Costs........................  (2013$ millions)................  ..........         1.9        13.2         7.2        26.6        39.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TSL 1 sets the efficacy level at baseline for two product classes 
(4-foot MBP and 8-foot SP slimline) and EL 1 for three product classes 
(8-foot RDC HO, 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO, and 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO). EL 1 for 
the 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO product class represents max tech. At TSL 1, 
DOE estimates impacts on INPV range from $49.5 million to -$42.9 
million, or a change in INPV of 3.2 percent to -2.8 percent. At TSL 1, 
industry free cash flow (operating cash flow minus capital 
expenditures) is estimated to decrease by less than 1 percent to $164.2 
million, compared to the base-case value of $164.5 million in 2017, the 
year leading up to the energy conservation standards.
    Percentage impacts on INPV range from slightly positive to slightly 
negative at TSL 1. DOE does not anticipate that manufacturers would 
lose a significant portion of their INPV at this TSL. This is because 
the vast majority of shipments already meets or exceeds the efficacy 
levels prescribed at TSL 1. DOE projects that in the expected year of 
compliance (2018), 100 percent of 4-foot MBP and 8-foot SP slimline 
shipments would meet or exceed the efficacy levels at TSL 1. DOE 
estimates that these lamps account for 86 percent of GSFL shipments in 
2018. Meanwhile, in 2018, 32 percent of 8-foot RDC HO shipments, 46 
percent of 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO, and 39 percent of 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO 
shipments would meet the efficacy levels at TSL 1. Because these 
products comprise only a small percentage of total GSFL shipments in 
2018, a very small percentage of total GSFL shipments would need to be 
converted at TSL 1 to meet these efficacy standards.
    DOE expects conversion costs to be small compared to the industry 
value because most of the GSFL shipments, on a total volume basis, 
already meet or exceed the efficacy levels prescribed at this TSL. DOE 
expects GSFL manufacturers to incur $0.9 million in product conversion 
costs for lamp redesign and testing. DOE estimates manufacturers will 
have minimal capital conversion costs associated with TSL 1, as most 
efficacy gains will be achieved through increasing the amount of REOs 
used to coat the lamps, not through any major equipment upgrades or 
capital investments. DOE expects $1.0 million in capital conversion 
costs for manufacturers to upgrade and recalibrate production line 
automation.
    At TSL 1, under the flat markup scenario, the shipment-weighted 
average MPC increases by approximately 6 percent relative to the base-
case MPC. Manufacturers are able to fully pass on this cost increase to 
consumers by design in this markup scenario. This slight price increase 
would mitigate the $1.9 million in conversion costs estimated at TSL 1, 
resulting in slightly positive INPV impacts at TSL 1 under the flat 
markup scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit markup scenario, 
manufacturers earn the same nominal operating profit as would be earned 
in the base case, but manufacturers do not earn additional

[[Page 4128]]

profit from their investments. The 6 percent MPC increase is slightly 
outweighed by a lower average markup of 1.51 (compared to the flat 
markup of 1.52) and $1.9 million in conversion costs, resulting in 
slightly negative impacts at TSL 1.
    Under the two-tier markup scenario, manufacturers lose 
differentiation in their product offerings and premium markups erode as 
high-efficacy products become baseline offerings due to standards. The 
6 percent MPC increase does not mitigate the lower average markup of 
1.50 and $1.9 million in conversion costs, resulting in slightly 
negative impacts at TSL 1.
    TSL 2 sets the efficacy level at baseline for one product class (4-
foot MBP), EL 1 for three product classes (8-foot SP slimline, 4-foot 
T5 MiniBP SO, and 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO), and EL 2 for one product class 
(8-foot RDC HO). EL 1 for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO product class and EL 
2 for the 8-foot RDC HO product class represent max tech. At TSL 2, DOE 
estimates impacts on INPV to range from $48.2 million to -$56.5 
million, or a change in INPV of 3.1 percent to -3.6 percent. At this 
standard level, industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by 
approximately 3.4 percent to $159.3 million, compared to the base case 
value of $164.5 million in 2017.
    Percentage impacts on INPV range from slightly positive to slightly 
negative at TSL 2. DOE does not anticipate that manufacturers would 
lose a significant portion of their INPV at this TSL because the vast 
majority of shipments already meet or exceed the efficacy levels 
prescribed at TSL 2. DOE projects that in 2018, 100 percent of 4-foot 
MBP shipments would meet or exceed the efficacy levels at TSL 2. DOE 
estimates that shipments of this product classes will comprise 83 
percent of GSFL shipments in 2018. Meanwhile, in 2018, 60 percent of 8-
foot SP slimline lamps shipments, 10 percent of 8-foot RDC HO 
shipments, 46 percent of 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO, and 39 percent of 4-foot 
T5 MiniBP HO shipments would meet or exceed the efficacy levels at TSL 
2.
    DOE expects conversion costs to be small compared to the industry 
value because most of the GSFL shipments, on a total volume basis, 
already meet or exceed the efficacy levels analyzed at this TSL. DOE 
expects that product conversion costs will rise from $0.9 million at 
TSL 1 to $2.0 million at TSL 2 for lamp redesign and testing. Capital 
conversion costs will increase from $1.0 million at TSL 1 to $11.2 
million at TSL 2. This is driven by the fact that both 8-foot product 
classes would have to meet higher efficacy levels at this TSL. DOE 
believes this will result in higher capital conversion costs related to 
upgrading and recalibrating production line automation.
    At TSL 2, under the flat markup scenario, the shipment-weighted-
average MPC increases by 7 percent, relative to the base-case MPC. In 
this scenario, INPV impacts are slightly positive because of 
manufacturers' ability to pass the higher production costs to consumers 
outweighs the $13.2 million in conversion costs. Under the preservation 
of operating profit markup scenario, the 7 percent MPC increase is 
slightly outweighed by a lower average markup of 1.51 (compared to the 
flat markup of 1.52) and $13.2 million in conversion costs, resulting 
in slightly negative impacts at TSL 2. Under the two-tier markup 
scenario, the 7 percent MPC increase is also slightly outweighed by a 
lower average markup of 1.50 and $13.2 million in conversion costs, 
resulting in slightly negative impacts at TSL 2.
    TSL 3 sets the efficacy level at baseline for two product classes 
(8-foot SP slimline and 8-foot RDC HO) and EL 1 for three product 
classes (4-foot MBP, 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO, and 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO). EL 
1 for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO product class represents max tech. At TSL 
3, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range from $130.4 million to -$74.2 
million, or a change in INPV of 8.4 percent to -4.8 percent. At this 
standard level, industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by 
approximately 1.5 percent to $154.1 million, compared to the base-case 
value of $164.5 million in 2017.
    While more significant than the impacts at TSL 2, the lower bound 
markup scenario impacts on INPV at TSL 3 are still relatively minor 
compared to the total industry value. Percentage impacts on INPV range 
from moderately positive to slightly negative at TSL 3. DOE does not 
anticipate that manufacturers would lose a significant portion of their 
INPV at TSL 3. While less than the previous TSLs, a large percentage of 
total shipments still already meet or exceed the efficacy levels 
prescribed at TSL 3. DOE projects that in 2018, 57 percent of the 4-
foot MBP, 100 percent of 8-foot SP slimline, 100 percent of 8-foot RDC 
HO shipments, 46 percent of 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO, and 39 percent of 4-
foot T5 MiniBP HO shipments would meet or exceed the efficacy levels at 
TSL 3.
    DOE expects conversion costs to remain small at TSL 3, compared to 
the industry value, because a significant percentage of the GSFL 
shipments, on a total volume basis, already meet or exceed the efficacy 
levels at this TSL. TSL 3 is the first TSL that increases the efficacy 
requirement for 4-foot MBP lamps, which as previously noted, comprise a 
large majority of GSFL shipments. Efficacy gains for these products, 
however, would likely be achieved with additional REOs, which would not 
require a significant capital investment. At TSL 3, DOE expects product 
conversion costs to increase from TSL 2 to $5.1 million. DOE, however, 
estimates that capital conversion costs will decrease from TSL 2 to 
$2.0 million at TSL 3 as no amended efficacy standards would be set at 
TSL 3 for 8-foot SP slimline products or the 8-foot RDC HO product 
class. The lower ELs for these two product classes outweigh the 
increase in EL of the 4-ft MBP product class and would cause 
manufacturers to invest less in capital conversion costs at TSL 3 than 
at TSL 2.
    At TSL 3, under the flat markup scenario, the shipment-weighted-
average MPC increases by 16 percent relative to the base-case MPC. In 
this scenario, INPV impacts are slightly positive because 
manufacturers' ability to pass the higher production costs to consumers 
outweighs the $7.2 million in conversion costs. Under the preservation 
of operating profit markup scenario, the 16 percent MPC increase is 
slightly outweighed by a lower average markup of 1.49 (compared to the 
flat markup scenario markup of 1.52) and $7.2 million in conversion 
costs, resulting in slightly negative impacts at TSL 3. Under the two-
tier markup scenario, the 16 percent MPC increase is outweighed by a 
lower average markup of 1.48 and $7.2 million in conversion costs, 
resulting in negative impacts at TSL 3.
    TSL 4 sets the efficacy level at baseline for two product classes 
(8-foot SP slimline and 8-foot RDC HO), EL 1 for one product class (4-
foot T5 MiniBP HO), and EL 2 for two product classes (4-foot MBP and T5 
MiniBP SO). EL 1 for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO product class and EL 2 for 
the 4-foot MBP and T5 MiniBP SO product classes represent max tech. At 
TSL 4, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range from $426.8 million to -
$330.0 million, or a change in INPV of 27.5 percent to -21.3 percent. 
At this standard level, industry free cash flow is estimated to 
decrease by approximately 7 percent to $154.1 million, compared to the 
base-case value of $164.5 million in the year leading up to energy 
conservation standards.
    Percentage impacts on INPV range from significantly positive to 
moderately negative at TSL 4. DOE projects that in 2018, 23 percent of 
4-

[[Page 4129]]

foot MBP, 100 percent of 8-foot SP slimline, 100 percent of 8-foot RDC 
HO shipments, 14 percent of 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO, and 39 percent of 4-
foot T5 MiniBP HO shipments would meet or exceed the efficacy levels at 
TSL 4.
    While DOE expects conversion costs to increase from TSL 3 to TSL 4, 
DOE estimates the costs will still be small compared to the total 
industry value. DOE expects product conversion costs for GSFL 
manufacturers to increase from $5.1 million at TSL 3 to $7.8 million at 
TSL 4. DOE expects capital conversion costs to increase from $2.0 
million at TSL 3 to $18.8 million at TSL 4. While a higher percentage 
of shipments would need to be converted to meet the efficacy 
requirements at TSL 4, increasing the efficacy of GSFLs will not likely 
be a very capital-intensive process, compared to the base case INPV. 
Instead, increasing GSFL efficacy will likely be more focused around 
increasing the amount of REOs in the lamps.
    At TSL 4, under the flat markup scenario the shipment-weighted-
average MPC increases by 52 percent relative to the base-case MPC. In 
this scenario, INPV impacts are significantly positive because of 
manufacturers' ability to pass the higher production costs to consumers 
outweighs the $26.6 million in conversion costs. Under the preservation 
of operating profit markup scenario, the 52 percent MPC increase is 
slightly outweighed by a lower average markup of 1.44 (compared to the 
flat markup scenario markup of 1.52) and $26.6 million in conversion 
costs, resulting in slightly negative impacts at TSL 4. Under the two-
tier markup scenario, the 52 percent MPC increase is moderately 
outweighed by a lower average markup of 1.39 and $26.6 million in 
conversion costs, resulting in moderately negative impacts at TSL 4.
    TSL 5 sets the efficacy level at max tech for all product classes. 
This represents EL 1 for one product class (4-foot T5 MiniBP HO) and EL 
2 for four product classes (4-foot MBP, 8-foot SP slimline, 8-foot RDC 
HO, and 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO). At TSL 5, DOE estimates impacts on INPV 
to range from $444.5 million to -$367.7 million, or a change in INPV of 
28.7 percent to -23.7 percent. At this standard level, industry free 
cash flow is estimated to decrease by 10 percent to $148.7 million, 
compared to the base-case value of $164.5 million in 2017.
    Percentage impacts on INPV range from significantly positive to 
significantly negative at TSL 5. DOE projects that in 2018, 23 percent 
of the 4-foot MBP, 26 percent of 8-foot SP slimline, 10 percent of 8-
foot RDC HO, 14 percent of 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO, and 39 percent of 4-
foot T5 MiniBP HO shipments would meet the efficacy levels at TSL 5.
    DOE expects conversion costs to increase from TSL 4 to TSL 5 due to 
the 8-foot slimline and 8-foot RDC HO product classes moving to max 
tech at TSL 5. DOE estimates that capital conversion costs will be 
$29.9 million at TSL 5 as a result of manufacturers having to upgrade 
all of their production lines to manufacture max-tech products. DOE 
expects GSFL manufacturers to incur $9.2 million in product conversion 
costs for lamp redesigns and testing. However, these larger total 
conversion costs at TSL 5, $39.1 million, remain relatively small 
compared to the approximately $1.5 billion base-case GSFL INPV.
    At TSL 5, under the flat markup scenario, the shipment-weighted-
average MPC increases by 55 percent relative to the base-case MPC. In 
this scenario, INPV impacts are significantly positive because of 
manufacturers' ability to pass the higher production costs to consumers 
outweighs the $39.1 million in conversion costs. Under the preservation 
of operating profit markup scenario, the 55 percent MPC increase is 
slightly outweighed by a lower average markup of 1.44 (compared to the 
flat markup scenario markup of 1.52) and $39.1 million in conversion 
costs, resulting in slightly negative impacts at TSL 5. Under the two-
tier markup scenario, the 55 percent MPC increase is significantly 
outweighed by the lower average markup of 1.38 and $39.1 million in 
conversion costs, resulting in significantly negative impacts at TSL 5.
Cash-Flow Analysis Results by TSL for Incandescent Reflector Lamps
    DOE incorporated two markup scenarios to represent the upper and 
lower bounds of the IRL industry: The flat, or preservation of gross 
margin, markup scenario to represent the upper bound (least severe) and 
the preservation of operating profit markup scenario to represent the 
lower bound (most severe). DOE, however, analyzed one TSL for IRLs in 
addition to the baseline level. DOE also analyzed an alternative 
shipment scenario for IRLs, the shortened lifetime scenario, in 
addition to the reference case. DOE acknowledges that to meet TSL 1, 
IRL manufacturers may choose to shorten the lifetime of some of their 
IRLs, rather than make the investments to increase the efficacy of the 
lamps. DOE presents the results of this analysis in appendix 13B of 
this final rule TSD.
    Table VII.33 and Table VII.34 present the projected results for 
IRLs under the flat markup and preservation of operating profit markup 
scenarios. DOE examined results for one representative product class 
for IRLs.

        Table VII.33--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Incandescent Reflector Lamps--Flat Markup Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Trial standard
                                                                                                       level
                                                              Units                  Base case   ---------------
                                                                                                         1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV..........................................  (2013$ millions)................           145.4            93.0
Change in INPV................................  (2013$ millions)................  ..............          (52.5)
                                                (%).............................  ..............           -36.1
Product Conversion Costs......................  (2013$ millions)................  ..............             6.2
Capital Conversion Costs......................  (2013$ millions)................  ..............            66.4
Total Conversion Costs........................  (2013$ millions)................  ..............            72.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4130]]

  Table VII.34--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Incandescent Reflector Lamps--Preservation of Operating Profit
                                                 Markup Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Trial standard
                                                                                                       level
                                                              Units                  Base case   ---------------
                                                                                                         1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV..........................................  (2013$ millions)................           145.4            89.2
Change in INPV................................  (2013$ millions)................  ..............          (56.2)
                                                (%).............................  ..............           -38.6
Product Conversion Costs......................  (2013$ millions)................  ..............             6.2
Capital Conversion Costs......................  (2013$ millions)................  ..............            66.4
Total Conversion Costs........................  (2013$ millions)................  ..............            72.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TSL 1 sets the efficacy level at EL 1, max tech, for the IRL 
representative unit. At TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range 
from -$52.5 million to -$56.2 million, or a change in INPV of -36.1 
percent to -38.6 percent. At TSL 1, industry free cash flow is 
estimated to decrease by approximately 142 percent to -$9.3 million, 
compared to the base-case value of $22.64 million in 2017.
    INPV impacts are significantly negative at TSL 1, regardless of the 
markup scenario chosen. DOE estimates that in 2018, approximately half 
of the IRL shipments would meet the efficacy requirements at TSL 1. The 
other half of the shipments would need to be converted to meet the 
standards at this TSL.
    DOE expects substantial conversion costs for IRL manufacturers at 
TSL 1 associated with increasing the efficacy of IRLs. Manufacturers 
would have to invest in retooling burner machines, increasing coating 
capacity, and upgrading their production lines to allow for enhanced 
reflector coating. Some manufacturers expressed concern that they do 
not currently possess the technology required at the analyzed standard 
level and could exit the market entirely. Overall, DOE expects these 
capital conversion costs to total $66.4 million for the industry. DOE 
estimates that IRL manufacturers will also incur $6.2 million in 
product conversion costs for lamp and production line redesign, as well 
as testing and certification.
    At TSL 1, under the flat markup scenario, the shipment-weighted-
average MPC increases by 12 percent relative to the base-case MPC. In 
this scenario, INPV impacts are negative because the manufacturers' 
ability to pass the higher production costs to consumers is outweighed 
by the substantial $72.6 million conversion costs. Under the 
preservation of operating profit markup scenario, the 12 percent MPC 
increase is again outweighed by a lower average markup of 1.50 
(compared to the flat markup scenario markup of 1.52) and $72.6 million 
in conversion costs, resulting in significantly negative impacts at TSL 
1. The significant capital and product conversion costs that IRL 
manufacturers must make at TSL 1 cause INPV to be significantly 
negative, regardless of the markup scenario analyzed.
    DOE also analyzed a shortened lifetime sensitivity scenario where 
manufacturers shorten the lifetime of IRLs to mitigate the investments 
they must make to comply with the standards at TSL 1. By shortening the 
lifetime of IRLs, manufacturers reduce the capital conversion costs 
they must make to comply with the standards at TSL 1. DOE presents the 
INPV results of this analysis in appendix 13B of this final rule TSD.
b. Impacts on Employment
    DOE quantitatively assessed the impacts of potential amended energy 
conservation standards on direct employment. DOE used the GRIM to 
estimate the domestic labor expenditures and number of domestic 
production workers in the base case and at each TSL from 2015 to 2047. 
DOE used statistical data from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2011 Annual 
Survey of Manufacturers (ASM), the results of the engineering analysis, 
and interviews with manufacturers to determine the inputs necessary to 
calculate industry-wide labor expenditures and domestic employment 
levels. Labor expenditures involved with the manufacturing of the 
product are a function of the labor intensity of the product, the sales 
volume, and an assumption that wages remain fixed in real terms over 
time.
    In the GRIM, DOE used the labor content of each product and the 
MPCs to estimate the annual labor expenditures in the industry. DOE 
used census data and interviews with manufacturers to estimate the 
portion of the total labor expenditures that is attributable to 
domestic labor.
    The production worker estimates in this section only cover workers 
up to the line-supervisor level involved in fabricating and assembling 
a product within a manufacturing facility. Workers performing services 
that are closely associated with production operations, such as 
material handing with a forklift, are also included as production 
labor. DOE's estimates account for production workers who manufacture 
only the specific products covered of this rulemaking. For example, a 
worker on a fluorescent lamp ballast production line would not be 
included with the estimate of the number of GSFL or IRL workers.
    The employment impacts shown in Table VII.35 and Table VII.36 
represent the potential production employment that could result 
following amended energy conservation standards. The upper bound of the 
results estimates the maximum change in the number of production 
workers that could occur after compliance with potential amended 
standards when assuming that manufacturers continue to produce the same 
scope of covered products in the same production facilities. It also 
assumes that domestic production does not shift to lower labor-cost 
countries. Because there is a real risk of manufacturers evaluating 
sourcing decisions in response to potential amended standards, the 
lower bound of the employment results includes the estimated total 
number of U.S. production workers in the industry who could lose their 
jobs if some or all existing production were moved outside of the 
United States. While the results present a range of employment impacts 
following 2018, the following sections also include qualitative 
discussions of the likelihood of negative employment impacts at the 
various TSLs. Finally, the employment impacts shown are independent of 
the employment impacts from the broader U.S. economy, documented in 
chapter 17 of this final rule TSD.

[[Page 4131]]

Employment Impacts for General Service Fluorescent Lamps
    Using 2011 ASM data and interviews with manufacturers, DOE 
estimates that approximately three quarters of the GSFLs sold in the 
United States are manufactured domestically. With this assumption, DOE 
estimates that in the absence of amended energy conservation standards, 
there would be approximately 1,937 domestic production workers involved 
in manufacturing GSFLs in 2018. Table VII.35 shows the range of the 
impacts of amended energy conservation standards on U.S. production 
workers in the GSFL industry.

               Table VII.35--Potential Changes in the Total Number of Domestic General Service Fluorescent Lamp Production Workers in 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                          Trial standard level
                                                                    Base case  -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     1            2              3               4               5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Number of Domestic Production Workers in 2018 (without             1,937        1,937        1,937           1,934           1,918           1,916
 changes in production locations)................................
Potential Changes in Domestic Production Workers in 2018 *.......  ...........  ...........  ...........     (3)-(1,937)    (19)-(1,937)    (21)-(1,937)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Numbers in parentheses indicate negative numbers.

    At the upper end of the range, all examined TSLs show slight 
negative impacts on domestic employment levels. DOE believes that 
manufacturers could face slight negative impacts on domestic employment 
levels because there would be an increase in the shipments of products 
typically not manufactured domestically, such as 4-foot T5 MiniBP 
lamps, and a decrease of products typically manufactured domestically, 
such as 4-foot MBP lamps.
    Several manufacturers emphasized that it is difficult to predict 
employment impacts of energy conservation standards. One potential 
uncertainty is the future price of REOs and these employment decisions 
become more complex when more REOs are required for higher efficacious 
products.
    DOE does not expect any significant changes in domestic employment 
at TSLs 1 or 2 because standards would not be amended for 4-foot MBP 
lamps, which comprise approximately 83 percent of GSFL shipments in 
2018. While DOE does not anticipate the entire, or even a large portion 
of, domestic employment to move abroad at TSLs 3, 4, or 5, DOE 
acknowledges that there could be a loss of domestic employment at these 
TSLs due to the required increase in efficacy of 4-foot MBP lamps. The 
potential loss of domestic employment would most likely be a result of 
a possible increase in the price of REOs. Based on the REO prices 
modeled in the reference case, DOE does not estimate a significant loss 
of domestic employment at TSLs 3, 4, or 5. Overall, manufacturers were 
uncertain about how amended energy conservation standards would affect 
domestic employment and sourcing decisions. Ultimately, both employment 
and sourcing decisions could be determined by the stability and 
predictability of REO prices.
Employment Impacts for Incandescent Reflector Lamps
    Using 2011 ASM data and interviews with manufacturers, DOE 
estimates that approximately half of the IRLs sold in the United States 
are manufactured domestically. With this assumption, DOE estimates that 
in the absence of potential amended energy conservation standards, 
there would be approximately 281 domestic production workers involved 
in manufacturing IRLs in 2018. Table VII.36 shows the range of the 
impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on U.S. 
production workers in the IRL industry.

     Table VII.36--Potential Changes in the Total Number of Domestic
         Incandescent Reflector Lamp Production Workers in 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Trial standard
                                                               level
                                             Base case   ---------------
                                                                 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Number of Domestic Production                  281             303
 Workers in 2018 (without changes in
 production locations)..................
Potential Changes in Domestic Production  ..............        22-(281)
 Workers in 2018 *......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Numbers in
  parentheses indicate negative numbers

    At the upper end of the range TSL 1 shows a slight positive impact 
on domestic employment levels. The increasing product cost at TSL 1 
would result in higher labor expenditures per-unit, which could cause 
manufacturers to hire more domestic workers to meet this added labor 
demand, assuming IRL production remains in domestic facilities.
    Manufacturers are concerned that higher prices for IRLs will drive 
consumers to alternate technologies and it may not make economic sense 
for them to continue to produce IRLs. Increasing the efficacy of IRLs 
would cost manufacturers millions in capital conversion costs. Some 
stated that they do not have the technology to meet the potential 
energy conservation standards and said it is possible they would not 
spend their limited resources to convert all IRL production to meet 
efficacy levels at TSL 1. Ultimately, the high investment costs 
associated with increasing the efficacy of IRLs could cause some IRL 
manufacturers to exit the market or move production abroad.
    As part of the MIA for the NOPR, DOE presented a range of potential 
impacts on domestic IRL employment at the proposed standard level, TSL 
1 for the NOPR. In the NOPR analysis for IRLs, the impact at TSL 1 
ranged from an additional hiring of approximately 30 employees, due to 
the increase in

[[Page 4132]]

production costs of IRLs at TSL 1, to a potential decrease of 
approximately 300 employees, if all domestic IRL manufacturing moved 
overseas. NEMA stated that the lower bound scenario, where up to 300 
domestic employees would lose their job, would be the most likely 
scenario if DOE adopted IRL standards at TSL 1. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 9) 
GE similarly expressed concern at the NOPR public meeting, stating that 
if IRL manufacturers are required to make significant investments to 
keep IRL production in the United States, it will put any domestic IRL 
production employment at risk. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 
at p. 232)
    DOE presents a range of possible domestic employment impacts due to 
the uncertainty regarding the future production location of IRLs (i.e., 
domestic versus foreign) as manufacturers could move current domestic 
production overseas as a result of IRL standards. DOE understands there 
is a real risk that IRL manufacturers could either move domestic 
production to a lower labor-cost country in an effort to reduce labor 
expenditures or they could exit the IRL market altogether due to 
declining market share of IRLs. DOE took into consideration any 
potential negative domestic employment impact on U.S. manufacturing 
caused by either manufacturers moving IRL production overseas in 
response to potential standards or IRL manufacturers potentially 
exiting the market before selecting the standards for IRLs in this 
final rule.
    NEMA also commented that the increase in the price of IRLs caused 
by potential standards could cause consumers to forgo purchasing IRLs 
in favor of LEDs. Therefore, NEMA believes that there could be a 
significant reduction in the number of IRLs purchased by consumers, as 
a result of IRL standards, which will cause domestic IRL manufacturing 
to be severely impacted. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 10) While DOE recognizes 
that LEDs are increasingly taking more and more market share from IRLs 
over time, DOE's shipment analysis does not model consumers switching 
from IRLs to LEDs as a result of higher energy conservation standards 
of IRLs. Therefore, DOE does not anticipate a reduction in the number 
of domestic employees caused by consumers forgoing the purchases of 
IRLs in favor of LEDs as a result of potential IRL standards. See 
chapter 11 of this final rule TSD for a complete description of the 
shipments analysis.
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
    GSFL manufacturers stated that they did not anticipate any capacity 
constraints outside of the availability of REOs. One manufacturer 
pointed out during manufacturer interviews that moving the industry to 
max tech could triple the amount of REOs demanded by GSFL 
manufacturers. Tripling the demand for REOs that are already difficult 
to obtain could trigger some capacity concerns by creating extra 
volatility in the market. The sharp increase in demand for REOs could 
cause wide variations in the price and availability of REOs, making 
production costs more unpredictable.
    A few IRL manufacturers expressed concern during manufacturer 
interviews that their IR coating machines would not have a large enough 
capacity and that the companies that manufacture those machines might 
not be able to respond to the demand for IR coating machines necessary 
to manufacture more efficacious IRLs. Meeting the high level of coating 
capacity as a result of higher efficacy standards for IRLs this rule 
may be more difficult for smaller manufacturers than larger 
manufacturers. Some manufactures suggested that large manufacturers may 
already have the coating capacity necessary and that the smaller 
manufacturers may need to incur capital expenditures to add coating 
capacity at higher standards.
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
    Using average cost assumptions to develop an industry cash-flow 
estimate may not be adequate for assessing differential impacts among 
manufacturer subgroups. Small manufacturers, niche product 
manufacturers, and manufacturers exhibiting cost structures 
substantially different from the industry average could be affected 
disproportionately. DOE analyzed the impacts to small businesses in 
section VIII.B and did not identify any other adversely impacted 
subgroups for GSFLs or IRLs for this rulemaking based on the results of 
the industry characterization.
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    While any one regulation may not impose a significant burden on 
manufacturers, the combined effects of recent or impending regulations 
may have serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of 
manufacturers, or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single 
regulation may overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition 
to energy conservation standards, other regulations can significantly 
affect manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple regulations 
affecting the same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies 
to abandon product lines or markets with lower expected future returns 
than competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of 
cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to 
product efficacy.
    For the cumulative regulatory burden analysis, DOE looks at other 
regulations that could affect GSFL manufacturers that will take effect 
approximately 3 years before or after the compliance date of amended 
energy conservation standards for these products. In written comments, 
manufacturers cited Federal regulations on products other than GSFLs 
that contribute to their cumulative regulatory burden. The compliance 
years and expected industry conversion costs of relevant amended energy 
conservation standards are indicated in Table VII.37.

    Table VII.37--Compliance Dates and Expected Conversion Expenses of Federal Energy Conservation Standards
                            Affecting General Service Fluorescent Lamp Manufacturers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Approximate compliance      Estimated total industy conversion
    Federal energy conservation standards               date                            expense
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Service Incandescent Lamps, 74 FR          2012; 2013; & 2014  N/A [dagger]
 12058 (March 23, 2009).
Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts, 76 FR 70548                           2014  $82 million (2010$)
 (November 14, 2011).
Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures, 79 FR 7746                           2017  $3.0 million (2012$)
 (February 10, 2014).
General Service Lamps.......................                   * 2019  N/A [Dagger][Dagger]
Ceiling Fan Light Kits......................                   * 2019  N/A[Dagger][Dagger]
HID Lamps, 79 FR 62910 (October 21, 2014)...                   ** N/A  N/A[Dagger][Dagger]
Candelabra Base Incandescent Lamps and                        *** N/A  N/A[Dagger][Dagger]
 Intermediate Base Incandescent Lamps.

[[Page 4133]]

 
Other Incandescent Reflector Lamps..........                  *** N/A  N/A[Dagger][Dagger]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[dagger] For minimum performance requirements prescribed by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
  (EISA 2007), DOE did not estimate total industry conversion costs because an MIA was not completed as part of
  a rulemaking. Pub. L. 110-140. EISA 2007 made numerous amendments to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
  (EPCA) of 1975, Pub. L. 94-163, (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309), which established an energy conservation program for
  major household appliances and industrial and commercial equipment.
[Dagger][Dagger] For energy conservation standards for rulemakings awaiting DOE final action, DOE does not have
  a finalized estimated total industry conversion cost.
* The dates listed are an approximation. The exact dates are pending final DOE action.
** DOE has published a notice of proposed determination that did not establish energy conservation standards for
  any HID lamps.
*** These rulemakings are placed on hold due to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112-74).

    NEMA commented that energy conservation standards have become 
increasingly burdensome on lighting manufacturers as the lighting 
sector has experienced more rulemakings since EISA 2007 than any other 
covered product sector. NEMA also commented that several of these 
standards have required significant investment from lighting 
manufacturers and resulted in a negative financial impact to these 
lighting manufacturers (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 2-3) NEMA further stated, 
that given the large negative impacts to manufacturers based on the 
proposed IRL standards in the NOPR and the large negative impacts to 
IRL manufacturers from the previous 2009 Lamps Rule, as well as the 
other DOE prescribed energy conservation standards on lighting 
manufacturers, Executive Order 12866 directs DOE to consider 
``alternatives to direct regulation'' so that its regulations ``impose 
the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory 
objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent 
practicable, the cost of cumulative regulations.'' (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 
8)
    DOE agrees with NEMA that at least four major energy conservation 
standards have been enacted on lighting products since EISA 2007. These 
previous standards covered GSFLs and IRLs (74 FR 34080 [July 14, 
2009]), which went into effect in July 2012, fluorescent lamp ballasts 
(76 FR 70548 [November 14, 2011]), which went into effect in November 
2014, and metal halide lamp fixtures (79 FR 7746 [February 10, 2014]), 
which will go into effect in February 2017. DOE also agrees that the 
INPV impacts to manufacturers for these rulemakings ranged from 
moderate to significant, depending on the markup scenario analyzed. The 
cumulative regulatory burden seeks to mitigate the overlapping effects 
on manufacturers of new or revised DOE standards and other regulatory 
actions affecting those same manufacturers. DOE considered the 
cumulative regulatory burden on lighting manufacturers as one of the 
burdens of complying with potential GSFL and IRL standards when 
selecting the final standards for these products in this rule.
3. National Impact Analysis
    Projections of shipments are an important input to the NIA. As 
discussed in section VI.I, DOE developed a shipments model that 
incorporated substitution matrixes, which specify the product choices 
available to consumers (lamps as well as lamp-and-ballast combinations 
for fluorescent lamps) depending on whether they are renovating 
lighting systems, installing lighting systems in new construction, or 
simply replacing lamps. The model includes a module that assigns 
shipments to product classes and efficacy levels based on consumer 
sensitivities to first costs and operation and maintenance costs. The 
model estimates the shipments of each lamp type in the base case and 
under the conditions set by each TSL. Table VII.37 and Table VII.38 
present the estimated cumulative shipments in the base case and the 
relative change under each TSL.

                                   Table VII.38--Effect of Standard Cases on Cumulative Shipments of GSFL in 2018-2047
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Base case          TSL 1             TSL 2             TSL 3             TSL 4             TSL 5
                                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Change in
                   Lamp type                       Cumulative       shipments         Change in         Change in         Change in         Change in
                                                   shipments       relative to        shipments         shipments         shipments         shipments
                                                    millions        base case     relative to base  relative to base  relative to base  relative to base
                                                                    (percent)      case (percent)    case (percent)         case         case (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-foot MBP....................................            5,800             0.00              0.24             -1.8             -12               -12
8-foot SP slimline............................              190             0.00             -5.2               3.6              35                 9.6
8-foot RDC HO.................................               43             0.00             -0.28              0.00             -0.01             -0.29
4-foot T5, MiniBP SO..........................              330             0.00              0.77             23               160               170
4-foot T5, MiniBP HO..........................              760             0.00              0.02             -0.01             -0.07             -0.05
2-foot U-shaped...............................              240             0.00              0.00              0.00              0.00              0.00
    Total GSFL *..............................            7,300             0.00              0.09             -0.24             -1.8              -1.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* May not sum due to rounding.

[[Page 4134]]

               Table VII.39--Effect of Standard Cases on Cumulative Shipments of IRL in 2018-2047
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Base case          TSL 1
                                                                               ---------------------------------
                                                                                                    Change in
                                   Lamp type                                       Cumulative       shipments
                                                                                   shipments       relative to
                                                                                    millions        base case
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard spectrum; >2.5 inch diameter; http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/).
    \92\ Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to review its standards 
at least once every 6 years, and requires, for certain products, a 
3-year period after any new standard is promulgated before 
compliance is required, except that in no case may any new standards 
be required within 6 years of the compliance date of the previous 
standards. While adding a 6-year review to the 3-year compliance 
period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes that it may undertake reviews 
at any time within the 6-year period and that the 3-year compliance 
date may yield to the 6-year backstop. A 9-year analysis period may 
not be appropriate given the variability that occurs in the timing 
of standards reviews and the fact that, for some consumer products, 
the compliance period is 5 years rather than 3 years.

       Table VII.42--Cumulative Energy Savings for GSFL Trial Standard Levels for Units Sold in 2018-2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Trial standard level
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
                                                                        1        2        3        4        5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        quads
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Energy (Power Sector Consumption)..........................    0.098     0.10     0.38      1.2      1.2
FFC Energy.........................................................     0.10     0.11     0.39      1.2      1.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4135]]

Table VII.43--Cumulative Energy Savings for IRL Trial Standard Level for
                         Units Sold in 2018-2026
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Trial
                                                               Standard
                                                                  Level
                                                           -------------
                                                                      1
                                                           -------------
                                                                  quads
                                                           -------------
Primary Energy (Power Sector Consumption).................       0.0089
FFC Energy................................................       0.0093
------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
    DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of the total costs and savings for 
consumers that would result from the TSLs considered for GSFLs and 
IRLs. DOE quantified the costs and benefits attributable to each TSL as 
the difference in total product costs and total operating costs between 
each standards case and the base case, accounting for the effects of 
the standards on product switching and shipments.
    A portion of the savings in operating costs in some of the TSLs is 
due to switching to products with lower operating costs. In particular, 
the adopted standard in the rulemaking is projected to increase the 
typical cost of 4-foot MBP lamps relative to 8-foot SP slimline or 4-
foot MiniBP T5s, therefore driving some consumers to shift toward the 
latter two product classes, yielding a reduction in operating costs 
relative to the base case.
    Table VII.43 shows the consumer NPV results for each TSL considered 
for GSFLs, and Table VII.44 shows the consumer NPV results for each TSL 
considered for IRLs. In each case, the impacts cover the lifetime of 
product purchased in 2018-2047.

 Table VII.44--Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for GSFL Trial Standard Levels for Units Sold in 2018-2047
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  billion 2013$
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
                                                                  TSL 1     TSL 2     TSL 3     TSL 4     TSL 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
7% discount rate..............................................     -0.37     -0.51      0.35       2.0       1.6
3% discount rate..............................................     -0.42     -0.61       1.1       5.5       4.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Table VII.45--Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for IRL Trial
               Standard Level for Units Sold in 2018-2047
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              TSL 1
                                                       -----------------
                                                          billion 2013$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate......................................              0.17
3% discount rate......................................              0.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year shipments period 
are presented in Table VII.45 and Table VII.46. The impacts are counted 
over the lifetime of product purchased in 2018-2026. As mentioned 
previously, this information is presented for informational purposes 
only and is not indicative of any change in DOE's analytical 
methodology or decision criteria.

 Table VII.46--Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for GSFL Trial Standard Levels for Units Sold in 2018-2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  billion 2013$
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
                                                                  TSL 1     TSL 2     TSL 3     TSL 4     TSL 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate..............................................     -0.26     -0.37      0.16      0.65      0.33
3% discount rate..............................................     -0.25      -0.4      0.52       1.9       1.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Table VII.47--Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for IRL Trial
               Standard Level for Units Sold in 2018-2026
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              TSL 1
                                                       -----------------
                                                          billion 2013$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate......................................              0.14
3% discount rate......................................              0.19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Alternative Scenario Analyses
    As discussed in section VI.I and VI.J, DOE conducted several 
sensitivity analyses to determine the potential impact of uncertain 
future prices for materials that are important to the manufacture of 
efficient GSFL and IRL products.
    In the case of GSFLs, DOE considered the possibility that the price 
of rare earth oxides would rise again. As mentioned in section VI.I, 
rare earth oxides, used in GSFL phosphors to improve lamp efficacy, 
underwent a large price spike in 2010 and 2011, but their prices have 
since lowered to almost their pre-spike level. To assess the effect of 
higher rare earth prices on the impact of energy conservation standards 
for GSFLs, DOE performed an alternative analysis in which the average 
price of rare earth oxides was assumed to be midway between the peak of 
the 2011 price spike and the pre-spike level, and was assumed to remain 
at that elevated level throughout the analysis period. The details of 
the price model that DOE used for this analysis are given in appendix 
11B of the final rule TSD. The impacts of the modeled rare earth oxide 
price increase on the NES and NPV of this rulemaking were small to 
moderate and did not affect the ranking of the TSLs (see chapter 12 of 
the final rule TSD).
    In the case of IRLs, DOE considered the possibility of a 
significant increase in the price of xenon gas, which DOE believes is 
now used as a fill gas in all standards-compliant IRL products. Demand 
for xenon gas has been rising recently, which may lead to price

[[Page 4136]]

increases in the future. To assess the effect of a significant xenon 
price increase on the impact of an energy conservation standard for 
IRLs, DOE performed an alternative analysis in which the price of xenon 
is assumed to increase by a factor of ten in the near future and remain 
at these elevated levels throughout the analysis period. The details of 
the xenon market assessment used to inform this analysis are given in 
appendix 7C of the final rule TSD. The impacts of the modeled xenon 
price increase on the NES and NPV of this rulemaking were minimal and 
did not affect the ranking of the TSLs (see chapter 12 of the final 
rule TSD).
d. Indirect Impacts on Employment
    DOE expects energy conservation standards for GSFLs and IRLs to 
reduce energy costs for product owners and the resulting net savings to 
be redirected to other forms of economic activity. Those shifts in 
spending and economic activity could affect the demand for labor. As 
described in section VI.O, DOE used an input/output model of the U.S. 
economy to estimate indirect employment impacts of the TSLs that DOE 
considered in this rulemaking. DOE understands that there are 
uncertainties involved in projecting employment impacts, especially 
changes in the later years of the analysis. Therefore, DOE generated 
results for near-term time frames, where these uncertainties are 
reduced.
    The results suggest that the standards are likely to have 
negligible impact on the net demand for labor in the economy. The net 
change in jobs is so small that it would be imperceptible in national 
labor statistics and might be offset by other, unanticipated effects on 
employment. Chapter 17 of the final rule TSD presents detailed results.
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Equipment
    DOE concluded that the standards it proposed in the NOPR will not 
lessen the utility or performance of GSFLs and IRLs. DOE reached this 
conclusion based on the analyses conducted to develop the proposed GSFL 
and IRL efficacy levels. In the engineering analysis, DOE considered 
only technology options that would not have adverse impacts on product 
utility. See section VI.B and chapter 4 of the final rule TSD for 
further details regarding the screening analysis. DOE also divided 
products in to classes based on performance-related features that 
justify different standard levels such as those impacting consumer 
utility. DOE then developed separate standard levels for each product 
class. See section VI.C and chapter 3 of the final rule TSD for further 
details regarding product classes selected and consumer utility.
    Further, DOE's evaluation shows that products meeting proposed 
efficacy levels are not of lesser utility or performance than products 
at existing standard levels. DOE considered several characteristics 
when evaluating utility and performance of GSFLs including physical 
constraints (i.e., shape and size), diameter, lumen package, color 
quality (i.e., CCT and CRI), lifetime, and ability to dim. As discussed 
in section VI.B.1, DOE ensured full wattage lamps were able to meet the 
proposed efficacy levels to preserve reliable dimming. DOE determined 
that these GSFL performance characteristics were not diminished for any 
proposed standard level. For IRLs, DOE considered lumen package, 
lifetime, shape, and diameter when evaluating utility and performance. 
DOE determined that these IRL performance characteristics were not 
diminished for any proposed standard level. DOE did not assess CRI or 
CCT for IRLs because they are intended as a measure of the light 
quality of non-incandescent/halogen lamps when compared with 
incandescent/halogen lamps. See section VI.D and chapter 5 of the final 
rule TSD for further details on the selection of more efficacious 
substitutes for the baseline and development of proposed efficacy 
levels.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    Per EPCA, DOE is required to establish energy conservation 
standards that ``shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement 
in energy efficiency * * * which the Secretary determines is 
technologically feasible and economically justified.'' (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(A)) To determine economic justification, DOE considers 
(among other factors) ``the economic impact of the standard on the 
manufacturers'' and ``the impact of any lessening of competition * * * 
that is likely to result.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i))
    NEMA noted that the efficacy levels proposed for IRLs in the NOPR 
were dependent on the use of a single-ended IR burner which is limited 
to a single company due to patent, and that DOE legally cannot favor a 
single company over all others. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 10) NEMA commented 
that only one US manufacturer has an industrial setup to produce 
single-ended IR burners which are used in smaller diameter lamps. NEMA 
remarked that the 3.5 percent discount in efficacy would grant a 
competitive advantage to this manufacturer. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 30-31)
    In the engineering analysis, DOE scaled the efficacy levels of 
large diameter IRLs (i.e., greater than 2.5 inches) to determine the 
efficacy levels of small diameter IRLs (i.e., equal to or less than 2.5 
inches). In addition to a reduction in efficacy due to a small 
diameter, DOE also applied an additional 3.5 percent reduction to 
account for the need to use single-ended burners in small diameter 
lamps to maintain the same shape. DOE did not find a patent specific to 
single-ended burners used in small diameter IRLs and therefore, 
believes single-ended technology is accessible. Also, based on 
interviews with manufacturers DOE does not believe there are any 
technical impediments to setting up the production of single-ended 
small diameter IRLs. DOE acknowledges that manufacturers who do not 
currently have the industrial setup to produce single-ended IR burners, 
could face additional conversion costs to implement this production 
setup than manufacturers that already have this production setup. DOE 
did not include these additional conversion costs for those 
manufacturers without single-ended burner production capabilities in 
the MIA since there are no manufacturers currently producing small 
diameter IRLs that are within the scope of this rulemaking and the MIA 
typically only analyzes the costs associated with maintaining the total 
base case production volume at the standards efficacy levels for each 
product class.
    While DOE acknowledges that there could be additional costs for 
manufacturers without single-ended burner production capabilities, 
based on manufacturer interviews and an assessment of the technology, 
DOE does not believe there is a technical or legal (i.e., patent) 
barrier to implementing a single-ended burner manufacturing process. 
Therefore, DOE concluded that the efficacy level determined for IRLs in 
this final rule would not result in competitive disadvantage to 
manufacturers.
    DOJ also reviewed the standards proposed in the NOPR analysis for 
GSFLs and IRLs and similarly concluded that they are unlikely to have a 
significant adverse impact on competition.
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    Enhanced energy efficiency, where economically justified, improves 
the nation's energy security, strengthens the economy, and reduces the

[[Page 4137]]

environmental impacts or costs of energy production. Reduced 
electricity demand due to energy conservation standards is also likely 
to reduce the cost of maintaining the reliability of the electricity 
system, particularly during peak-load periods. As a measure of this 
reduced demand, the Utility Impact Analysis show reductions in 
electricity generation and installed capacity across the analysis 
period, with the magnitude and peak of these reductions varying by 
electricity source fuel type, such as coal, natural gas, nuclear, oil, 
and renewables. Chapter 16 in the final rule TSD presents the estimated 
reduction in generation and installed capacity for the TSLs that DOE 
considered in this rulemaking.
    Energy savings from standards for GSFLs and IRLs could also produce 
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air 
pollutants and GHGs associated with electricity production. Table 
VII.47 and Table VII.48 provide DOE's estimate of cumulative emissions 
reductions projected to result from the TSLs considered in this 
rulemaking. DOE reports annual emissions reductions for each TSL in 
chapter 14 of the final rule TSD.

              Table VII.48--Cumulative Emissions Reduction Estimated for GSFL Trial Standard Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Trial Standard Level
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                           1           2           3           4           5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Power Sector Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)...........................          12          12          45         150         150
SO2 (thousand tons).................................          11          11          41         140         140
NOX (thousand tons).................................         9.4         9.8          36         120         120
Hg (tons)...........................................       0.033       0.034        0.13        0.42        0.43
CH4 (thousand tons).................................         1.0         1.1         4.0          14          14
N2O (thousand tons).................................        0.15        0.15        0.58         2.0         2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Upstream Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)...........................        0.58        0.60         2.3         7.7         7.9
SO2 (thousand tons).................................        0.11        0.11        0.41         1.4         1.4
NOX (thousand tons).................................         8.2         8.5          32         110         110
Hg (tons)...........................................     0.00024     0.00025     0.00093      0.0031      0.0032
CH4 (thousand tons).................................          48          50         190         640         650
N2O (thousand tons).................................      0.0052      0.0054       0.020       0.069       0.070
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Total Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)...........................          12          13          48         160         160
SO2 (thousand tons).................................          11          11          42         140         140
NOX (thousand tons).................................          18          18          69         230         240
Hg (tons)...........................................       0.033       0.035        0.13        0.43        0.44
CH4 (thousand tons).................................          49          51         190         650         660
CH4 (million tons CO2eq) *..........................       1,400       1,400       5,400      18,000      19,000
N2O (thousand tons).................................        0.15        0.16        0.60         2.0         2.1
N2O (thousand tons CO2eq) *.........................          41          42         160         540         550
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CO2eq is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same GWP.

  Table VII.49--Cumulative Emissions Reduction Estimated for IRL Trial
                             Standard Level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Trial
                                                               Standard
                                                                 Level
                                                             -----------
                                                                   1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Power Sector Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)...................................        0.74
SO2 (thousand tons).........................................        0.75
NOX (thousand tons).........................................        0.62
Hg (tons)...................................................      0.0023
CH4 (thousand tons).........................................        0.06
N2O (thousand tons).........................................      0.0085
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Upstream Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)...................................       0.032
SO2 (thousand tons).........................................       0.006
NOX (thousand tons).........................................        0.45
Hg (tons)...................................................    0.000014
CH4 (thousand tons).........................................      0.0003
N2O (thousand tons).........................................         2.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Total Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)...................................        0.77
SO2 (thousand tons).........................................        0.76
NOX (thousand tons).........................................         1.1
Hg (tons)...................................................      0.0023
CH4 (thousand tons).........................................         2.7
CH4 (thousand tons CO2eq)*..................................          76
N2O (thousand tons).........................................      0.0088
N2O (thousand tons CO2eq)*..................................         2.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CO2eq is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same GWP.

    As part of the analysis for this rule, DOE estimated monetary 
benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO2 
and NOX that DOE estimated for each of the TSLs considered. 
As discussed in section VI.M.1, DOE used the most recent values for the 
SCC developed by an interagency process. The four sets of SCC values 
resulting from that process (expressed in 2013$) represented by $12.0/
metric ton (the average value from a distribution that uses a 5-percent 
discount rate), $40.5/metric ton (the average value from a distribution 
that uses a 3-percent discount rate), $62.4/metric ton (the average 
value from a distribution that uses a 2.5-percent discount rate), and 
$119/metric ton (the 95th-percentile value from a distribution that 
uses a 3-percent discount rate). These values correspond to the value 
of emission reductions in 2015; the values for later years are higher 
due to increasing

[[Page 4138]]

damages as the projected magnitude of climate change increases.
    Table VII.49 and Table VII.50 present the global value of 
CO2 emissions reductions at each TSL. For each of the four 
cases, DOE calculated a present value of the stream of annual values 
using the same discount rate as was used in the studies upon which the 
dollar-per-ton values are based. DOE calculated domestic values as a 
range from 7 percent to 23 percent of the global values, and these 
results are presented in chapter 15 of the final rule TSD.

   Table VII.50--Estimates of Global Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction Under GSFL Trial Standard Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      SCC Case *
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 TSL                  5% discount rate,  3% discount rate,    2.5% discount    3% discount rate,
                                          average *          average *       rate, average *   95th percentile *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million 2013$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Power Sector Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................                100                430                660              1,300
2...................................                110                440                690              1,400
3...................................                390              1,600              2,600              5,000
4...................................              1,300              5,400              8,500             17,000
5...................................              1,300              5,600              8,700             17,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Upstream Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................                5.0                 21                 33                 65
2...................................                5.2                 22                 34                 67
3...................................                 19                 82                130                250
4...................................                 65                270                430                840
5...................................                 66                280                440                860
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Total Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................                110                450                690              1,400
2...................................                110                470                720              1,400
3...................................                410              1,700              2,700              5,300
4...................................              1,400              5,700              8,900             18,000
5...................................              1,400              5,800              9,100             18,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For each of the four cases, the corresponding SCC value for emissions in 2015 is $12.0, $40.5, $62.4, and $119
  per metric ton (2013$).

    Table VII.51--Estimates of Global Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction Under IRL Trial Standard Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      SCC Case *
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 TSL                  5% discount rate,  3% discount rate,    2.5% discount    3% discount rate,
                                          average *          average *       rate, average *   95th percentile *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Million 2013$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Power Sector Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................                7.1                 28                 44                 86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Upstream Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................               0.31                1.2                1.9                3.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Total Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................                7.4                 30                 46                 90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For each of the four cases, the corresponding SCC value for emissions in 2015 is $12.0, $40.5, $62.4, and $119
  per metric ton (2013$).

    DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the 
contribution of CO2 and other GHG emissions to changes in 
the future global climate and the potential resulting damages to the 
world economy continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any value placed on 
reducing CO2 emissions in this rulemaking is subject to 
change. DOE, together with other Federal agencies, will continue to 
review various methodologies for estimating the monetary value of 
reductions in CO2 and other GHG emissions. This ongoing 
review will consider the comments on this subject that are part of the 
public record for this and other rulemakings, as well as other 
methodological assumptions and issues. However, consistent with DOE's 
legal obligations, and taking into account the uncertainty involved 
with this particular issue, DOE has included in this amended rule the

[[Page 4139]]

most recent values and analyses resulting from the interagency process.
    DOE also estimated the cumulative monetary value of the economic 
benefits associated with NOX emissions reductions 
anticipated to result from amended standards for GSFLs and IRLs. The 
dollar-per-ton value that DOE used is discussed in section VI.L. Table 
VII.51 and Table VII.52 present the cumulative present values for each 
TSL calculated using 7-percent and 3-percent discount rates.

   Table VII.52--Estimates of Present Value of NOX Emissions Reduction
                    Under GSFL Trial Standard Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                3% discount  7% discount
                      TSL                           rate         rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Million 2013$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Power Sector Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................           17           11
2.............................................           18           12
3.............................................           66           42
4.............................................          210          130
5.............................................          220          140
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Upstream Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................           14          8.8
2.............................................           15          9.3
3.............................................           56           34
4.............................................          190          110
5.............................................          190          110
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Total Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................           32           20
2.............................................           33           21
3.............................................          120           75
4.............................................          400          240
5.............................................          410          250
------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Table VII.53--Estimates of Present Value of NOX Emissions Reduction
                     Under IRL Trial Standard Level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                3% discount  7% discount
                      TSL                           rate         rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Million 2013$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Power Sector Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................          1.3         0.97
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Upstream Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................         0.92         0.67
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Total Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................          2.2          1.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Summary of National Economic Impacts
    The NPV of the monetized benefits associated with emissions 
reductions can be viewed as a complement to the NPV of the consumer 
savings calculated for each TSL considered in this rulemaking. Table 
VII.53 presents the NPV values that result from adding the estimates of 
the potential economic benefits resulting from reduced CO2 
and NOX emissions in each of four valuation scenarios to the 
NPV of consumer savings calculated for each TSL considered in this 
rulemaking, at both a 7-percent and 3-percent discount rate. The 
CO2 values used in the columns of each table correspond to 
the four sets of SCC values discussed previously.

 Table VII.54--Net Present Value of Consumer Savings Combined With Present Value of Monetized Benefits From CO2
                          and NOX Emissions Reductions Under GSFL Trial Standard Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Consumer NPV at 3% Discount Rate added with:
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 TSL                   SCC Case $12.0/    SCC Case $40.5/    SCC Case $62.4/     SCC Case $119/
                                        metric ton CO2     metric ton CO2     metric ton CO2     metric ton CO2
                                          plus NOX*          plus NOX*          plus NOX*          plus NOX*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Billion 2013$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................              -0.28              0.058               0.31               0.98
2...................................              -0.47             -0.11                0.15               0.85
3...................................               1.7               3.0                 3.9                6.5
4...................................               7.2              12                  15                 23
5...................................               6.7              11                  14                 23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Consumer NPV at 7% Discount Rate added with:
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL                                     SCC Case $12.0/   SCC Case $40.5/     SCC Case $62.4/  SCC Case $119/
                                      metric ton CO2     metric ton CO2     metric ton CO2     metric ton CO2
                                           plus NOX*         plus NOX*           plus NOX*          plus NOX*
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Billion 2013$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................              -0.24              0.097               0.34               1.0
2...................................              -0.37              0.153               0.24               0.94
3...................................               0.84              2.2                 3.1                5.7
4...................................               3.6               8.0                11                 20
5...................................               3.3               7.7                11                 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These label values represent the global SCC in 2015, in 2013$. For NOX emissions, each case uses the medium
  value, which corresponds to $2,684 per ton.

[[Page 4140]]

 Table VII.55--Net Present Value of Consumer Savings Combined With Present Value of Monetized Benefits from CO2
                           and NOX Emissions Reductions Under IRL Trial Standard Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   TSL                     SCC Case $12.0/   SCC Case $40.5/   SCC Case $62.4/      SCC Case
                                           metric ton CO2    metric ton CO2    metric ton CO2    $119/metric ton
                                              plus NOX*         plus NOX*         plus NOX*        CO2 plus NOX*
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Billion 2013$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................              0.26              0.29              0.30              0.35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Consumer NPV at 7% Discount Rate added with:
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                   TSL                     SCC Case $12.0/   SCC Case $40.5/   SCC Case $62.4/      SCC Case
                                           metric ton CO2    metric ton CO2    metric ton CO2    $119/metric ton
                                              plus NOX*         plus NOX*         plus NOX*        CO2 plus NOX*
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Billion 2013$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................              0.18              0.20              0.22              0.26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These label values represent the global SCC in 2015, in 2013$. For NOX emissions, each case uses the medium
  value, which corresponds to $2,684 per ton.

    Although adding the value of consumer savings to the values of 
emission reductions provides a valuable perspective, two issues should 
be considered. First, the national operating cost savings are domestic 
U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of market 
transactions, while the value of CO2 reductions is based on 
a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost savings and 
the SCC are performed with different methods that use different time 
frames for analysis. The national operating cost savings is measured 
for the lifetime of product shipped in 2018-2047. The SCC values, on 
the other hand, reflect the present value of future climate-related 
impacts resulting from the emission of one metric ton of CO2 
in each year. These impacts continue well beyond 2100.

C. Conclusions

    When considering proposed standards, the new or amended energy 
conservation standard that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of 
covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in 
energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically 
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In 
determining whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary 
must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens, 
considering to the greatest extent practicable the seven statutory 
factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or 
amended standard must also ``result in significant conservation of 
energy.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    DOE considers the impacts of standards at each TSL, beginning with 
the max tech level, to determine whether that level meets the 
evaluation criteria. Where the max tech level is not justified, DOE 
then considers the next most efficient level and undertakes the same 
evaluation until it reaches the highest efficacy level that is 
technologically feasible, economically justified, and saves a 
significant amount of energy.
    To aid the reader in understanding the benefits and/or burdens of 
each TSL, Table VII.55 and Table VII.56 in this section summarize the 
quantitative analytical results for each TSL, based on the assumptions 
and methodology discussed herein. The efficacy levels contained in each 
TSL are described in section VII.A. In addition to the quantitative 
results presented in the tables, DOE also considers other burdens and 
benefits that affect economic justification. These include the impacts 
on identifiable subgroups of consumers who may be disproportionately 
affected by a national standard (see section VII.B.1.b) and impacts on 
employment. DOE discusses the impacts on employment in GSFL and IRL 
manufacturing in section VII.B.2.b and discusses the indirect 
employment impacts in section VII.B.3.d.
    DOE also notes that the economics literature provides a wide-
ranging discussion of how consumers trade off upfront costs and energy 
savings in the absence of government intervention. Much of this 
literature attempts to explain why consumers appear to undervalue 
energy efficiency improvements. There is evidence that consumers 
undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of 
information; (2) a lack of sufficient salience of the long-term or 
aggregate benefits; (3) a lack of sufficient savings to warrant 
accelerating or altering purchases; (3) inconsistent weighting of 
future energy cost savings relative to available returns on other 
investments; (4) computational or other difficulties associated with 
the evaluation of relevant tradeoffs; and (5) a divergence in 
incentives (for example, renter versus owner or builder versus 
purchaser). Other literature indicates that with less-than-perfect 
foresight and a high degree of uncertainty about the future, it may be 
rational for consumers to trade off these types of investments at a 
higher-than-expected rate between current consumption and uncertain 
future energy cost savings. This undervaluation suggests that 
regulation that promotes energy efficiency can produce significant net 
private gains (as well as producing social gains by, for example, 
reducing pollution).
    In DOE's current regulatory analysis, potential changes in the 
benefits and costs of a regulation due to changes in consumer purchase 
decisions are included in two ways. First, if consumers forego a 
purchase of a product in the standards case, this decreases sales for 
product manufacturers and the cost to manufacturers is included in the 
MIA. Second, DOE accounts for energy savings attributable only to 
products actually used by consumers in the standards case; if a 
standard decreases the number of products purchased by consumers, this 
decreases the potential energy savings from an energy conservation 
standard. DOE provides estimates of changes in the volume of product 
purchases in chapter 9 of the final rule TSD. DOE's current analysis 
does not explicitly control for heterogeneity in consumer preferences, 
preferences across subcategories of products or specific features, or

[[Page 4141]]

consumer price sensitivity variation according to household income.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ P.C. Reiss and M.W. White, Household Electricity Demand, 
Revisited, Review of Economic Studies (2005) 72, 853-883.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While DOE is not prepared at present to provide a fuller 
quantifiable framework for estimating the benefits and costs of changes 
in consumer purchase decisions due to an energy conservation standard, 
DOE is committed to developing a framework that can support empirical 
quantitative tools for improved assessment of the consumer welfare 
impacts of appliance standards. DOE has posted a paper that discusses 
the issue of consumer welfare impacts of appliance standards, and 
potential enhancements to the methodology by which these impacts are 
defined and estimated in the regulatory process.\94\ DOE welcomes 
comments on how to more fully assess the potential impact of energy 
conservation standards on consumer choice and how to quantify this 
impact in its future regulatory analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ Alan Sanstad, Notes on the Economics of Household Energy 
Consumption and Technology Choice. Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory (2010) (Available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_theory.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Benefits and Burdens of Trial Standard Levels Considered for General 
Service Fluorescent Lamps
    Table VII.55 and Table VII.56 summarize the quantitative impacts 
estimated for each TSL for GSFL.

                                         Table VII.56--Summary of Analytical Results for GSFL: National Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Category                                    TSL 1            TSL 2            TSL 3            TSL 4            TSL 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            National FFC Energy Savings quads
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                0.19             0.20             0.74              2.5              2.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         NPV of Consumer Benefits 2013$ billion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13% discount rate..................................................             0.42             0.61              1.1              5.5              4.9
17% discount rate..................................................             0.37             0.51             0.35              2.0              1.6
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Cumulative Emissions Reduction (Total FFC Emissions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)..........................................               12               13               48              160              160
SO2 (thousand tons)................................................               11               11               42              140              140
NOX (thousand tons)................................................               18               18               69              230              240
Hg (tons)..........................................................            0.033            0.035             0.13             0.43             0.44
CH4 (thousand tons)................................................               49               51              190              650              660
CH4 (million tons CO2eq)*..........................................            1,400            1,400            5,400           18,000           19,000
NO2 (thousand tons)................................................             0.15             0.16             0.60              2.0              2.1
NO2 (thousand tons CO2eq) *........................................               41               42              160              540              550
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Value of Emissions Reduction (Total FFC Emissions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2, 2013$ billion **..............................................      0.11 to 1.4      0.11 to 1.4      0.41 to 5.3        1.4 to 18        1.4 to 18
NOX--3% discount rate, 2013$ million...............................               32               33              120              400              410
NOX--7% discount rate, 2013$ million...............................               20               21               75              240              250
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same GWP.
** Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions.

             Table VII.57 Summary of Analytical Results for GSFL: Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Category                   TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3           TSL 4           TSL 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Manufacturer Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in Industry NPV (2013$       49.5--(42.9)    48.2--(56.5)   130.4--(74.2)  426.8--(330.0)  444.6--(367.7)
 million)[dagger]...............
(Base Case Industry NPV of
 $1,551.6)......................
Change in Industry NPV                3.2--(2.8)      3.1--(3.6)      8.4--(4.8)    27.5--(21.3)    28.7--(23.7)
 (%)[dagger]....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Consumer Mean LCC Savings 2013$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-foot MBP 2, 240 thousand tons of NOX, 140 
thousand tons of SO2, 0.44 tons of Hg, 660 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 2.1 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 5 
ranges from $1.4 billion to $18 billion.
    At TSL 5, DOE estimates industry will need to invest approximately 
$39.1 million in conversion costs. At TSL 5, the projected change in 
INPV ranges from a decrease of $367.7 million to an increase of $444.6 
million, which equates to a decrease of 23.7 percent and an increase of 
28.7 percent, respectively, in INPV for manufacturers of covered GSFLs.
    At TSL 5, the weighted-average LCC savings is $5.98 for the 4-foot 
MBP lamps, $5.68 for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO lamps, $4.74 for the 4-
foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps, $1.72 for the 8-foot SP slimline lamps, and -
$16.94 for the 8-foot RDC HO lamps.
    At TSL 5, 8-foot HO lamps are required to meet EL 2, which 
represents an 800 series full wattage T8 lamp. Because no reduced 
wattage 8-foot HO lamps exist at this level, consumers who require 8-
foot HO lamps must purchase a more efficient lamp that consumes the 
same amount of energy as lamps available at lower efficacy levels. 
Thus, for an increased cost, these consumers must purchase a lamp that 
produces more light but does not save energy. Because there are no 
energy-saving options for 8-foot HO consumers at TSL 5, all consumers 
that continue to purchase this lamp type would experience negative LCC 
savings.
    After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and the 
burdens, DOE has determined that at TSL 5 for GSFLs, the benefits of 
energy savings, positive NPV of total consumer benefits, the overall 
positive impacts on consumers, emission reductions and the estimated 
monetary value of the emissions reductions would be outweighed by the 
potential reduction in industry value and negative LCC savings 
experienced by consumers of 8-foot RDC HO lamps. Therefore, the 
Secretary has concluded that TSL 5 is not economically justified.
    Next, DOE considered TSL 4, which represents the combination of ELs 
that achieve the maximum NPV. TSL 4 would save an estimated total of 
2.5 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant and approaches 
maximum energy savings achieved at TSL 5. TSL 4 has an estimated NPV of 
consumer benefit of $2.0 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and 
$5.5 billion using a 3 percent discount rate.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 160 million metric 
tons of CO2, 230 thousand tons of NOX, 140 
thousand tons of SO2, 0.43 tons of Hg, 650 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 2.0 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 4 
ranges from $1.4 billion to $18 billion.
    At TSL 4, DOE estimates industry will need to invest approximately 
$26.6 million in conversion costs. At TSL 4, the projected change in 
INPV ranges from a decrease of $330.0 million to an increase of $426.8 
million, which equates to a decrease of 21.3 percent and an increase of 
27.5 percent, respectively, in INPV for manufacturers of covered GSFLs.
    At TSL 4, the weighted average LCC savings is $5.98 for the 4-foot 
MBP lamps, $5.68 for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO lamps, and $4.74 for the 
4-foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps. At TSL 4, no amended standard is adopted for 
the 8-foot SP slimline lamps or 8- foot RDC HO lamps and therefore LCC 
savings are not reported.
    After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and the 
burdens, DOE determined that at TSL 4 for GSFLs, the benefits of energy 
savings, positive NPV of total consumer benefits, the overall positive 
impacts on consumers, emission reductions and the estimated monetary 
value of the emissions reductions would outweigh the potential 
reduction in industry value. The Secretary has concluded that TSL 4 
would save a significant amount of energy and is technologically 
feasible and economically justified.
    Based on the above considerations, DOE adopts the energy 
conservation standards for GSFLs at TSL 4. Table VII.57 presents the 
adopted energy conservation standards for GSFLs.

          Table VII.58--Energy Conservation Standards for GSFL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Adopted level
                Lamp type                      CCT K           lm/W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-Foot Medium Bipin.....................         4,500            88.7
2-Foot U-Shaped.........................         4,500            83.3
8-Foot Slimline.........................         4,500            93.0
8-Foot High Output......................         4,500            88.0

[[Page 4143]]

 
4-Foot Miniature Bipin Standard Output..         4,500            89.3
4-Foot Miniature Bipin High Output......         4,500            76.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Adopted Standards 
for General Service Fluorescent Lamps
    The benefits and costs of these standards, for product sold in 
2018-2047, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The 
annualized monetary values are the sum of (1) the annualized national 
economic value of the benefits from consumer operation of product that 
meet the amended standards (consisting primarily of operating cost 
savings from using less energy, minus increases in product purchase and 
installation costs, which is another way of representing consumer NPV), 
and (2) the annualized monetary value of the benefits of emission 
reductions, including CO2 emission reductions.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ See section VI.M for description of the method used for 
annualization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the standards for 
GSFL are shown in Table VII.58. The results under the primary estimate 
are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs 
other than CO2 reduction, for which DOE used a 3-percent 
discount rate along with the SCC series that has a value of $40.5/t in 
2015, the cost of the standards in this rule is $841 million per year 
in increased equipment costs, while the benefits are $1,030 million per 
year in reduced equipment operating costs, $310 million in 
CO2 reductions, and $22.4 million in reduced NOX 
emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $516 million per 
year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and 
the SCC series that has a value of $40.5/t in 2015, the cost of the 
standards in this rule is $724 million per year in increased equipment 
costs, while the benefits are $1,020 million per year in reduced 
operating costs, $310 million in CO2 reductions, and $21.6 
million in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net 
benefit amounts to $627 million per year. \96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ The annualized consumer operating cost savings, 
NOX reduction monetized value, and consumer incremental 
product costs are higher with a 7-percent discount rate than with a 
3-percent discount rate. This is in contrast to the present values 
in Table VII.58. Under certain conditions, different present values 
may lead to similar annualized values when calculated with different 
discount rates. In this case, the combined effects of (a) projecting 
to 2018 the present values that DOE calculated in 2014, and (b) 
annualizing the projected values with 3 percent and 7 percent 
discount rates over the 30-year analysis period, lead to similar 
annualized values. For consumer incremental product costs, the 
effect is more pronounced because the time series covers only 30 
years, instead of the longer period covered for operating cost 
savings and NOX reduction monetized value.

               Table VII.59--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Amended Standards for GSFL (TSL 4) *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Low net benefits    High net benefits
                                     Discount rate     Primary estimate        estimate            estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Million 2013$/year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.  7%................  1,030.............  1,010.............  1,050
                                  3%................  1,020.............  1,000.............  1,050
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value     5%................  97.5..............  97.1..............  97.5
 ($12.0/t case) **.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value     3%................  310...............  308...............  310
 ($40.5/t case) **.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value     2.5%..............  448...............  446...............  448
 ($62.4/t case) **.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value     3%................  950...............  946...............  950
 ($119/t case) **.
NOX Reduction Monetized Value     7%................  22.4..............  22.3..............  22.4
 (at $2,684/ton) **.              3%................  21.6..............  21.5..............  21.6
Total Benefits [dagger].........  7% plus CO2 range.  1,150 to 2,000....  1,130 to 1,980....  1,170 to 2,030
                                  7%................  1,360.............  1,340.............  1,390
                                  3% plus CO2 range.  1,140 to 2,000....  1,120 to 1,970....  1,170 to 2,030
                                  3%................  1,360.............  1,330.............  1,390
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Product      7%................  841...............  882...............  841
 Costs.                           3%................  724...............  763...............  724
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Net Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total [dagger]..................  7% plus CO2 range.  300 to 1,160......  241 to 1,090......  328 to 1,180
                                  7%................  516...............  452...............  540
                                  3% plus CO2 range.  415 to 1,270......  350 to 1,200......  443 to 1,300

[[Page 4144]]

 
                                  3%................  627...............  561...............  655
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with GSFLs shipped in 2018-2047. These
  results include benefits to consumers that accrue after 2047 from the products purchased in 2018-2047. The
  results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the standard,
  some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The Primary Benefits Estimate assumes the Reference
  case energy prices from AEO 2014 and decreasing incremental product cost, due to price learning. The Low
  Benefits Estimate uses the Low Economic Growth energy prices from AEO 2014 and constant real product prices.
  The High Benefits Estimate assumes the Low Economic Growth energy price estimates from AEO 2014 and the same
  decreasing incremental product costs as in the Primary Benefits Estimate.
** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the
  updated SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and
  2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution
  calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporate an escalation factor. The
  value for NOX is the average of the low and high values used in DOE's analysis.
[dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to the average
  SCC with 3-percent discount rate ($40.5/t case). In the rows labeled ``7% plus CO2 range'' and ``3% plus CO2
  range,'' the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values
  are added to the full range of CO2 values.

3. Benefits and Burdens of Trial Standard Levels Considered for 
Incandescent Reflector Lamps
    Table VII.59 and Table VII.60 summarize the quantitative impacts 
estimated for the TSL for IRL.

  Table VII.60--Summary of Analytical Results for IRL: National Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Category                              TSL 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    National FFC Energy Savings quads
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   0.011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 NPV of Consumers Benefits 2013$ billion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate.....................................               0.25
7% discount rate.....................................               0.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Cumulative Emissions Reduction (Total FFC Emissions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)............................               0.77
SO2 (thousand tons)..................................               0.76
NOx (thousand tons)..................................                1.1
Hg (tons)............................................             0.0023
CH4 (thousand tons)..................................                2.7
CH4 (thousand tons CO2eq) *..........................                 76
N2O (thousand tons)..................................             0.0088
N2O (thousand tons CO2eq) *..........................                2.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Value of Emissions Reduction (Total FFC Emissions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 2013$ million **.................................            7 to 90
NOX--3% discount rate 2013$ million..................                2.2
NOX--7% discount rate 2013$ million..................                1.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CO2eq is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same GWP.
** Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates
  of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions.

  Table VII.61--Summary of Analytical Results for IRL: Manufacturer and
                            Consumer Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Category                              TSL 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Manufacturer Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in Industry NPV (2013$ million) * (Base Case        (52.5)-(56.2)
 Industry NPV of $145.4).............................
Change in Industry NPV (%) *.........................      (36.1)-(38.6)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Consumer Mean LCC Savings * 2013$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard spectrum; >2.5 inch diameter; 2.5 inch diameter; 2, 1.1 thousand tons of NOX, 
0.76 thousand tons of SO2, 0.0023 tons of Hg, 2.7 thousand 
tons of CH4, and 0.0088 thousand tons of N2O. The 
estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions at 
TSL 1 ranges from $7 million to $90 million.
    At TSL 1, the weighted average LCC savings for the standard 
spectrum, >2.5 inch diameter, http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). DOE reviewed the April 2014 NOPR (79 FR 24068) and 
this rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and 
the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003.
    As a result of this review, DOE has prepared a FRFA for GSFLs, but 
not for IRLs since DOE is not setting amended energy conservation 
standards for IRLs as part of this rule. As presented and discussed in 
the following section, the GSFL FRFA describes impacts on GSFL 
manufacturers and discusses alternatives that could minimize these 
impacts. A statement of the reasons for establishing the standards in 
this rule, and the objectives of, and legal basis for these standards, 
are set forth elsewhere in the preamble and not repeated here. Chapter 
13 of this final rule TSD contains more information about the impact of 
this rulemaking on manufacturers.
1. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
a. Methodology for Estimating the Number of Small Entities
    For manufacturers of GSFLs, the Small Business Administration (SBA) 
has set a size threshold, which defines those entities classified as 
``small businesses'' for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the 
SBA's small business size standards to determine whether any small 
entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. 65 FR 30836, 
30848 (May 15, 2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533, 53544 (Sept. 5, 2000) 
and codified at 13 CFR part 121.The size standards are listed by North 
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and industry 
description and are available at http://www.sba.gov/content/table-small-business-size-standards. GSFL manufacturing is classified under 
NAICS code 335110, ``Electric Lamp Bulb and Part Manufacturing.'' The 
SBA sets a threshold of 1,000 employees or less for an entity to be 
considered as a small business for this category.
    To estimate the number of companies that could be small business 
manufacturers of GSFLs covered by this rulemaking, DOE conducted a 
market survey using publicly available information. DOE's research 
involved industry trade association membership directories (including 
NEMA), information from previous rulemakings, individual company Web 
sites, SBA's database, and market research tools (e.g., Hoover's 
reports). DOE also asked stakeholders and industry representatives if 
they were aware of any small manufacturers during manufacturer 
interviews and DOE public meetings. DOE used information from these 
sources to create a list of companies that potentially manufacture or 
sell GSFLs and would be impacted by this rulemaking. As necessary, DOE 
contacted companies to determine whether they met the SBA's definition 
of a small business manufacturer of GSFLs. DOE screened out companies 
that do not offer products covered by this rulemaking, do not meet the 
definition of a ``small business,'' or are completely foreign owned and 
operated.
    For GSFLs, DOE initially identified a total of 47 potential 
companies that sell GSFLs in the United States. After reviewing 
publicly available information on these potential GSFL manufacturers, 
DOE determined that 26 were either large manufacturers, manufacturers 
that were completely foreign owned and operated, or did not sell GSFLs 
covered by this rulemaking. DOE then contacted the remaining 21 GSFL 
companies to determine whether they met SBA's definition of a small 
business and whether they manufactured or sold GSFLs that would be 
affected by these standards. Based on these efforts, DOE estimated that 
there are 21 small businesses that either manufacture or sell covered 
GSFLs in the United States.
b. Manufacturer Participation
    DOE contacted all 21 identified GSFL small businesses to invite 
them to take part in a small business MIA interview. Of the GSFL 
manufacturers DOE contacted, eight responded to DOE's email and phone 
communications and 13 did not. DOE was able to reach and discuss 
potential standards with two of the eight GSFL small business 
manufacturers that responded. The remaining six declined DOE's request 
to be interviewed for this rulemaking. DOE also obtained information 
about small business manufacturers and potential impacts on small 
businesses while interviewing large manufacturers.
c. GSFL Industry Structure and Nature of Competition
    Three major manufacturers supply approximately 90 percent of the 
GSFL market. None of these three major GSFL manufacturers are small 
businesses. DOE estimates that the remaining 10 percent of the GSFL 
market is served by either small businesses or

[[Page 4147]]

manufacturers that are completely foreign owned and operated. No small 
business has more than a three percent market share in the GSFL 
industry. Small businesses that sell covered GSFLs tend to be companies 
that outsource the manufacturing to overseas companies who produce the 
lamps specified by the small businesses. These small businesses provide 
the specifications for these lamps as well as the testing and 
certification to comply with any U.S. energy conservation standards.
d. Comparison Between Large and Small Entities
    For GSFLs, small businesses differ from large manufacturers in 
several ways that directly affect the extent to which a company would 
be impacted by energy conservation standards. The main differences 
between small and large entities for this rulemaking are that small 
manufacturers of GSFLs have lower sales volumes and are frequently not 
the original manufacturers of GSFLs. Therefore, these small businesses 
would not have any capital conversion costs to comply with amended 
standards, since the machinery used to produce GSFLs is owned and 
operated by overseas manufacturers. The small businesses would most 
likely experience higher per-unit costs for the products if the 
conversion costs experienced by the overseas manufacturers are passed 
through to the small businesses, potentially reducing those small 
business' manufacturer markups and profits.
    Small businesses would also have product conversion costs 
associated with testing and certifying any lamps that would need to be 
redesigned due to standards. Typically the testing and certification 
costs are proportional to the number of products offered by a company 
and not the volume of sales. Some small businesses stated they could 
offer up to 75 percent of the number of covered products that large 
manufacturers offer; however, the volume of sales for each single 
product offered by a small business would be significantly smaller than 
that of a larger manufacturer. Consequently, the revenue associated 
with a single product is much smaller for small businesses than for 
large manufacturers. Therefore, these small businesses could have 
product conversion costs in the same range as large manufacturers, 
since product conversion costs scale to number of products offered, 
even though the total revenue is significantly lower for small 
businesses compared to large manufacturers.
    Lower sales volumes are the biggest disadvantage for most small 
businesses. A lower-volume business' product conversion costs are 
spread over fewer units than a larger competitor. Thus, unless the 
small business can differentiate its product in some way that earns a 
price premium, the small business experiences a reduction in profit 
per-unit relative to the large manufacturer. Most small GSFL businesses 
operate in the same lighting markets as large manufacturers and do not 
operate in niche GSFL markets. Much of the same manufacturing equipment 
would need to be purchased by both large manufacturers and small 
businesses to produce GSFLs at higher efficacy levels. If the small 
business is not the original lamp manufacturer, the manufacturer that 
sells to the small business would have to purchase this manufacturing 
equipment. Therefore, undifferentiated small businesses would face a 
greater per-unit cost penalty because they must spread the conversion 
costs over fewer units. While small businesses may not be directly 
paying these capital conversion costs, they are still responsible for 
selling certified products made by the original lamp manufacturers. The 
costs incurred by contracted manufacturers are passed on to small 
businesses that must maintain profit margins by either increasing 
product prices or decreasing profitability.
2. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
    Small GSFL businesses will be affected differently by the amended 
energy conservation standards compared to large manufacturers. One of 
the key differences between large manufacturers and the small 
businesses identified by DOE for this rulemaking is that small GSFL 
businesses typically outsource the manufacturing of the lamps they sell 
to original product manufacturers abroad. This, in addition to the 
small volume of sales typical of small businesses, results in small 
GSFL businesses having different types and amounts of conversion costs 
compared to large manufacturers.
    As a result of these standards, small GSFL businesses will incur 
product conversion costs because products that no longer meet the 
efficacy levels of these standards will most likely need to be 
redesigned, retested, and recertified. Since small businesses have 
significantly less revenue and annual R&D budgets than large 
manufacturers, the product conversion costs necessary to comply with 
amended standards represent a significant portion of a small business' 
annual revenue. However, unlike large manufacturers, small businesses 
will most likely not incur any capital conversion costs due to amended 
standards because small businesses usually do not own and operate the 
machinery used to manufacture the covered GSFLs. The capital conversion 
costs incurred by original product manufacturers will instead be passed 
along indirectly to the domestic small businesses.
    In the GSFL market, DOE identified 21 small GSFL businesses with 
covered products affected by this rulemaking. It is unlikely that small 
GSFL businesses will incur any capital conversion costs because small 
businesses usually do not own and operate the machinery used to 
manufacture the covered GSFLs; however, they will likely face 
significant product conversion costs to cover R&D, certification, and 
testing of products that need to be redesigned to meet the efficacy 
levels set in this standard. DOE estimates that approximately 61 
percent of the covered products offered by small GSFL manufacturers 
meet the efficacy levels established by this rule, TSL 4. As a result, 
an average of approximately 39 percent of products would need to be 
redesigned to meet these efficacy levels, resulting in small GSFL 
businesses incurring more than $1.08 million on average in product 
conversion costs or nearly five times as much as typical annual GSFL 
R&D expenses. GSFL sales account for approximately 25 percent of a 
typical small business' annual revenue, so redesigning up to 39 percent 
of those offerings could have a significant impact on their business. 
Redesigning a large majority of product offerings that represent a 
significant revenue stream will be more difficult for small businesses, 
compared to large businesses, as they have less R&D and revenue.

[[Page 4148]]

        Table VIII.1--Estimated GSFL Product Conversion Costs as a Percentage of Annual GSFL R&D Expense
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Product conversion cost   Total conversion cost
                                                                   as a percentage of       as a percentage of
                                                                   annual R&D expense         annual revenue
                                                                       (percent)                (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Typical Large Manufacturer....................................                        3                        1
Typical Small Manufacturer....................................                      471                       21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Small businesses in the GSFL industry expressed concern that 
possible manufacturing downtime, discontinuation of product lines, and 
high direct and indirect conversion costs resulting from amended GSFL 
energy conservation standards could have a significant impact on their 
revenue and could affect domestic employment decisions. Domestic 
employment impacts could be especially prevalent, since GSFL revenue 
accounts for approximately 25 percent of a typical small business' 
revenue. Domestic employment impacts would be seen in small business' 
sales forces and warehouse staff that could be potentially downsized as 
a result of the GSFL standards established in this rule.
3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
    DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate, 
overlap, or conflict with the final rule established.
4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    The discussion in the previous section analyzes impacts on GSFL 
small businesses that would result from DOE's final rule. In addition 
to the other TSLs being considered, the final rule TSD includes a RIA. 
For GSFLs, the RIA discusses the following policy alternatives: (1) No 
change in standard; (2) consumer rebates; (3) consumer tax credits; (4) 
manufacturer tax credits; (5) voluntary energy efficiency targets; and 
(6) bulk government purchases. While these alternatives may mitigate to 
some varying extent the economic impacts on small entities compared to 
the adopted standards, DOE did not consider these alternatives further 
because they are expected to result in energy savings that are much 
smaller than those that will be achieved by the adopted standard levels 
in this final rule (for 4-foot MBP the energy savings ranged from 51 
percent to 98 percent less primary energy savings; for 4-foot T5 MiniBP 
SO the energy savings ranged from 84 percent to 98 percent less primary 
energy savings). In reviewing alternatives, DOE also examined energy 
conservation standards set at lower efficacy levels. DOE notes that it 
did not consider an alternative compliance date for the entire industry 
affected by this rulemaking. DOE is constrained by the three-year lead 
time required by statute (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5)). However, certain 
compliance date alternatives may be available to individual 
manufacturers, as discussed below. Accordingly, DOE is declining to 
adopt any of these alternatives and is adopting the standards set forth 
in this rulemaking. See chapter 18 of the final rule TSD for further 
detail on the policy alternatives that DOE considered.
    Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other 
means. For example, individual manufacturers may petition for a waiver 
of the applicable test procedure. Further, EPCA provides that a 
manufacturer whose annual gross revenue from all of its operations does 
not exceed $8,000,000 may apply for an exemption from all or part of an 
energy conservation standard for a period not longer than 24 months 
after the effective date of a final rule establishing the standard. 
Additionally, Section 504 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, 
42 U.S.C. 7194, provides authority for the Secretary to adjust a rule 
issued under EPCA in order to prevent ``special hardship, inequity, or 
unfair distribution of burdens'' that may be imposed on that 
manufacturer as a result of such rule. Manufacturers should refer to 10 
CFR part 430, subpart E, and part 1003 for additional details.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    Manufacturers of GSFLs must certify to DOE that their products 
comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In certifying 
compliance, manufacturers must test their products according to the DOE 
test procedures for GSFLs, including any amendments adopted for those 
test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification 
and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and 
commercial equipment, including GSFLs. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). The 
collection-of-information requirement for the certification and 
recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by 
OMB under OMB Control Number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the 
certification is estimated to average 30 hours per response, including 
the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing 
the collection of information.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 
DOE has determined that the rule fits within the category of actions 
included in Categorical Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and otherwise meets the 
requirements for application of a CX. See 10 CFR part 1021, App. B, 
B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and Appendix B, B(1)-(5). The rule fits within the 
category of actions because it is a rulemaking that establishes energy 
conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment, 
and for which none of the exceptions identified in CX B5.1(b) apply. 
Therefore, DOE has made a CX determination for this rulemaking, and DOE 
does not need to prepare an Environmental Assessment or Environmental 
Impact Statement for this rule. DOE's CX determination for this rule is 
available at http://cxnepa.energy.gov/.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 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

[[Page 4149]]

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. EPCA governs and 
prescribes federal preemption of state regulations as to energy 
conservation for the products that are the subject of this rule. States 
can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and 
based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) 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,'' 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. 61 FR 
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). 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, the final rule meets 
the relevant standards of Executive Order 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. Pub. L. 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For an amended regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may 
cause the expenditure by state, local, and Tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one 
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of state, local, and Tribal governments on a ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. 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 http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
    DOE has concluded that the final rule would likely require 
expenditures of $100 million or more on the private sector. Such 
expenditures may include: (1) Investment in research and development 
and in capital expenditures by GSFL manufacturers in the years between 
the final rule and the compliance date for the new standards, and (2) 
incremental additional expenditures by consumers to purchase higher 
efficacy GSFLs, starting at the compliance date for the applicable 
standard.
    Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a federal agency to respond to the 
content requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that 
accompanies the final rule. 2 U.S.C. 1532(c). The content requirements 
of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private sector mandate 
substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that apply 
under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. The 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this final rule and the 
``Regulatory Impact Analysis'' section of the final rule TSD respond to 
those requirements.
    Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before 
promulgating a rule for which a written statement under section 202 is 
required. 2 U.S.C. 1535(a). DOE is required to select from those 
alternatives the most cost effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule unless DOE publishes an 
explanation for doing otherwise, or the selection of such an 
alternative is inconsistent with law. As required by 42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(4)-(5), this rule establishes energy conservation standards for 
GSFLs that are designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that DOE has determined to be both technologically feasible 
and economically justified. A full discussion of the alternatives 
considered by DOE is presented in the ``Regulatory Impact Analysis'' 
section of the final rule TSD for this rule.

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 rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the 
family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not 
necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation 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 
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). DOE has reviewed this rule 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,

[[Page 4150]]

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 significant energy action. A ``significant energy 
action'' is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is 
expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any 
successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect 
on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by 
the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any 
significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of 
any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the 
proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action 
and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
    DOE has concluded that this regulatory action, which sets forth 
energy conservation standards for GSFLs, is not a significant energy 
action because the amended standards are not likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at 
OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects 
on the final rule.

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 (OSTP), issued its Final Information 
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 
2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information 
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is 
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential 
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The 
purpose of the Bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of 
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy 
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific 
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as scientific information the 
agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear and 
substantial impact on important public policies or private sector 
decisions. 70 FR 2667.
    In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal in-progress 
peer reviews of the energy conservation standards development process 
and analyses and has prepared a Peer Review Report pertaining to the 
energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses. 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. The ``Energy Conservation Standards 
Rulemaking Peer Review Report'' dated February 2007 has been 
disseminated and is available at the following Web site: 
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/peer_review.html.

M. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the 
promulgation of this rule prior to its effective date. The report will 
state that it has been determined that the rule is a ``major rule'' as 
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

IX. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's final 
rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, 
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
and Small businesses.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 30, 2014.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends part 430 of 
chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

0
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.

0
2. In Sec.  430.2, add the definitions for ``700 series fluorescent 
lamp'', ``Designed and marketed'', ``Fluorescent lamp designed for use 
in reprographic equipment,'' ``Impact-resistant fluorescent lamp,'' 
``Lamps primarily designed to produce radiation in the ultraviolet 
region of the spectrum,'' ``Reflectorized or aperture lamp,'' in 
alphabetical order, and revise the definition for ``Fluorescent lamp'' 
to read as follows:

Sec.  430.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    700 series fluorescent lamp means a fluorescent lamp with a color 
rendering index (measured according to the test procedures outlined in 
Appendix R to subpart B of this part) that is in the range (inclusive) 
of 70 to 79.
* * * * *
    Designed and marketed means that the intended application of the 
lamp is clearly stated in all publicly available documents (e.g., 
product literature, catalogs, and packaging labels). This definition is 
applicable to terms related to the following covered lighting products: 
Fluorescent lamp ballasts; fluorescent lamps; general service 
fluorescent lamps; general service incandescent lamps; general service 
lamps; incandescent lamps; incandescent reflector lamps; medium base 
compact fluorescent lamps; and specialty application mercury vapor lamp 
ballasts.
* * * * *
    Fluorescent lamp means a low pressure mercury electric-discharge 
source in which a fluorescing coating transforms some of the 
ultraviolet energy generated by the mercury discharge into light, 
including only the following:
    (1) Any straight-shaped lamp (commonly referred to as 4-foot medium 
bipin lamps) with medium bipin bases of nominal overall length of 48 
inches and rated wattage of 25 or more;
    (2) Any U-shaped lamp (commonly referred to as 2-foot U-shaped 
lamps) with medium bipin bases of nominal overall length between 22 and 
25 inches and rated wattage of 25 or more;
    (3) Any rapid start lamp (commonly referred to as 8-foot high 
output lamps) with recessed double contact bases of nominal overall 
length of 96 inches;
    (4) Any instant start lamp (commonly referred to as 8-foot slimline 
lamps) with single pin bases of nominal overall length of 96 inches and 
rated wattage of 49 or more;
    (5) Any straight-shaped lamp (commonly referred to as 4-foot 
miniature bipin standard output lamps) with miniature bipin bases of 
nominal overall length between 45 and 48 inches and rated wattage of 25 
or more; and
    (6) Any straight-shaped lamp (commonly referred to 4-foot miniature 
bipin high output lamps) with miniature bipin bases of nominal overall 
length between 45 and 48 inches and rated wattage of 44 or more.

[[Page 4151]]

    Fluorescent lamp designed for use in reprographic equipment means a 
fluorescent lamp intended for use in equipment used to reproduce, 
reprint, or copy graphic material.
* * * * *
    Impact-resistant fluorescent lamp means a lamp that:
    (1) Has a coating or equivalent technology that is compliant with 
NSF/ANSI 51 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3) and is 
designed to contain the glass if the glass envelope of the lamp is 
broken; and
    (2) Is designated and marketed for the intended application, with:
    (i) The designation on the lamp packaging; and
    (ii) Marketing materials that identify the lamp as being impact-
resistant, shatter-resistant, shatter-proof, or shatter-protected.
* * * * *
    Lamps primarily designed to produce radiation in the ultraviolet 
region of the spectrum means fluorescent lamps that primarily emit 
light in the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum where light has a 
wavelength between 10 and 400 nanometers.
* * * * *
    Reflectorized or aperture lamp means a fluorescent lamp that 
contains an inner reflective coating on the bulb to direct light.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 430.32 is amended by revising paragraph (n) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  430.32  Energy and water conservation standards and their 
effective dates.

* * * * *
    (n) General service fluorescent lamps and incandescent reflector 
lamps. (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (n)(2), (n)(3), and (n)(4) 
of this section, each of the following general service fluorescent 
lamps manufactured after the effective dates specified in the table 
shall meet or exceed the following lamp efficacy and CRI standards:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Minimum  average
            Lamp type                Nominal  lamp     Minimum  CRI     lamp  efficacy        Effective date
                                        wattage                              lm/W
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-foot medium bipin..............             >35 W                69              75.0  Nov. 1, 1995.
                                             35 W                69              68.0  Nov. 1, 1995.
                                            65 W                69              80.0  May 1, 1994.
                                             100 W                69              80.0  May 1, 1994.
                                            W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-foot medium bipin.............  4,500K and 4,500K and 4,500K and 4,500K and 4,500K and 4,500K and W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-foot medium bipin.............  4,500K and 4,500K and 4,500K and 4,500K and 4,500K and 4,500K and W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40-50.................................................              10.5
51-66.................................................              11.0
67-85.................................................              12.5
86-115................................................              14.0
116-155...............................................              14.5
156-205...............................................              15.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (6) Each of the following incandescent reflector lamps manufactured 
after July 14, 2012, shall meet or exceed the lamp efficacy standards 
shown in the table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Minimum  average
        Rated lamp wattage              Lamp spectrum         Lamp diameter     Rated voltage    lamp  efficacy
                                                                 inches                               lm/W
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40-205...........................  Standard Spectrum......              >2.5           >=125 V         6.8*P0.27
                                                                                        =125 V         5.7*P0.27
                                                                                        2.5           >=125 V         5.8*P0.27
                                                                                        =125 V         4.9*P0.27
                                                                                        
(202) 616-2645 (Fax)

August 25, 2014

Eric J. Fygi, Deputy General Counsel, Department of Energy, 
Washington, DC 20585

    Dear Deputy General Counsel Fygi: I am responding to your June 
11, 2014 letter seeking the views of the Attorney General about the 
potential impact on competition of proposed energy conservation 
standards for general service fluorescent lamps and certain 
incandescent reflector lamps. Your request was submitted under 
Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the Energy Policy and Conservation 
Act, as amended (ECPA), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V), which 
requires the Attorney General to make a determination of the impact 
of any lessening of competition that is likely to result from the 
imposition of proposed energy conservation standards. The Attorney 
General's responsibility for responding to requests from other 
departments about the effect of a program on competition has been 
delegated to the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust 
Division in 28 CFR 0.40(g).
    In conducting its analysis the Antitrust Division examines 
whether a proposed standard may lessen competition, for example, by 
substantially limiting consumer choice, by placing certain 
manufacturers at an unjustified competitive disadvantage, or by 
inducing avoidable inefficiencies in production or distribution of 
particular products. A lessening of competition could result in 
higher prices to manufacturers and consumers.
    We have reviewed the proposed standards contained in the Notice 
of Proposed

[[Page 4153]]

Rulemaking (79 FR 24068, April 29, 2014) (NOPR). We have also 
reviewed supplementary information submitted to the Attorney General 
by the Department of Energy. Based on this review, our conclusion is 
that the proposed energy conservation standards for general service 
fluorescent lamps and certain incandescent reflector lamps are 
unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on competition.

Sincerely,

William J. Baer

Enclosure

[FR Doc. 2015-00317 Filed 1-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```