Vol. 79 Tuesday, 

No. 82 April 29, 2014 

Part II 

Department of Energy 

10 CFR Part 430 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for General 

Service Fluorescent Lamps and Incandescent Reflector Lamps; Proposed 

Rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24068 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NOPR) and public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as 

amended, prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various 

commercial and industrial equipment 

and certain consumer products, 

including general service fluorescent 

lamps (GSFLs) and incandescent 

reflector lamps (IRLs). EPCA also 

requires the U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE) to determine whether morestringent, amended standards would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would save 

a significant amount of energy. In this 

notice, DOE proposes amended energy 

conservation standards for GSFLs and 

IRLs. The notice also announces a 

public meeting to receive comment on 

these proposed standards and associated 

analyses and results. 

DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting 

on Thursday, May 1, 2014, from 9 a.m. 

to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The 

meeting will also be broadcast as a 

webinar. See section IX Public 

Participation for webinar registration 

information, participant instructions, 

and information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this NOPR before 

and after the public meeting, but no 

later than June 30, 2014. See section IX 

Public Participation for details. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be 

held at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. To attend, 

please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at 

(202) 586–2945. Please note that foreign 

nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are 

subject to advance security screening 

procedures. Any foreign national 

wishing to participate in the meeting 

should advise DOE as soon as possible 

by contacting Ms. Edwards to initiate 

the necessary procedures. Please also 

note that those wishing to bring laptops 

into the Forrestal Building will be 

required to obtain a property pass. 

Visitors should avoid bringing laptops, 

or allow an extra 45 minutes. Persons 

can attend the public meeting via 

webinar. For more information, refer to 

the Public Participation section near the 

end of this notice. 

Any comments submitted must 

identify the NOPR for Energy 

Conservation Standards for general 

service fluorescent lamps and 

incandescent reflector lamps and 

provide docket number EE–2011–BT– 

STD–0006 and/or regulatory 

information number (RIN) number 

1904–AC43. Comments may be 

submitted using any of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email:GSFL-IRL_2011-STD0006@ee.doe.gov. Include the docket 

number and/or RIN in the subject line 

of the message. 

3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

CD. It is not necessary to include 

printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD, in which case 

it is not necessary to include printed 

copies. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule may be submitted to Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy through the methods listed 

above and by email to Chad_S_

Whiteman@omb.eop.gov. 

For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section IX of this document (Public 

Participation). 

Docket: 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. This Web 

page contains a link to the docket for 

this notice on the regulations.gov site. 

The regulations.gov Web page contains 

instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. See section IX for further 

information on how to submit 

comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in the public meeting, 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 Proposed Rule 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

C. National Benefits 

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 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24069 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. 

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 Lamp Wattages 

D. Summary of Scope of Coverage 

VI. Methodology and Discussion 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. General Service Fluorescent Lamp 

Technology Options 

2. Incandescent Reflector Lamp 

Technology Options 

B. Screening Analysis 

1. General Service Fluorescent Lamp 

Design Options 

2. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Design 

Options 

C. Product Classes 

1. General Service Fluorescent Lamp 

Product Classes 

2. Incandescent Reflector Lamp 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. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

g. Efficacy Levels 

h. Scaling to Other Product Classes 

i. Rare Earth Phosphors 

3. Incandescent Reflector Lamp 

Engineering 

a. Metric 

b. Representative Product Classes 

c. Baseline Lamps 

d. More Efficacious Substitutes 

e. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

f. Efficacy Levels 

g. Scaling to Other Product Classes 

h. Xenon 

i. Proposed Standard 

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 

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. General Service Fluorescent Lamp LifeCycle Cost Results in the Preliminary 

Analysis 

15. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Life-Cycle 

Cost Results in the Preliminary Analysis 

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. Overview 

2. GRIM Analysis and Key Inputs 

a. Capital and Product Conversion Costs 

b. Manufacturer Production Costs 

c. Shipment Scenarios 

d. Markup Scenarios 

3. Discussion of Comments 

a. Potential Shift to Other Lighting 

Technologies 

b. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

c. Potential Decrease in Competition 

4. Manufacturer Interviews 

a. Rare Earth Oxides in General Service 

Fluorescent Lamps 

b. Unknown Impacts of the 2009 Lamps 

Rule 

c. Technology Shift 

d. Impact on Residential Sector 

L. Emissions Analysis 

M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in 

Past Regulatory Analyses 

c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions 

2. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

N. Utility Impact Analysis 

O. Employment Impact Analysis 

P. Other Comments 

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 Sub-Groups of 

Manufacturers 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

3. Shipments Analysis and National Impact 

Analysis 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

c. Impact of Product Class Switching 

d. Alternative Scenario Analyses 

e. Indirect Impacts on Employment 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy 

7. Summary of National Economic Impacts 

8. Other Factors 

C. Proposed Standards 

1. Benefits and Burdens of Trial Standard 

Levels Considered for General Service 

Fluorescent Lamps 

2. Summary of Benefits and Costs 

(Annualized) of the Proposed Standards 

for General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

3. Benefits and Burdens of Trial Standard 

Levels Considered for Incandescent 

Reflector Lamps 

4. Summary of Benefits and Costs 

(Annualized) of the Proposed Standards 

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. General Service Fluorescent Lamp and 

Incandescent Reflector Lamp Industry 

Structures 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 Proposed 

Rule 

5. Significant Issues Raised by Public 

Comments 

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 

IX. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

X. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule 

Title III, Part B1 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24070 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles. Pursuant to EPCA, any 

new or amended energy conservation 

standard that DOE prescribes for certain 

products, such as GSFLs and IRLs, 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, the new or 

amended standard must result in a 

significant conservation of energy. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)). In accordance 

with these and other statutory 

provisions discussed in this notice, DOE 

proposes amended energy conservation 

standards for GSFLs and IRLs. The 

proposed standards, which are the 

minimum lumen output per watt of a 

lamp, are shown in Table I.1 and Table 

I.2. These proposed standards, if 

adopted, would apply to all products 

listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, 

or imported into, the United States on 

or after the date three years after the 

publication of the final rule for this 

rulemaking. 

With the exception of certain IRLs, 

these proposed standards, if adopted, 

would apply to all products listed in 

Table I.2 and manufactured in, or 

imported into, the United States on or 

after the date three years after the 

publication of the final rule for this 

rulemaking. The Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law 

113–76, Jan. 17, 2014), in relevant part, 

restricts the use of appropriated funds 

in connection with several aspects of 

DOE’s incandescent lamps program. 

Specifically, section 322 states that none 

of the funds made available by the Act 

may be used to implement or enforce 

standards for BPAR incandescent 

reflector lamps, BR incandescent 

reflector lamps, and ER incandescent 

reflector lamps. The majority of IRLs in 

this rulemaking are PAR IRLs and 

therefore do not fall into category of 

lamps prohibited by section 322. The 

small number of lamps that are BPAR, 

ER, and BR IRLs are not included in this 

rulemaking pursuant to section 322. 

DOE had initiated a separate rulemaking 

for lamps rated 50 watts or less that are 

ER30, BR30, BR40, or ER40; lamps rated 

65 watts that are BR30, BR40, or ER40 

lamps; and R20 IRLs rated 45 watts or 

less, but has suspended activity on this 

rulemaking as a result of section 322 of 

Public Law 113–76. (See section II.B.3 

for further details.) 

TABLE I.1—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR GENERAL SERVICE FLUORESCENT LAMPS

Lamp type 

Correlated 

color 

temperature 

Proposed level 

lm/W 

Percent 

increase over 

current 

standards or 

baseline 

4-Foot Medium Bipin ................................................................................................................... ≤4,500 K 92.4 3.8 

>4,500 K 90.6 3.0 

2-Foot U-Shaped ......................................................................................................................... ≤4,500 K 86.9 3.5 

>4,500 K 84.3 4.1 

8-Foot Slimline ............................................................................................................................. ≤4,500 K 99.0 2.1 

>4,500 K 94.1 1.2 

8-Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output ........................................................................... ≤4,500 K 97.6 6.1 

>4,500 K 95.6 8.6 

4-Foot Miniature Bipin Standard Output ...................................................................................... ≤4,500 K 97.1 12.9 

>4,500 K 91.3 12.7 

4-Foot Miniature Bipin High Output ............................................................................................. ≤4,500 K 82.7 8.8 

>4,500 K 78.6 9.2 

TABLE I.2—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMPS

Lamp type Diameter 

inches 

Voltage 

V 

Proposed 

level * 

lm/W 

Percentage 

increase over 

current 

standards or 

baseline 

% 

Standard Spectrum 40 W—205 W .................................................................. >2.5 ≥125 7.1P0.27 4.4 

<125 6.2P0.27 5.1 

≤2.5 ≥125 6.0P0.27 5.3 

<125 5.2P0.27 4.0 

Modified Spectrum 40 W—205 W ................................................................... >2.5 ≥125 6.0P0.27 3.4 

<125 5.2P0.27 4.0 

≤2.5 ≥125 5.1P0.27 4.1 

<125 4.4P0.27 4.8 

* P = lamp rated wattage. 

Note 1: BPAR, ER, and BR IRLs and R20 IRLs rated 45 watts or less are not subject to the proposed standards for IRLs. 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

DOE calculates a range of life-cycle 

cost (LCC) savings and mean payback 

period (PBP) results for various 

purchasing events and sectors. These 

results are presented in section VII.B.1 

and chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD. Table 

I.3 presents DOE’s evaluation of the 

economic impacts of the proposed 

standards on consumers of GSFLs, as 

measured by the weighted average LCC 

savings and the weighted average mean 

PBP. The weighted average LCC savings 

are positive for all product classes with 

the exception of the 8-foot recessed 

double contact high output (HO) 

product class. Table I.4 presents DOE’s 

evaluation of economic impacts of the 

proposed standards on consumers of 

IRLs, as measured by the weighted 

average LCC and mean PBP. The 

weighted average LCC savings are 

positive for all product classes. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24071 

2All monetary values in this section are 

expressed in 2012$ and are discounted to 2013. 

3A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. 

Results for NOX and Hg are presented in short tons. 

4 DOE is currently investigating monetary 

valuation of avoided Hg and SO2 emissions. 

TABLE I.3—IMPACTS OF PROPOSED STANDARDS ON CONSUMERS OF GENERAL SERVICE FLUORESCENT LAMPS

Product class 

Weighted 

average LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Weighted 

average mean 

payback 

period * 

years 

4-foot medium bipin ≤4,500 K ................................................................................................................................. 3.14 3.6 

4-foot T5 miniature bipin standard output ≤4,500 K ............................................................................................... 2.76 4.3 

4-foot T5 miniature bipin high output ≤4,500 K ....................................................................................................... 2.28 3.0 

8-foot single pin slimline ≤4,500 K .......................................................................................................................... 2.08 4.5 

8-foot recessed double contact HO ≤4,500 K ......................................................................................................... ¥16.76 NER 

* Does not include weighting for ‘‘NER’’ Scenarios. ‘‘NER’’ indicates standard levels that do not reduce operating costs, which prevents the 

consumer from recovering the increased purchase cost. 

TABLE I.4—IMPACTS OF PROPOSED STANDARDS ON CONSUMERS OF INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMPS

Product class 

Weighted 

average LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Weighted 

average mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Standard spectrum, >2.5 inches, <125 V ................................................................................................................ 2.95 5.4 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

The industry net present value (INPV) 

is the sum of the discounted cash flows 

to the industry from the base year 

through the end of the analysis period 

(2013 to 2046). Using a real discount 

rate of 9.2 percent, DOE estimates that 

the INPV for manufacturers of GSFLs is 

$1,542.5 million in 2012$. Under the 

proposed standards, DOE expects that 

manufacturers may lose up to 2.6 

percent of their INPV, which is 

approximately $39.9 million in 2012$. 

Additionally, based on DOE’s 

interviews with the manufacturers of 

GSFLs, DOE does not expect any plant 

closings or significant loss of 

employment based on the energy 

conservation standards proposed for 

GSFLs. 

For IRLs, DOE estimates that the INPV 

for manufacturers of IRLs is $176.0 

million in 2012$ using a real discount 

rate of 9.2 percent. Under the proposed 

standards, DOE expects that 

manufacturers may lose up to 29.5 

percent of their INPV, which is 

approximately $51.8 million in 2012$. 

Additionally, manufacturers of IRLs 

stated in interviews with DOE that there 

is the potential for IRL manufacturers to 

close existing U.S. manufacturing plants 

or for a potential loss of domestic IRL 

manufacturing employment based on 

the energy conservation standards 

proposed for IRLs. 

C. National Benefits 2

DOE’s analyses indicate that the 

proposed standards for GSFLs would 

save a significant amount of energy. The 

lifetime savings for GSFLs purchased in 

the 30-year period that begins in the 

year of compliance with amended 

standards (2017–2046) amount to 3.5 

quads. 

DOE’s analyses indicate that the 

proposed standards for IRLs would save 

a significant amount of energy. The 

lifetime savings for IRLs purchased in 

the 30-year period that begins in the 

year of compliance with amended 

standards (2017–2046) amount to 0.013 

quads. 

The cumulative net present value 

(NPV) of total consumer costs and 

savings of the proposed standards for 

GSFLs ranges from $3.1 billion (at a 7- 

percent discount rate) to $8.1 billion (at 

a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV 

expresses the estimated total value of 

future operating-cost savings minus the 

estimated increased product costs for 

products purchased in 2017–2046. 

The NPV of total consumer costs and 

savings of the proposed standards for 

IRLs ranges from $0.18 billion (at a 7- 

percent discount rate) to $0.28 billion 

(at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV 

expresses the estimated total value of 

future operating-cost savings minus the 

estimated increased product costs for 

products purchased in 2017–2046. 

In addition, the proposed standards 

for GSFLs would have significant 

environmental benefits. The energy 

savings would result in cumulative 

emission reductions of 170 million 

metric tons (Mt) 3 of carbon dioxide 

(CO2), 730 thousand tons of methane, 

250 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), 210 thousand tons of nitrogen 

oxides (NOX), 2.8 thousand tons of 

nitrous oxide (N2O), and 0.32 tons of 

mercury (Hg). The energy savings would 

result in cumulative emission 

reductions of 98 Mt of CO2 through 

2030. 

The proposed standards for IRL 

would also have significant 

environmental benefits. The energy 

savings would result in cumulative 

emission reductions of 0.70 Mt of CO2, 

2.7 thousand tons of methane, 0.69 

thousand tons of SO2, 0.79 thousand 

tons of NOX, 0.01 thousand tons of N2O, 

and 0.001 tons of Hg. The energy 

savings would result in cumulative 

emission reductions of 1 Mt of CO2

through 2030. 

The value of the CO2 reductions for 

the proposed standards for GSFLs is 

calculated using a range of values per 

metric ton of CO2 (otherwise known as 

the Social Cost of Carbon, or SCC) 

developed by an interagency process. 

The derivation of the SCC values is 

discussed in section VI.M. Using 

discount rates appropriate for each set 

of SCC values, DOE estimates the 

present monetary value of the CO2

emissions reduction is between $1.3 

billion and $17 billion. DOE also 

estimates the present monetary value of 

the NOX emissions reduction, is $200 

million at a 7-percent discount rate and 

$340 million at a 3-percent discount 

rate.4

The value of the CO2 reductions for 

the proposed standards of IRL is 

calculated using the same SCC values 

and discount rates used for GSFLs. DOE 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24072 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

estimates the present monetary value of 

the CO2 emissions reduction is between 

$0.0062 billion and $0.076 billion. DOE 

also estimates the present monetary 

value of the NOX emissions reduction, 

is $1.1 million at a 7-percent discount 

rate and $1.6 million at a 3-percent 

discount rate.4

Table I.5 and Table I.6 summarize the 

national economic costs and benefits 

expected to result from the proposed 

standards for GSFLs and IRLs. 

TABLE I.5—SUMMARY OF NATIONAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION

STANDARDS FOR GENERAL SERVICE FLUORESCENT LAMPS * 

Category Present value 

Billion 2012$ 

Discount rate 

(percent) 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................................................................... 12 7 

22 3 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($11.8/t case) ** ...................................................................................... 1.3 5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($39.7/t case) ** ...................................................................................... 5.6 3 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($61.2/t case) ** ...................................................................................... 8.9 2.5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($117/t case) ** ....................................................................................... 17 3 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,639/ton) ** .................................................................................... 0.2 7 

0.3 3 

Total Benefits † ............................................................................................................................................ 18 7 

28 3 

Costs 

Incremental Installed Costs ......................................................................................................................... 8.8 7 

13 3 

Total Net Benefits 

Including Emissions Reduction Monetized Value † ..................................................................................... 9.0 7 

14 3 

* This table presents the costs and benefits associated with GSFL shipped in 2017–2046. These results include benefits to consumers which 

accrue after 2046 from the products purchased in 2017–2046. 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 2012$, 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. 

† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount rate. 

TABLE I.6—SUMMARY OF NATIONAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION

STANDARDS FOR INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMPS

Category Present value 

Billion 2012$ 

Discount rate 

(Percent) 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................................................................... 0.07 7 

0.11 3 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($11.8/t case) ** ...................................................................................... 0.006 5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($39.7/t case) ** ...................................................................................... 0.03 3 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($61.2/t case) ** ...................................................................................... 0.04 2.5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value $117/t case) * ......................................................................................... 0.08 3 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,639/ton) ** .................................................................................... 0.001 7 

0.002 3 

Total Benefits† ............................................................................................................................................. 0.10 7 

0.13 3 

Costs 

Incremental Installed Costs‡ ....................................................................................................................... ¥0.11 7 

¥0.17 3 

Total Net Benefits 

Including Emissions Reduction Monetized Value† ..................................................................................... 0.20 7 

0.31 3 

* This table presents the costs and benefits associated with IRLs shipped in 2017–2046. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2046 from the products purchased in 2017–2046. 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24073 

5 DOE used a two-step calculation process to 

convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 

annualized values. First, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2013, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the 

time-series of costs and benefits using discount 

rates of three and seven percent for all costs and 

benefits except for the value of CO2 reductions. For 

the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as 

shown in Table I.5 and Table I.6. From the present 

value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual 

payment over a 30-year period (2017 through 2046) 

that yields the same present value. The fixed annual 

payment is the annualized value. Although DOE 

calculated annualized values, this does not imply 

that the time-series of cost and benefits from which 

the annualized values were determined is a steady 

stream of payments. 

6This negative cost represents a reduction in 

product costs compared to the base case, because 

the more efficacious products have substantially 

longer lifetimes than the products that would be 

eliminated by the proposed standard. 

** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2012$, 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. 

† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount rate. 

‡ This reduction in product costs occurs because the more efficacious products have substantially longer lifetimes than the products that would 

be eliminated by the proposed standard. 

The benefits and costs of today’s 

proposed standards, for products sold in 

2017–2046, 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 products that meet the 

proposed 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.5

Although combining the values of 

operating savings and CO2 emission 

reductions provides a useful 

perspective, two issues should be 

considered. First, the national operating 

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 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 and IRLs shipped in 2017–2046. 

The SCC values, on the other hand, 

reflect the present value of some future 

climate-related impacts resulting from 

the emission of one ton of CO2 in each 

year. These impacts continue well 

beyond 2100. 

Estimates of annualized benefits and 

costs of the proposed standards for 

GSFLs are shown in Table I.7. 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 

average SCC series that uses a 3-percent 

discount rate, the cost of the standards 

proposed in today’s rule is $873 million 

per year in increased product costs; 

while the estimated benefits are $1,180 

million per year in reduced product 

operating costs, $314 million per year in 

CO2 reductions, and $19.3 million per 

year in reduced NOX emissions. In this 

case, the net benefit would amount to 

$642 million per year. Using a 3-percent 

discount rate for all benefits and costs 

and the average SCC series, the 

estimated cost of the standards 

proposed in today’s rule is $751 million 

per year in increased product costs; 

while the estimated benefits are $1,200 

million per year in reduced operating 

costs, $314 million per year in CO2

reductions, and $18.9 million per year 

in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, 

the net benefit would amount to 

approximately $783 million per year. 

Estimates of annualized benefits and 

costs of the proposed standards for IRLs 

are shown in Table I.8. 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 

average SCC series that uses a 3-percent 

discount rate, the annualized cost of 

today’s proposed standards is negative 

$10.4 million per year in reduced 

product costs,6 and the annualized 

benefits are $7.2 million per year in 

reduced product operating costs, $1.4 

million per year in CO2 reductions, and 

$0.11 million per year in reduced NOX

emissions. In this case, the net benefit 

would amount to $19 million per year. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs and the average SCC 

series, the estimated annualized cost of 

the standards proposed in today’s rule 

is negative $9.7 million per year in 

reduced product costs, and the 

annualized benefits of the standards 

proposed in today’s rule are $5.9 

million per year in reduced operating 

costs, $1.4 million per year in CO2

reductions, and $0.09 million per year 

in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, 

the net benefit would amount to 

approximately $17 million per year. 

TABLE I.7—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR GENERAL

SERVICE FLUORESCENT LAMPS

Discount rate Primary estimate * Low net benefits 

estimate * 

High net benefits 

estimate * 

million 2012$/year 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings .............................................. 7% .................................... 1,180 1,160 1,220 

3% .................................... 1,200 1,170 1,250 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($11.8/t case) ** ..... 5% .................................... 98 98 98 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($39.7/t case) ** ..... 3% .................................... 314 314 314 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($61.2/t case) ** ..... 2.5% ................................. 456 456 456 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($117/t case) ** ...... 3% .................................... 968 968 968 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,639/ton) ** ... 7% .................................... 19.3 19.3 19.3 

3% .................................... 18.9 18.9 18.9 

Total Benefits† ............................................................ 7% plus CO2 range .......... 1,300 to 2,160 1,280 to 2,140 1,340 to 2,210 

7% .................................... 1,520 1,490 1,560 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24074 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE I.7—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR GENERAL

SERVICE FLUORESCENT LAMPS—Continued 

Discount rate Primary estimate * Low net benefits 

estimate * 

High net benefits 

estimate * 

million 2012$/year 

3% plus CO2 range .......... 1,320 to 2,180 1,290 to 2,160 1,370 to 2,230 

3% .................................... 1,530 1,510 1,580 

Costs 

Incremental Product Costs .......................................... 7% .................................... 873 910 873 

3% .................................... 751 785 751 

Net Benefits 

Total † .......................................................................... 7% plus CO2 range .......... 426 to 1,291 367 to 1,232 469 to 1,330 

7% .................................... 642 583 685 

3% plus CO2 range .......... 567 to 1,432 505 to 1,370 615 to 1,480 

3% .................................... 783 722 831 

* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with GSFLs shipped in 2017¥2046. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2046 from the products purchased in 2017¥2046. 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 central energy prices from AEO 2013 and a decreasing incremental product cost, due to price learning. The Low Benefits Estimate assumes 

the low estimate of energy prices from AEO 2013 and constant real product prices. The High Benefits Estimate assumes the high energy price 

estimates from AEO 2013 and decreasing incremental product costs, due to price learning. 

** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2012$, 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. 

† Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount 

rate. 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. 

TABLE I.8—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR INCANDESCENT

REFLECTOR LAMPS

Discount rate Primary estimate * Low net benefits 

estimate * 

High net benefits 

estimate * 

million 2012$/year 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings .............................................. 7% .................................... 7.2 7.1 10 

3% .................................... 5.9 5.8 5.8 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($11.8/t case) ** ..... 5% .................................... 0.5 0.5 0.5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($39.7/t case) ** ..... 3% .................................... 1.4 1.4 1.4 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($61.2/t case) ** ..... 2.5% ................................. 2.0 2.0 2.0 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($117/t case) * ........ 3% .................................... 4.2 4.2 4.2 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,639/ton) ** ... 7% .................................... 0.11 0.11 0.16 

3% .................................... 0.09 0.09 0.09 

Total Benefits † ............................................................ 7% plus CO2 range .......... 7.8 to 12 7.7 to 11 7.8 to 12 

7% .................................... 8.7 8.6 8.7 

3% plus CO2 range .......... 6.4 to 10 6.4 to 10 6.4 to 10 

3% .................................... 7.4 7.3 7.3 

Costs 

Incremental Product Costs ‡ ....................................... 7% .................................... ¥10.4 ¥10.5 ¥10.4 

3% .................................... ¥9.7 ¥9.8 ¥9.7 

Net Benefits 

Total † .......................................................................... 7% plus CO2 range .......... 18 to 22 18 to 22 18 to 22 

7% .................................... 19 19 19 

3% plus CO2 range .......... 16 to 20 16 to 20 16 to 20 

3% .................................... 17 17 17 

* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with IRLs shipped in 2017¥2046. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2046 from the products purchased in 2017¥2046. 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 central energy prices from AEO 2013 and a decreasing incremental product cost, due to price learning. The Low Benefits Estimate assumes 

the low estimate of energy prices from AEO 2013 and constant real product prices. The High Benefits Estimate assumes the high energy price 

estimates from AEO 2013 and decreasing incremental product costs, due to price learning. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24075 

7For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. 

** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2012$, 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. 

† Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount 

rate. 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. 

‡ This reduction in product costs occurs because the more efficacious products have substantially longer lifetimes than the products that would 

be eliminated by the proposed standard. 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

the proposed standards represent the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

would result in the significant 

conservation of energy. DOE further 

notes that products achieving these 

standard levels are already 

commercially available. Based on the 

analyses described above, DOE has 

tentatively concluded that the benefits 

of the proposed standards to the nation 

(energy savings, positive NPV of 

consumer benefits, consumer LCC 

savings, and emission reductions) 

would outweigh the burdens (loss of 

INPV for manufacturers and LCC 

increases for some consumers). 

Based on consideration of the public 

comments DOE receives in response to 

this notice and related information 

collected and analyzed during the 

course of this rulemaking effort, DOE 

may adopt energy efficiency levels 

presented in this notice that differ from 

the proposed standards, or some 

combination of level(s) that incorporate 

the proposed standards in part. 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying today’s proposal, as well as 

some of the relevant historical 

background related to the establishment 

of standards for GSFLs and IRLs. 

A. Authority 

Title III, Part B of the EPCA, Public 

Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309, as 

codified) established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products Other Than Automobiles,7 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)) EPCA prescribed energy 

conservation standards for these 

products (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)), and 

directed DOE to conduct two cycles of 

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. 

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 proposed 

standard is not technologically feasible 

or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(A)–(B)) In deciding whether a 

proposed standard is economically 

justified, DOE must determine whether 

the benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) 

DOE must make this determination after 

receiving comments on the proposed 

standard, and by considering, to the 

greatest extent practicable, the following 

seven factors: 

1. The economic impact of the 

standard on manufacturers and 

consumers of the products subject to the 

standard; 

2. The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the covered products in the type (or 

class) compared to any increase in the 

price, initial charges, or maintenance 

expenses for the covered products that 

are likely to result from the 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24076 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

6294(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 

the 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)). 

Any final rule for new or amended 

energy conservation standards 

promulgated after July 1, 2010, must 

also 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 13563, 

issued on January 18, 2011. 76 FR 3281 

(Jan. 21, 2011). EO 13563 is 

supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms 

the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. 

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 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 today’s NOPR 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 EO 13563, and the 

range of impacts analyzed in this 

rulemaking, the energy efficiency 

standard proposed herein by DOE 

achieves maximum net benefits. 

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

Lamp type Correlated color temperature 

Minimum 

average lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Four-Foot Medium Bipin ......................................... ≤4,500 K ......................................................................................................... 89 

>4,500 K and ≤7,000 K .................................................................................. 88 

Two-Foot U-Shaped ............................................... ≤4,500 K ......................................................................................................... 84 

>4,500 K and ≤7,000 K .................................................................................. 81 

Eight-Foot Slimline ................................................. ≤4,500 K ......................................................................................................... 97 

>4,500 K and ≤7,000 K .................................................................................. 93 

Eight-Foot High Output .......................................... ≤4,500 K ......................................................................................................... 92 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24077 

8Shown correctly in this table; erroneously 

written as ‘‘≤125V’’ in the CFR. 

TABLE II.1—JULY 2012 STANDARDS FOR GENERAL SERVICE FLUORESCENT LAMPS—Continued 

Lamp type Correlated color temperature 

Minimum 

average lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

>4,500 K and ≤7,000 K .................................................................................. 88 

Four-Foot Miniature Bipin Standard Output ........... ≤4,500 K ......................................................................................................... 86 

>4,500 K and ≤7,000 K .................................................................................. 81 

Four-Foot Miniature Bipin High Output .................. ≤4,500 K ......................................................................................................... 76 

>4,500 K and ≤7,000 K .................................................................................. 72 

TABLE II.2—JULY 2012 STANDARDS FOR INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMPS

Rated lamp 

wattage Lamp spectrum Lamp diameter inches Rated voltage 

Minimum average 

lamp efficacy 

lm/W 

40–205 ........ Standard Spectrum .......................................................................... >2.5 ≥125 V 

<125 V 

6.8*P0.27

5.9*P0.27

≤2.5 ≥125 V 

<125 V 

5.7*P0.27

5.0*P0.27

40–205 ........ Modified Spectrum ........................................................................... >2.5 8 ≥125 V 

<125 V 

5.8*P0.27

5.0*P0.27

≤2.5 ≥125 V 

<125 V 

4.9*P0.27

4.2*P0.27

Note 1: P is equal to the rated lamp wattage, in watts. 

Note 2: Standard Spectrum means any incandescent reflector lamp that does not meet the definition of modified spectrum in 430.2. 

2. Corrections to Codified Standards 

In this rulemaking, DOE is proposing 

to correct errors in the codified 

standards for GSFLs and IRLs. In 

particular, DOE is proposing to correct 

the typographical errors in the sections 

of the CFR that lay out the GSFL 

standards specified in EPCA and the IRL 

standards established by the 2009 

Lamps Rule. Specifically, for the GSFL 

standards codified at 10 CFR 

430.32(n)(1), the ‘‘less than or equal to 

35 W’’ associated with the 8-foot single 

pin (SP) slimline lamp type should 

instead be associated with the 2-foot Ushaped lamp type. For 8-foot SP 

slimline product class with a minimum 

color rendering index (CRI) of 45 and a 

minimum average lamp efficacy of 80.0 

lumens per watt (lm/W), the rated 

wattage should be less than or equal to 

65 W, not greater than 65 W. The 

revised table should read as follows: 

TABLE II.3—GSFL STANDARDS PRESCRIBED BY EPACT

Lamp type Nominal lamp wattage Minimum CRI 

Minimum 

average lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Effective date 

4-foot medium bipin ........................................ >35 W ............................................................. 69 75.0 Nov. 1, 1995. 

≤35 W ............................................................. 45 75.0 Nov. 1, 1995. 

2-foot U-shaped .............................................. >35 W ............................................................. 69 68.0 Nov. 1, 1995. 

≤35 W ............................................................. 45 64.0 Nov. 1, 1995. 

8-foot slimline .................................................. >65 W ............................................................. 69 80.0 May 1, 1994. 

≤65 W ............................................................. 45 80.0 May 1, 1994. 

8-foot high output ............................................ >100 W ........................................................... 69 80.0 May 1, 1994. 

≤100 W ........................................................... 45 80.0 May 1, 1994. 

For the IRL standards adopted by the 

2009 Lamps Rule that are codified in 10 

CFR 430.32(n)(5), the minimum lamp 

efficacy of 5.8P0.27 is for lamps with a 

rated wattage of 40–205 W, modified 

spectrum, diameter greater than 2.5 

inches, and rated voltage of ‘‘greater 

than or equal to 125 V’’ rather than ‘‘less 

than or equal to 125 V.’’ The revised 

table should read as follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24078 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

9 DOE has suspended activity on this rulemaking 

as a result of section 315 of Public Law (Pub. L.) 

112–74 (Dec. 23, 2011), which prohibits DOE from 

using appropriated funds to implement or enforce 

standards for ER, BR, and bulged parabolic reflector 

IRLs. 

10The framework document and public meeting 

information are available at regulations.gov under 

docket number EERE–2011–BT–STD–0006. 

11The preliminary analysis, preliminary TSD, 

and preliminary analysis public meeting 

information are available at regulations.gov under 

docket number EERE–2011–BT–STD–0006. 

TABLE II.4—IRL STANDARDS ADOPTED BY THE 2009 LAMPS RULE

Rated lamp 

wattage Lamp spectrum Lamp diameter inches Rated voltage 

Minimum 

average lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

40–205 ......... Standard Spectrum ............................................................................................ >2.5 ≥125 V 

<125 V 

6.8*P0.27

5.9*P0.27

≤2.5 ≥125 V 

<125 V 

5.7*P0.27

5.0*P0.27

40–205 ......... Modified Spectrum ............................................................................................. >2 .5 ≥125 V 

<125 V 

5.8*P0.27

5.0*P0.27

≤2.5 ≥125 V 

<125 V 

4.9*P0.27

4.2*P0.27

3. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

General Service Fluorescent Lamps and 

Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

As mentioned in the previous section, 

EPCA, as amended, established energy 

conservation standards for certain 

classes of GSFLs and IRLs, and required 

DOE to conduct two rulemaking cycles 

to determine whether these standards 

should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6291(1), 

6295(i)(1) and (3)–(4)) EPCA also 

authorized DOE to adopt standards for 

additional GSFLs if such standards were 

warranted. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5)) 

DOE completed the first cycle of 

amendments by publishing a final rule 

in the Federal Register in July 2009. 74 

FR 34080 (July 14, 2009). The 2009 

Lamps Rule amended existing GSFL and 

IRL energy conservation standards and 

adopted standards for additional GSFLs. 

That rule also amended the definition of 

‘‘colored fluorescent lamp’’ and ‘‘rated 

wattage,’’ and adopted test procedures 

applicable to the newly covered GSFLs. 

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct 

1992, Pub. L. 102–486) amendments to 

EPCA added as covered products IRLs 

with wattages of 40 watts (W) or higher. 

In defining the term ‘‘incandescent 

reflector lamp,’’ EPAct 1992 excluded 

lamps with elliptical reflector (ER) and 

bulged reflector (BR) bulb shapes, and 

with diameters of 2.75 inches or less. 

Therefore, such IRLs were neither 

included as covered products nor 

subject to EPCA’s standards for IRLs. 

Section 322(a)(1) of the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA 2007) subsequently amended 

EPCA to expand the Act’s definition of 

‘‘incandescent reflector lamp’’ to 

include lamps with a diameter between 

2.25 and 2.75 inches, as well as lamps 

with ER, BR, bulged parabolic 

aluminized reflector (BPAR), or similar 

bulb shapes. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(C)(ii) 

and (F)) Section 322(b) of EISA 2007, in 

amending EPCA to set forth revised 

standards for IRLs in new section 

325(i)(1)(C), exempted from these 

standards the following categories of 

IRLs: (1) lamps rated 50 W or less that 

are ER30, BR30, BR40, or ER40; (2) 

lamps rated 65 W that are BR30, BR40, 

or ER40 lamps; and (3) R20 IRLs rated 

45 W or less. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(C)) DOE 

refers to these three categories of lamps 

collectively as certain R, ER, and BR 

IRLs. 

DOE has concluded, for the reasons 

that follow, that it has the authority 

under EPCA to adopt standards for these 

R, ER, and BR IRLs, and that these 

lamps are covered by the directive in 42 

U.S.C. 6295(i)(3) to amend EPCA’s 

standards for IRLs. First, by amending 

the definition of ‘‘incandescent reflector 

lamp’’ (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(C)(ii) and 

(F)), EISA 2007 effectively brought these 

R, ER, and BR IRLs into the federal 

energy conservation standards program 

as covered products, thereby subjecting 

them to DOE’s regulatory authority. 

Second, although 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(C) 

exempts these R, ER, and BR IRLs from 

the standards specified in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(i)(1)(B), EPCA directs that DOE 

amend the standards laid out in 42 

U.S.C. 6295(i)(1), which includes 

subparagraph (C). As a result, the 

statutory text exempted these bulbs only 

from the standards specified in 42 

U.S.C. 6295(i)(1), not from future 

regulation. Consequently, DOE began 

considering energy conservation 

standards for these R, ER, and BR IRLs. 

DOE initiated a new rulemaking for 

these products by completing a 

framework document and publishing a 

notice announcing its availability. 75 FR 

23191 (May 3, 2010). DOE held a public 

meeting on May 26, 2010 to seek input 

from interested parties on its 

methodologies, assumptions, and data 

sources.9

To initiate the second rulemaking 

cycle to consider amended energy 

conservation standards for GSFLs and 

IRLs (other than the certain R, ER, and 

BR IRLs discussed in the preceding 

paragraphs), on September 14, 2011, 

DOE published a notice announcing the 

availability of the framework document, 

‘‘Energy Conservation Standards 

Rulemaking Framework Document for 

General Service Fluorescent Lamps and 

Incandescent Reflector Lamps,’’ and a 

public meeting to discuss the proposed 

analytical framework for the 

rulemaking. 76 FR 56678. DOE also 

posted the framework document on its 

Web site, in which DOE described the 

procedural and analytical approaches 

DOE anticipated using to evaluate the 

establishment of energy conservation 

standards for GSFLs and IRLs. 

DOE held the public meeting for the 

framework document on October 4, 

2011,10 to present the framework 

document, describe the analyses it 

planned to conduct during the 

rulemaking, seek comments from 

stakeholders on these subjects, and 

inform stakeholders about and facilitate 

their involvement in the rulemaking. At 

the public meeting, and during the 

comment period, DOE received many 

comments that both addressed issues 

raised in the framework document and 

identified additional issues relevant to 

this rulemaking. 

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.11 The 

preliminary TSD includes the results of 

the following DOE preliminary analyses: 

(1) market and technology assessment; 

(2) screening analysis; (3) engineering 

analysis; (4) energy use characterization; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24079 

(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. Specifically, DOE invited 

comment on the following issues: (1) 

consideration of additional GSFLs; (2) 

amended definitions; (3) market trends; 

(4) technology options; (5) product 

classes; (6) market and technology 

assessment methodology; (7) screening 

of design options; (8) representative 

product classes; (9) baseline lamps; (10) 

more efficacious substitutes; (11) lampand-ballast systems; (12) 4-foot T5 

miniature bipin (MiniBP) HO model 

lamp; (13) candidate standard levels 

(CSLs); (14) compliance requirements; 

(15) scaling to product classes not 

analyzed; (16) engineering analysis 

methodology; (17) product price 

determination; (18) GSFL ballast prices; 

(19) dimmed GSFL systems; (20) 

lighting controls market penetration; 

(21) lighting controls performance 

characteristics; (22) operating profiles 

for energy use characterization; (23) 

residential GSFL LCC analysis; (24) 

sales tax in the LCC analysis; (25) 

spacing adjustments in the LCC 

analysis; (26) LCC analysis overall 

methodology and results; (27) T5s in the 

residential market; (28) the shipments 

and national impact analyses; (29) LCC 

subgroups; (30) small businesses that 

manufacture GSFLs and IRLs; (31) 

manufacturer subgroup analysis; (32) 

key issues and data for the manufacturer 

impact analysis (MIA); (33) valuing 

airborne emission reductions; (34) data 

and programs for the regulatory impact 

analysis (RIA); and (35) TSLs. (See 

executive summary and chapter 2 of the 

preliminary TSD.) 

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. 

Other issues brought up during the 

public meeting included regulatory 

authority and rulemaking schedule. 

Finally, the MIA and additional 

analyses that are undertaken during the 

NOPR stage were discussed. The 

comments received during the public 

meeting, along with the written 

comments submitted to DOE since 

publication of the preliminary analysis, 

have contributed to DOE’s proposed 

resolution of the issues in this 

rulemaking. This NOPR responds to the 

issues raised in these public comments. 

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). 

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 useroriented or protective functions: 

facilitating the activation or 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 NOPR TSD. 

B. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

In each 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24080 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

12 DOE previously presented energy savings 

results for 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 

modified its presentation of NES to be consistent 

with the approach used for its national economic 

analysis. 

technologically feasible. 10 CFR 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, or service; (2) 

adverse impacts on product utility or 

availability; and (3) adverse impacts on 

health or safety. 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 TSLs in 

this rulemaking. For further details on 

the screening analysis for this 

rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR 

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 

efficiency 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 NOPR TSD.) The max tech levels 

that DOE determined for this 

rulemaking are described in section 

VI.D.2.f for GFSLs and VI.D.3.e for IRLs 

of this proposed 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 any amended 

standards (2017–2046). The savings are 

measured over the entire lifetime of 

products purchased in the 30-year 

period.12 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 considers 

market forces and policies that affect 

demand for more efficient products. 

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 NES 

in terms of the savings in the energy that 

is used to generate and transmit the site 

electricity. To calculate this quantity, 

DOE derives annual conversion factors 

from the model used to prepare the U.S. 

Energy Information Administration’s 

(EIA’s) Annual Energy Outlook (AEO). 

DOE also estimates full-fuel-cycle 

(FFC) energy savings. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 

18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 

(August 17, 2012). 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. DOE’s 

approach is based on calculation of an 

FFC multiplier for each of the energy 

types used by covered products. For 

more information on FFC energy 

savings, see section VI.J. 

2. Significance of Savings 

As noted above, 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B) prevents DOE from 

adopting a standard for a covered 

product unless such standard would 

result in ‘‘significant’’ energy savings. 

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 this context to be savings that 

were not ‘‘genuinely trivial.’’ The energy 

savings for all of the TSLs considered in 

this rulemaking (presented in section 

VII.A) 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 an 

amended standard on manufacturers, 

DOE first uses an annual cash-flow 

approach to determine the quantitative 

impacts. This step includes both a shortterm 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 industrywide impacts analyzed include INPV, 

which values the industry on the basis 

of 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 this 

rulemaking, these impacts include those 

resulting from the 2009 Lamps Rule. 

For individual consumers, measures 

of economic impact include the changes 

in LCC and PBP associated with new or 

amended standards. These measures are 

discussed further in the following 

section. For consumers in the aggregate, 

DOE also calculates the national NPV 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 is 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24081 

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 (ELs) are 

calculated relative to a base case that 

reflects projected market trends in the 

absence of amended standards. DOE 

identifies the percentage of consumers 

estimated to receive LCC savings or 

experience an LCC increase, in addition 

to the average LCC savings associated 

with a particular standard level. 

c. Energy Savings 

Although significant conservation of 

energy is a separate statutory 

requirement for imposing 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 NES. 

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)) The standards 

proposed in today’s notice will 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 the imposition of a standard. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) It also directs 

the Attorney General to determine the 

impact, if any, of any lessening of 

competition likely to result from a 

proposed standard and to transmit such 

determination to the Secretary, together 

with an analysis of the nature and 

extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2) (B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a 

copy of today’s proposed rule to the 

Attorney General with a request that the 

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) 

provide its determination on this issue. 

DOE will address the Attorney General’s 

determination in the final rule. 

f. Need for National Energy 

Conservation 

The energy savings from the proposed 

standards are likely to provide 

improvements to the security and 

reliability of the nation’s energy system. 

Reductions in the demand for electricity 

also may result in reduced costs for 

maintaining the reliability of the 

nation’s electricity system. DOE 

conducts a utility impact analysis to 

estimate how standards may affect the 

nation’s needed power generation 

capacity. 

The proposed standards also are 

likely to result in environmental 

benefits in the form of reduced 

emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases (GHGs) associated 

with energy production. DOE reports 

the emissions impacts from today’s 

standards, and from each TSL it 

considered, in section VI.L of this 

notice. DOE also reports estimates of the 

economic value of emissions reductions 

resulting from the considered TSLs. 

g. Other Factors 

EPCA allows the Secretary, 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)) 

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 effects that proposed 

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 III.D of this 

proposed rule. 

IV. Issues Affecting Rulemaking 

Schedule 

In the schedule presented in the 

framework document of this 

rulemaking, the preliminary analysis 

was scheduled to be published in 

September 2012, the NOPR in August 

2013, and the final rule establishing any 

amended standards in 2014. During the 

framework stage, stakeholders expressed 

concerns that because the 2009 Lamps 

Rule standards would require 

compliance July 14, 2012, the 

preliminary analysis published in 

September 2012 would not be able to 

account for the impacts of the July 2012 

standards. DOE noted these concerns 

and extended the schedule, publishing 

the preliminary analysis in February 

2013. DOE received additional 

comments regarding the timing of this 

rulemaking in the preliminary analysis 

phase. 

Philips questioned whether this 

rulemaking is statutorily required to be 

completed at this time, specifically 

asking if EPAct 1992 provided a date by 

which the final rule of the second cycle 

of energy conservation standards for 

GSFLs and IRLs has to be published. 

(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

30 at pp. 27–28) 

In a Joint Comment, the Appliance 

Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), 

the Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC), the Alliance to Save Energy, 

the American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy (ACEEE), the 

Consumer Federation of America, and 

the National Consumer Law Center, 

(hereafter the ‘‘Joint Comment’’) and 

Northeast Energy Efficiency 

Partnerships (NEEP) emphasized that 

EPAct 1992 requires DOE to complete 

two rounds of rulemakings for IRLs and 

GSFLs. The Joint Comment noted that 

final rule of the first cycle was required 

to be published by April 1997. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(i)(3)) DOE was required to 

publish the final rule of the second 

cycle five years later. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(i)(4)) NEEP and the Joint Comment 

stated that as DOE failed to publish a 

final rule for the first cycle until July 

2009, it is not possible for DOE to meet 

the required deadline date for the 

second cycle. Therefore, NEEP and the 

Joint Comment agreed that the second 

cycle should occur within the interval 

contemplated by Congress when it set 

out the original deadlines, and a final 

rule should be issued no later than 

2014. (NEEP, No. 33 at p. 1; Joint 

Comment, No. 35 at pp. 1–2) ASAP 

agreed stating that given that the 2009 

Lamps Rule was complete, it was not 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24082 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

13U.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. 

discretionary for DOE to have any other 

schedule than the one currently in place 

for this rulemaking. (ASAP, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 192– 

193) 

General Electric (GE) stated its 

concern that this rulemaking is 

occurring too soon after the 2009 Lamps 

Rule, making it difficult for 

manufacturers to recover investments in 

new technologies or to develop products 

meeting even higher standards. GE 

indicated that the close proximity of the 

rulemakings will have a severe and 

negative impact on manufacturers. (GE, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 

192) National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association (NEMA) noted that for 

certain GSFL product classes, Office of 

Hearing and Appeals (OHA) issued 

waivers providing a stay of enforcement 

for many manufacturers due to the 

limited availability of rare earth 

phosphors. NEMA pointed out that as a 

result, the July 2012 standards still have 

not been fully implemented. (Philips, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 

27–28; NEMA, No. 36 at p. 1) Therefore, 

NEMA stated that the market has not 

fully shifted to reflect the impacts of the 

July 2012 standards and there is little to 

no accurate information available 

regarding future market shares and 

technology capability. Hence, NEMA 

concluded that as it is too soon after the 

2009 Lamps Rule to set new energy 

conservation standards, DOE and the 

Secretary should declare no new 

standard in this rulemaking. (NEMA, 

No. 36 at p. 1) Further, NEMA called 

attention to DOE’s newer authority to 

review energy conservation standards 

six years after a final rule is published. 

NEMA found that this review will 

provide an opportunity to better assess 

standards for GSFLs and IRLs. (NEMA, 

No. 36 at pp. 1–2) 

The California investor-owned 

utilities, including Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company (PG&E), Southern 

California Gas Company (SCGC), San 

Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), and 

Southern California Edison (SCE), 

(hereafter the ‘‘CA IOUs’’) approved of 

the current timeline for this rulemaking. 

They commented that because DOE 

waited until after the July 2012 

standards required compliance before 

completing the preliminary analysis and 

due to the amount of time before 

standards promulgated by this 

rulemaking would require compliance, 

now is the correct time to proceed with 

the second cycle of energy conservation 

standards for these products. (CA IOUs, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 

30–31) 

The Joint Comment emphasized the 

significance of this rulemaking as a 

reason to proceed within the five-year 

timeframe. They stated that according to 

the 2010 U.S. Lighting Market 

Characterization (2010 LMC),13 the U.S. 

inventory of installed IRLs was 

estimated to be in excess of 641 million 

lamps, representing almost 8 percent of 

the total installed lighting base, 

consuming an estimated 39 terawatt 

hours (TWh) annually. The 2010 LMC 

estimated an inventory of nearly 2.4 

billion GSFLs, representing 29 percent 

of the total installed base, consuming 

approximately 294 TWh annually. 

While the Joint Comment recognized 

that these numbers will likely begin to 

decrease over time with the increased 

prevalence of light-emitting diode (LED) 

alternatives, they noted that IRLs and 

GSFLs will still likely command a 

significant portion of the lighting market 

for decades to come, as a perceived 

cheaper alternative to LEDs. Due to this 

and the findings of the preliminary 

analysis that this rulemaking offers the 

potential for significant, cost-effective 

savings for U.S. consumers and 

businesses, the Joint Comment urged 

DOE to place this rulemaking’s 

completion as a high priority. (Joint 

Comment, No. 35 at p. 2) 

DOE is obligated to conduct this 

second review of GSFL and IRL 

standards. EPCA required DOE to 

initiate the first review of standards no 

earlier than three years after October 24, 

1992, and publish a final rule no later 

than four years and six months after that 

date. 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3) The second 

review of standards was to be initiated 

no earlier than eight years after October 

24, 1992, and the final rule published 

no later than nine years and six months 

after that date. 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(4) DOE 

published the final rule for the first 

review of standards in July 2009. DOE 

is conducting this rulemaking to satisfy 

the EPCA requirement for a second 

review of the standards. Applying the 

schedule DOE developed for the second 

review of standards would result in an 

interval of five years between the 

publications of the final rules for the 

first and second review of standards, 

and any final rule for this rulemaking 

would be published in 2014. 

To address comments that product 

availability, product pricing, and 

investment decisions in response to the 

July 2012 standards would not be 

finalized within the proposed 

scheduled, DOE delayed the publication 

of the preliminary analysis to update its 

product databases and assessments 

based on changes that took place after 

the compliance date on July 14, 2012. 

Additionally, for the preliminary 

analysis stage, DOE obtained 

information during interviews with 

manufacturers regarding new product 

lines they were preparing to launch to 

ensure that DOE’s analysis captured the 

initial market impacts of the July 2012 

standards. The analysis presented in 

this NOPR was updated and finalized 

more than a year after the July 2012 

standards required compliance, 

reflecting the most recent data available. 

Further, in manufacturer interviews 

conducted for this NOPR, DOE learned 

that most manufacturers were not 

planning to introduce any additional 

covered products to market. Therefore, 

DOE believes that the revised schedule 

for this GSFL and IRL rulemaking has 

allowed the preliminary analysis and 

NOPR analysis to be conducted so as to 

have adequately captured the impacts of 

the July 2012 standards for these 

products. Any additional data received 

will be considered in the development 

of any 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, in the preliminary analysis 

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 ultra-violet 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. DOE examined product 

literature and industry reference sources 

to determine language that would 

further explain these exemptions. DOE 

determined that the exemptions should 

be clarified as follows: 

Impact-resistant fluorescent lamp 

means a lamp that: 

a. Has a coating or equivalent 

technology that is compliant with NSF/ 

ANSI 51 (incorporated by reference; see 

§ 430.3) and designed to contain the 

glass if the glass envelope of the lamp 

is broken; and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24083 

14 DiLaura, D. L., K. W. Houser, R. G. Mistrick, 

and G. R. Steffy. Lighting Handbook: Reference and 

Application, 10th Edition. New York: IESNA, 2011. 

15The 2009 Lamps Rule TSD is available at 

www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE– 

2006–STD–0131–0147. 

b. 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. 

Reflectorized or aperture lamp means 

a fluorescent lamp that contains an 

inner reflective coating on the bulb to 

direct light. 

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. 

Lamps primarily designed to produce 

radiation in the ultra-violet region of the 

spectrum mean fluorescent lamps that 

primarily emit light in the portion of the 

electromagnetic spectrum where light 

has a wavelength between 10 and 400 

nanometers. 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE also 

considered 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). 

NEMA agreed with the proposed 

clarifications to definitions for GSFLs. 

(NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

30 at p. 45; NEMA, No. 36 at pp. 4–5) 

NEMA noted that the definitions have 

been in use since the early 1990s and 

are well understood within the industry; 

the additional clarification suggested is 

in line with current industry practice. 

NEMA stated that no further definitions 

are required beyond this clarification. 

(NEMA, No. 36 at pp. 4–5) 

The CA IOUs agreed that DOE should 

clearly define the lamp types exempted 

from standards. Specifically, the CA 

IOUs recommended further clarifying 

the definition for fluorescent lamps 

‘‘designed for cold temperature 

applications.’’ (CA IOUs, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 31–32; CA 

IOUs, No. 32 at p. 12) The CA IOUs 

expressed concern that that many 

common GSFLs are currently being 

designed with amalgam to be operated 

in lower temperatures, but without a 

negative effect on the lamps’ efficacy 

and not intended to be exempt from 

standards. The CA IOUs stated their 

understanding that the exemption for 

cold temperature lamps has been 

preserved to accommodate uncommon 

lamps designed to be used outdoors in 

extreme, sub-freezing temperatures that 

cannot meet the efficacy requirements 

established for GSFLs. (CA IOUs, No. 32 

at p. 12) 

The Northwest Energy Efficiency 

Alliance (NEEA) and Northwest Power 

and Conservation Council (NPCC) 

agreed with the CA IOUs and found the 

descriptor ‘‘designed for cold 

temperature applications’’ to be too 

vague to adequately differentiate 

between products that are covered 

currently and those that have design 

features that make it impossible for 

them to meet the standards. NEEA and 

NPCC commented that this lack of 

clarity seems to create a significant 

loophole. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at 

p. 3) In addition to clearly defining the 

exempt cold temperature lamps, the CA 

IOUs asked DOE to revisit the market 

share and performance of these lamps to 

confirm that they do in fact justify an 

exemption. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 12) 

The exemption for cold temperature 

lamps is stated in the CFR as 

‘‘Fluorescent lamps specifically 

designed for cold temperature 

applications.’’ Further the CFR provides 

a definition for ‘‘cold temperature 

fluorescent lamp’’ stated as follows: 

Cold temperature fluorescent lamp 

means a fluorescent lamp specifically 

designed to start at ¥20 °F when used 

with a ballast conforming to the 

requirements of American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI) C78.81 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3) 

and ANSI C78.901 (incorporated by 

reference; see § 430.3), and is expressly 

designated as a cold temperature lamp 

both in markings on the lamp and in 

marketing materials, including catalogs, 

sales literature, and promotional 

material. 10 CFR 430.2 

Cold weather starting is accomplished 

through both the lamp and ballast 

design. Product literature indicates that 

cold temperature fluorescent lamps 

paired with the appropriate ballast can 

be started at temperatures as low as 

-20 °F. Therefore, the existing 

definition, which includes the specific 

starting temperature and the 

requirement of being marketed and 

designed for cold temperature 

applications, is a sufficient description 

of fluorescent lamps designed to be 

operated in cold temperatures. 

Additionally, product offerings of cold 

temperature fluorescent lamps remain 

limited, indicating their specialty use. 

Hence, DOE is not proposing any further 

clarification for the exemption category 

of fluorescent lamps designed for cold 

temperature applications. 

DOE did not receive any further 

comment on definitions considered in 

the preliminary analysis. In this NOPR, 

DOE is also considering providing a 

definition for 700 series fluorescent 

lamps. OHA has granted several 

manufacturers waivers from standards 

for their 700 series T8 products. (See 

section VI.D.2.a for further discussion 

regarding OHA waivers.) A definition 

for 700 series lamps would provide 

clarification regarding these lamp types. 

The term ‘‘700 series’’ is widely used 

in industry when referring to 

fluorescent lamps with a CRI in the 

range of 70 to 79. The Illuminating 

Engineering Society of North America 

(IESNA) Lighting Handbook 14 presents 

fluorescent lamp nomenclature and 

states that color is represented by a 

three digit number (i.e., 735 or 835) 

beginning with the first digit of the 

lamp’s CRI (i.e., 7 or 8) and followed by 

the first two digits of the lamp’s 

correlated color temperature (CCT) (e.g., 

30, 35, 41). DOE explained this 

nomenclature in chapter 3 of the 2009 

Lamps Rule TSD,15 stating that typically 

lamps with a CRI in the 60s use only 

less efficient halophosphors, while 

lamps with a CRI in the 70s (700 series 

phosphor) and in the 80s (800 series 

phosphor) use more efficient rare earth 

phosphors. The DOE test procedure at 

10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix R 

requires CRI to be measured and 

reported to demonstrate compliance 

with standards. Thus, the measured CRI 

of a lamp is used to determine if the 

lamp qualifies as a 700 series lamp. 

Hence DOE is proposing to define 700 

series fluorescent lamps to mean a 

fluorescent lamp with a CRI that is in 

the range of 70 to 79. 

In this NOPR, DOE is proposing the 

definitions as previously specified in 

this section and in the preliminary 

analysis for ‘‘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 

ultra-violet region of the spectrum.’’ 

DOE is also proposing a definition of 

‘‘designed and marketed.’’ This 

definition is intended to apply to the 

use of these and similar terms (i.e., 

designated or labeled) in any 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24084 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

16The majority of T12 MBP lamps with lengths 

less than 4 feet do not comply with the July 2012 

standards. 

17The 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. 

grammatical form or combination. In 

addition, DOE is proposing a definition 

for ‘‘700 series fluorescent lamp.’’ 

B. General Service Fluorescent Lamp 

Scope of Coverage 

1. Additional General Service 

Fluorescent Lamp Types 

In this rulemaking, DOE evaluates 

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 GSFLs 

that meets these criteria, DOE then 

assesses 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. DOE used the 

miscellaneous category of fluorescent 

lamps reported by the 2010 LMC to 

determine market share and energy 

consumption of circline fluorescent 

lamps. This category included 

fluorescent lamps other than the T5, T8, 

T12 linear lamps, and T8 and T12 Ushaped lamps, and is therefore mainly 

comprised of circline lamps and lamps 

with unknown characteristics. The 2010 

LMC reported this category made up 2.1 

percent of lighting and consumed 4 

TWh of electricity in 2010. Interviews 

with manufacturers also confirmed the 

low market share of these lamp types. 

Therefore, DOE tentatively concluded 

that coverage should not be expanded to 

non-linear fluorescent lamps as 

standards would not likely result in 

significant energy savings. 

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 16 MBP lamps with lengths less 

than 4 feet, according to the 2010 LMC, 

these lamps comprised about 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. Therefore, DOE tentatively 

concluded that coverage should not be 

expanded to linear fluorescents of 

lengths not covered by standards as 

standards would not likely result in 

significant energy savings. 

DOE received several comments on its 

assessment not to extend coverage to 

linear fluorescent lamps of lengths not 

already covered. In particular, several 

stakeholders asserted that the 2-foot 

linear fluorescent lamps comprised a 

market share that warranted coverage 

under standards. The CA IOUs urged 

DOE to reassess the 2-foot linear 

fluorescent lamp market share and 

recommended that they be included in 

the scope of coverage of this 

rulemaking. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 32–33; CA 

IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 11–12) NEEA and 

NPCC advised that 2-foot linear 

fluorescent lamps be included under 

scope of coverage and in their own 

product class, if appropriate. (NEEA and 

NPCC, No. 34 at pp. 2–3) Specifically, 

the CA IOUs asserted that DOE should 

have considered the proportion of GSFL 

market share that these lamps represent 

and also included T12 lamps in its 

assessment, as these lamps would be 

covered by standards for 2-foot linear 

lamps. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 11–12) 

In assessing whether additional GSFL 

types should be included under 

coverage of standards in the preliminary 

analysis, DOE evaluated the market 

share and energy consumption of the 

lamp type relative to the entire lighting 

market. DOE’s analysis provided a 

comprehensive representation of the 

lamp type and the energy savings 

potential of standards for the lamp type. 

In the NOPR, DOE also evaluated 

market share relative to the entire 

fluorescent lamp market. Based on the 

2010 LMC, T8 MBP lamps less than 4 

feet comprised 0.7 percent of the 

fluorescent lamp market versus 0.2 

percent of the entire lighting market. 

Therefore, the evaluation of these lamps 

relative to the fluorescent lamp market 

also indicates that 2-foot MBP linear 

lamps have a very low market share. 

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.17 76 FR 70548 (Nov. 14, 2011). 

Therefore, the market will likely shift 

away from T12 lamps. Additionally, 

historical shipments of most T12 lamps 

have been decreasing steadily and 

manufacturer feedback from interviews 

suggests that this trend will continue. 

Therefore, DOE focused on T8 lamps 

when evaluating the energy savings of 

additional GSFL types to include under 

coverage of standards. 

The CA IOUs also asserted that in the 

2010 LMC, T8 and T12 lamps less than 

4 feet have GSFL market shares very 

similar to the market shares for three 

other product types currently subject to 

DOE standards: T8 lamps greater than 4 

feet (1.4 percent of the linear fluorescent 

market), T8 U-shaped lamps (2 percent 

of the linear fluorescent market), and 

T12 U-shaped lamps (0.5 percent of the 

linear fluorescent market). (CA IOUs, 

No. 32 at pp. 11–12; NEEA and NPCC, 

No. 34 at pp. 2–3) 

The standards for GSFL types cited by 

the CA IOUs, specifically, the 2-foot Ushaped lamps, 8-foot SP slimline lamps, 

and 8-foot recessed double contact 

(RDC) HO lamps, were established in 

EPAct 1992. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)) As 

noted, for this rulemaking, in 

determining whether additional GSFL 

types should be covered under 

standards pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

6295(i)(5) DOE considers several 

criteria. In particular, DOE assesses 

whether a potential standard for an 

additional GSFL type would result in 

significant energy savings. Therefore, 

DOE examined parameters such as 

market share and energy consumption 

of each lamp type under consideration 

relative to the fluorescent lighting 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24085 

18Navigant 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 

19 DOE’s assessment indicated that the T8 MBP 

lamps less than 4 feet comprised 0.2 percent of the 

entire lighting market. NEMA’s written comment 

had incorrectly quoted this number as 0.02 percent. 

20U.S. Department of Energy. U.S. Lighting 

Market Characterization Volume I: National 

Lighting Inventory and Energy Consumption 

Estimate. September 2002. Available at http:// 

apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ 

ssl/lmc_vol1_final.pdf. 

market. DOE believes that this 

evaluation of each potential additional 

GSFL provides the most useful 

indication of whether significant energy 

savings could be gained from regulation 

of the lamp type. 

Stakeholders also cited data sources 

in addition to the 2010 LMC indicating 

that 2-foot linear lamps should be 

included under coverage of standards. 

The CA IOUs asserted that an anecdotal 

survey from their lighting audit teams 

suggest 2-foot linear lamps may be 5 to 

10 percent of lamps installed in the CA 

IOUs’ service territory, which is higher 

than suggested by the 2010 LMC. The 

CA IOUs also reported that the vast 

majority of commercial buildings in 

California have some two-by-two 

fixtures, and many of these have been 

retrofitted from U-shaped to 2-foot 

linear lamps within the last several 

years, indicating a growing trend toward 

2-foot linear lamps over U-shaped 

lamps. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 32–34; CA 

IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 11–12) NEEA and 

NPCC stated that they would submit 

field data to DOE and asserted that 

currently available data indicates 2-foot 

linear GSFLs make up a notably larger 

fraction of the market than the 

preliminary analysis suggests. (NEEA 

and NPCC, No. 34 at pp. 2–3) 

The CA IOUs and NEEA and NPCC 

referred to a Navigant Consulting, Inc. 

(Navigant) study published in October 

2012 that surveyed existing commercial 

and industrial building stock in 

Vermont, the 2011 Vermont Market 

Characterization and Assessment 

Study.18 The raw data from the Navigant 

study, obtained in May 2013 from the 

state of Vermont by NEEP, shows that of 

more than 136,000 lamps surveyed, 2- 

foot lamps represented 6.3 percent of 

installed fluorescent lamps. This 

included 3.6 percent of high 

performance T8s, 9.3 percent of 

standard efficiency T8s, 3.9 percent of 

T12s, and 5.2 percent of T5s. Behind 4- 

foot lamps, 2-foot lamps were by far the 

most common lamp length in these 

sectors. The CA IOUs stated that 6.3 

percent of fluorescent lamp sales 

represent a significant amount of energy 

and, as explained in previous comments 

submitted by the CA IOUs, 2-foot lamps 

are available in a wide range of 

efficacies. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 11– 

12; NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at pp. 2– 

3) 

NEMA, however, stated that the 2010 

LMC showed a low market share 19 for 

these products, which does not justify 

standards for these lamps. (NEMA, No. 

36 at p. 4) Edison Electric Institute (EEI) 

stated its belief that 2-foot linear lamps 

were mainly installed in task lighting 

applications. (EEI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at p. 34) GE advised 

that 2-foot linear lamps should not be 

included in the scope of this 

rulemaking. While installing these 

lamps may be customary in California, 

GE stated that they are not very common 

across the nation. Further, GE 

commented that DOE had received 

shipment data in preliminary 

manufacturer interviews that showed 

the sales of 2-foot straight lamps to be 

significantly less than the sales of 4-foot 

lamps. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 30 at pp. 35–36) ASAP requested 

DOE make the shipment data publicly 

available so stakeholders could 

determine the significance. (ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 

36–39) 

DOE did not receive shipment data 

specifically for 2-foot linear lamps and 

based its assessment of market share 

and energy consumption provided in 

the 2010 LMC report and feedback 

received in manufacturer interviews. 

The anecdotal survey and the Vermont 

study cited by the CA IOUs are focused 

on very specific areas of the nation, 

while the 2010 LMC is the most recent 

assessment of installed stock and energy 

use of fluorescent lighting at the 

national level. The Vermont study 

collected primary data through on-site 

visits from a random selection of 120 

commercial and industrial buildings in 

specific regions in Vermont. Therefore, 

DOE found the 2010 LMC provided a 

more comprehensive basis for its 

assessment. A comparison of the 

installed stock provided in the 2000 

LMC report 20 and the 2010 LMC report 

shows that installed stock for both T8 

and T12 lamps less than 4 feet has 

declined by about 50 percent over that 

10-year period. DOE also received 

feedback from manufacturers in 

interviews stating that 2-foot linear 

lamps, both in the MBP and MiniBP 

categories, comprise a low market share 

that will either stay the same or decline. 

Further, manufacturers noted in 

interviews that the 2-foot linear lamps 

are generally used for kitchens, 

bathrooms, vanity lighting, hospitality 

applications, cabinets, and to round out 

edges of ceilings in commercial spaces. 

Given the above, DOE finds 

insufficient evidence to indicate that the 

market share or energy consumption of 

2-foot linear fluorescent lamps would 

result in significant energy savings if 

DOE established standards for these 

lamps. DOE is not proposing standards 

for any additional GSFL types that are 

not currently covered. 

2. Additional General Service 

Fluorescent Lamp Wattages 

DOE specifies a certain minimum 

wattage for each lamp type 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. 

DOE found the following reduced 

wattage lamps not covered under 

standards: 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. 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. Therefore, in the 

preliminary analysis, DOE considered 

extending coverage to the following 

GSFLs: 

• 8-foot SP slimline lamps with 

wattages ≥49 W and <52 W; 

• 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO lamps with 

wattages ≥25 W and <26 W; and 

• 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps with 

wattages ≥44 W and <49 W. 

These reduced wattage lamps are 

generally more efficacious than their 

full wattage counterparts and offer the 

potential for increased energy savings. 

Philips commented that if a product 

is already highly efficacious, DOE does 

not need to consider standards for the 

product. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 44–45) 

The emergence of these new reduced 

wattage lamps on the market since the 

2009 Lamps Rule and the number of 

product offerings indicate that there is 

significant consumer demand for these 

lamps. Further, because reduced 

wattage lamps are often incentivized by 

utilities and promoted as an easy 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24086 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

21The EIA approves the use of the name ‘‘NEMS’’ 

to describe only an AEO version of the model 

without any modification to code or data. Because 

the present analysis entails some minor code 

modifications and runs the model under various 

policy scenarios that deviate from AEO 

pathway to energy savings, they are 

likely to increase in market share. DOE’s 

review of product catalogs indicated 

that lamps with these wattages generally 

have a range of efficacies. The lower 

wattages of these lamps and their 

potential to achieve higher efficacies 

indicate that including these wattages 

under energy conservation standards 

have the potential to realize significant 

energy savings. 

NEMA agreed with expanding the 

GSFL wattages covered by this 

rulemaking, but cautioned DOE that 

reduced wattage GSFLs are often 

‘‘energy saver’’ models. These lamps do 

not have the same performance as full 

wattage GSFLs. Specifically, NEMA 

stated that reduced wattage GSFLs have 

difficulty operating in low-temperature 

applications and do not have full 

dimming functionality, a performance 

feature that is highly desired 

considering the proliferation of 

dimming systems. (NEMA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 23–24; 

NEMA, No. 36 at p. 4) 

DOE acknowledges there are certain 

issues related to dimming associated 

with ‘‘energy saver’’ or reduced wattage 

lamps. Therefore, in this rulemaking, 

DOE has ensured that full wattage lamps 

can achieve the levels proposed for 

GSFLs. See section VI.D.2.g for further 

details on this issue. 

C. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Scope 

of Coverage 

1. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Types 

In this rulemaking, DOE does not 

consider the following IRL types: (1) 

Lamps rated 50 W or less that are ER30, 

BR30, BR40, or ER40; (2) lamps rated 65 

W that are BR30, BR40, or ER40 lamps; 

and (3) R20 IRLs rated 45 W or less. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(i)(C)) These IRLs are the 

subject of a separate rulemaking on 

which further information can be found 

on regulations.gov under docket ID 

EERE–2010–BT–STD–0005 at 

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD0005. DOE has suspended activity on 

this rulemaking as a result of section 

315 of Public Law (Pub. L.) 112–74 (Dec. 

23, 2011), which prohibits DOE from 

using appropriated funds to implement 

or enforce standards for ER, BR, and 

bulged parabolic reflector IRLs. 

2. Incandescent Reflector Lamp 

Wattages 

In this rulemaking, DOE also does 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)) 

DOE received several comments on this 

lower limit on wattage for IRLs. EEI 

reported that highly efficacious 39 W 

halogen IRLs capable of replacing less 

efficacious 60 W IRLs are on the market. 

(EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 

at pp. 24–25) The CA IOUs considered 

the presence of commercially available 

39 W lamps to suggest that DOE should 

extend the IRL wattage range covered. 

(CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 30 at p. 33) EEI also noted that the 

39 W IRLs are close to covered lamps in 

efficacy and serve as replacements for 

IRLs of higher wattages, possibly 

increasing efficacy by 30 to 40 percent. 

(EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 

at pp. 34–35) The CA IOUs responded 

that in the California market there is a 

wide range of efficacy for the 39 W 

products. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at p. 35) 

GE stated that EPAct 1992 gave 40 W 

as the lower wattage limit for IRLs and 

that this limit is appropriate. GE 

asserted that there was no need to cover 

lower wattage IRLs as they use less 

energy, and a market shift to them 

would still fulfill the purpose of this 

rulemaking. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at p. 36) ASAP 

questioned whether DOE had the 

authority to cover lower wattages if the 

40 W limit was a statutorily defined 

scope. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at p. 39) NEMA 

asserted that because the CFR stipulates 

coverage for 40 W IRLs and above, DOE 

does not have the authority to expand 

the scope to lower wattages. (NEMA, 

No. 36 at p. 2) 

NEEA noted that if the 40 W limit was 

statutory, it is doubtful DOE would 

change it. However, NEEA found that a 

lower wattage limit is an increasingly 

less useful way to describe coverage as 

technologies shift. Additionally, NEEA 

noted that a wattage limit was not an 

appropriate qualifier for products 

subject to a lm/W standard that drives 

products to use fewer watts to deliver a 

certain lumen output, such as a 20 W 

IRL that has the same lumen output as 

a 60 W IRL. NEEA commented that it 

had seen a similar shift occur in the 

market for street lighting. (NEEA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 43–44) 

As described by commenters, the 40 

W limit is included in the EPCA 

definition of IRLs. (42 U.S.C. 

6291(30)(C), (C)(ii), and (F)) Therefore, 

proposed standards in this notice apply 

only to covered IRLs 40 W or higher. 

Additionally, while the definition of 

IRLs does not provide an upper wattage 

limit, DOE did not assess covered IRLs 

higher than 205 W in this proposed rule. 

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. 

D. Summary of Scope of Coverage 

In conclusion, in this rulemaking DOE 

is proposing extending the scope of 

coverage for GSFLs to certain wattages 

but not additional GSFL types. Further, 

DOE is proposing clarifying certain 

exemptions noted under the definition 

of ‘‘general service fluorescent lamp.’’ 

DOE is not considering IRLs less than 40 

W or greater than 205 W and is also not 

considering the following IRL types: (1) 

Lamps rated 50 W or less that are ER30, 

BR30, BR40, or ER40; (2) lamps rated 65 

W that are BR30, BR40, or ER40 lamps; 

and (3) R20 IRLs rated 45 W or less. 

VI. Methodology and Discussion 

In the preliminary phase of this 

rulemaking, DOE conducted a market 

and technology assessment, screening 

analysis, engineering analysis, product 

price determination, energy-use 

characterization, LCC and PBP analyses, 

shipments analysis and NIA, as well as 

a preliminary MIA. These analyses were 

then updated and revised as appropriate 

based on feedback received for this 

NOPR. Further, in this NOPR DOE 

conducted an LCC subgroup analysis, a 

complete MIA, a utility impact 

assessment, an employment impact 

assessment, an emissions analysis, a 

determination of monetization of 

reduced emissions from proposed 

standard levels, and an RIA. 

DOE used three spreadsheet tools to 

estimate the impact of standards 

proposed in this NOPR. The first 

spreadsheet calculates LCCs and 

payback periods of potential new energy 

conservation standards. The second 

provides shipments forecasts and then 

calculates NES and NPV impacts of 

potential new energy conservation 

standards. The Department also 

assessed manufacturer impacts, largely 

through use of the Government 

Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM). 

DOE used a version of EIA’s National 

Energy Modeling System (NEMS) for the 

utility and environmental analyses. The 

NEMS model simulates the energy 

sector of the U.S. economy. EIA uses 

NEMS to prepare its AEO, a widely 

known baseline energy forecast for the 

United States. The version of NEMS 

used for appliance standards analysis is 

called NEMS–BT21, and is based on the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24087 

assumptions, the name ‘‘NEMS–BT’’ refers to the 

model as used here. (BT stands for DOE’s Building 

Technologies Program.) For more information on 

NEMS, refer to The National Energy Modeling 

System: An Overview, DOE/EIA–0581 (2009), 

available at: http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview/ 

index.html. 

AEO 2013 version with minor 

modifications. The NEMS–BT accounts 

for the interactions between the various 

energy supply and demand sectors and 

the economy as a whole. 

NEEA and NPCC stated that analyses 

presented in the preliminary analysis 

phase need further development before 

stakeholders will be able to comment in 

depth. NEEA and NPCC also offered to 

provide DOE field data from 2012–2013 

on lamp and fixture types from their 

Residential Building Stock Assessment 

(RBSA) and the survey data from their 

Commercial Building Stock Assessment 

(CBSA). (NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at p. 

6) NEEA and NPCC strongly support the 

comments provided by the CA IOUs for 

this rulemaking. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 

34 at p. 2) 

In the preliminary analyses, DOE 

assessed the products that are the 

subject of this rulemaking, as well as the 

achievable levels of efficiency and their 

impacts. As noted, DOE has updated 

these analyses with more recent data 

and, where appropriate, made 

adjustments based on comments 

received from stakeholders in the 

preliminary analysis phase. DOE will 

also consider any additional data 

submitted by commenters in response to 

the NOPR. 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

In the energy conservation standards 

rulemaking process, DOE conducts a 

market and technology assessment to 

provide an overall picture of the market 

for products concerned. Based primarily 

on publicly available information, the 

analysis provides both qualitative and 

quantitative information. The market 

and technology assessment includes the 

major manufacturers, product classes, 

retail market trends, shipments of 

covered products, regulatory and nonregulatory programs, and technologies 

that could be used to improve the 

efficacy of GSFLs and IRLs. DOE 

identified several technology options 

after conducting this assessment for the 

preliminary analysis. 

DOE received a general comment from 

NEMA on the market and technology 

assessment questioning why a 

rulemaking is justified given the lack of 

technological innovations and changes 

since the 2009 Lamps Rule, the steep 

decline in GSFL and IRL sales expected, 

as shown in DOE’s projections, and the 

waivers still providing certain products 

a stay of enforcement from the July 2012 

standards. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 6) 

As explained in II.A, EPCA directs 

DOE to complete a rulemaking that 

examines whether current GSFL and 

IRL standards should be amended and 

if so, amend them as appropriate based 

on its analysis. Further, in any 

rulemaking DOE must adopt standard 

levels that achieve the maximum energy 

savings that is technologically feasible 

(see chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD) and 

economically justified (see chapters 8 

and 12 of the NOPR TSD). Additionally, 

as noted previously, DOE understands 

that OHA has granted numerous 

manufacturers 2-year waivers from 

standards for their 700 series T8 

products that expire in 2014. Because 

standards from this rulemaking would 

become effective in 2017, DOE conducts 

its analysis assuming that the waivers 

will not be in place. 

NEMA also added that whether there 

are any technological innovations that 

have happened since the 2009 Lamps 

Rule is a valid point of discussion, but 

each potential technology would have to 

be given the same level of rigor 

regarding whether it is a feasible 

pathway or not. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 178–179) DOE 

examines the latest industry literature 

and patents, and receives feedback from 

manufacturers to develop viable 

technology options that can increase the 

efficacy of GSFLs and IRLs. The 

identified technology options are then 

subjected to rigorous screening criteria 

before they can be considered as design 

options in the engineering analysis (see 

section VI.B). For further details on the 

technology options and the screening 

process, see, respectively, chapters 3 

and 4 of the NOPR TSD. 

1. General Service Fluorescent Lamp 

Technology Options 

DOE received comments specific to 

the GSFL technology options put forth 

in the preliminary analysis. Specifically, 

stakeholders provided feedback on 

higher efficiency lamp diameters, higher 

efficiency lamp fill gas composition, 

and higher efficiency phosphors. 

Higher Efficiency Lamp Diameters 

DOE considered more efficient lamp 

diameters as one of the technology 

options to increase GSFL efficacy in the 

preliminary analysis. This option is 

considered as there is an optimum 

design diameter for a specific 

fluorescent lamp type that can increase 

lamp efficacy. 

NEMA stated that strictly speaking 

the reduction of lamp diameter does not 

necessarily increase efficacy and that T5 

and T8 lamps are already at their 

optimum diameters. Further, NEMA and 

GE stated that the market has already 

shifted to the most efficient diameters. 

(NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

30 at pp. 73; NEMA, No. 36 at p. 5; GE, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 

71–72) While NEMA did not believe 

higher efficiency diameter should be 

retained as a technology option, NEMA 

and Philips requested additional 

clarifying information about DOE’s 

underlying analysis of this option. 

(NEMA, No. 36 at p. 5; Philips, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 70) 

In small diameter lamps, an increase 

in diameter decreases the number of 

electrons and mercury ion 

recombination at the bulb wall, 

increasing ultraviolet (UV) output and 

lamp efficacy. In large diameter lamps, 

this recombination may already be 

minimal and a further enlargement in 

diameter causes a greater imprisonment 

of radiation within the lamp, decreasing 

light output and efficacy. Therefore, 

DOE understands this technology option 

should be applied only in cases where 

there is a potential to optimize the lamp 

diameter in order to achieve higher 

lamp efficacy gain. Based on DOE’s 

assessment there are less efficacious 

lamps on the market that can be 

improved by using a higher efficiency 

diameter. For example, standardscompliant T12 diameter product 

offerings remain in the 4-foot MBP and 

8-foot SP slimline product classes. 

Therefore, DOE continues to consider 

higher efficiency lamp diameter as a 

technology option to increase the 

efficacy of GSFLs. 

Higher Efficiency Lamp Fill Gas 

Composition 

Higher efficiency lamp fill gas 

composition was another technology 

option identified in the preliminary 

analysis. Lamp fill gases in fluorescent 

lamps increase mobility of mercury ions 

and electrons, facilitating recombination 

and resulting in increased UV output 

and higher lamp efficacy. Gases with 

lower molecular weight, such as argon, 

generally result in higher lamp efficacy. 

Full wattage lamps generally use argon 

gas. Reduced wattage lamps use a 

mixture of krypton and argon. Krypton, 

while a higher molecular weight gas, 

lowers the wattage of the lamp, thereby 

resulting in a higher lamp efficacy. 

NEMA stated that GSFLs are already 

optimized for the tradeoff of argon and 

krypton mixes and further efficacy gains 

are not possible using krypton. (NEMA, 

No. 36 at p. 14) 

Based on DOE’s research and 

feedback from manufacturers in 

interviews, the type and ratios of fill 

gases remain a mechanism to increase 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24088 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

lamp efficacy. Because lamps are 

present on the market at more than one 

level of efficacy, DOE believes lamp fill 

gas is one option that can be utilized to 

improve the efficacy of less efficacious 

products. Therefore, DOE continues to 

consider higher efficiency lamp fill gas 

as a means to improve the efficacy of 

fluorescent lamps covered under this 

rulemaking. 

Higher Efficiency Phosphors 

DOE also identified higher efficiency 

phosphors as an option for increasing 

efficacy in GSFLs. The main purpose of 

phosphor in a fluorescent lamp is to 

absorb the UV radiation and reemit it as 

visible radiation. In particular, the lamp 

efficacy can be improved in this manner 

by using triband phosphors containing 

rare earth elements, which can greatly 

increase UV absorption and emission of 

radiation in the visible spectrum 

relative to other phosphors. In response 

to this technology option, NEMA stated 

that GSFLs are already optimized for 

rare earth phosphors. (NEMA, No. 36 at 

p. 14) 

Based on DOE’s research and 

feedback from manufacturers in 

interviews, the blend, weight, and 

thickness of rare earth phosphors in 

fluorescent lamps is a key element in 

increasing the lamp efficacy. Because 

lamps are present on the market at more 

than one level of efficacy, DOE believes 

higher efficiency phosphor is one option 

that can be utilized to improve the 

efficacy of less efficacious products. 

Therefore, DOE continues to consider 

higher efficiency phosphors as a means 

to improve the efficacy of fluorescent 

lamps covered under this rulemaking. 

Summary of GSFL Technology Options 

In summary, DOE has developed the 

list of technology options shown in 

Table VI.1 to increase efficacy of GSFLs. 

TABLE VI.1—GSFL TECHNOLOGY

OPTIONS IN THE NOPR 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 

Composition.

Fill gas compositions improve 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. 

TABLE VI.1—GSFL TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS IN THE NOPR ANALYSIS— 

Continued 

Name of technology option Description 

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. 

2. Incandescent Reflector Lamp 

Technology Options 

DOE received comments specific to 

the IRL technology options put forth by 

DOE in the preliminary analysis. 

Specifically, stakeholders provided 

feedback on efficient filament 

placement, higher efficiency inert fill 

gas, and integrally ballasted low voltage 

lamps. 

Efficient Filament Placement 

Efficient filament placement is one of 

the technology options presented in the 

preliminary analysis that can increase 

the efficacy of IRLs. 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. 

NEMA disagreed that efficient 

filament placement should be 

considered a technology option for 

improving efficacy. NEMA commented 

that filament placement determines the 

beam spread of a lamp, which is 

considered a performance characteristic, 

not a degree of efficacy. If the filament 

placement were changed to make a lamp 

more efficacious, it would also change 

the beam spread, thereby altering a 

lamp’s utility. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 74–75) 

Understanding that efficient filament 

placement refers to the placement of the 

filament in an infrared (IR) capsule, the 

CA IOUs stated that filament placement 

impacts the amount of reflected 

radiation that hits the filament, which 

in turn impacts the amount of light 

emitted by the lamp. (CA IOUs, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 81–82) 

GE responded that filaments must be 

placed as close to the center of IR 

capsules as possible, and their 

placement has already been optimized. 

(GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 

at pp. 82) Philips noted that 

manufacturers do not know how to 

place filaments any more precisely than 

they are now, although there is 

manufacturing variation. (Philips, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 

82–83) 

DOE acknowledges that it is 

theoretically well understood where the 

filament should be placed to achieve 

higher efficacy in IRLs. Additionally, 

the above comments and feedback 

during manufacturer interviews indicate 

that lamps are being designed so that 

the filament is placed in the most 

optimal position. Therefore, because the 

optimal filament placement design has 

been identified and is being applied in 

all commercially available products, 

DOE proposes to not consider efficient 

filament placement as a technology 

option. 

Higher Efficiency Inert Fill Gas 

DOE presented high efficiency inert 

fill gas as another technology option to 

increase IRL efficacy in the preliminary 

analysis. 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. 

NEEA and NPCC indicated that xenon 

fill gas should not be considered a 

technology option as it is already used 

in all, or nearly all, halogen-based 

technologies, including those at the 

lower end of the efficacy scale. 

Comparatively, there is an 

approximately 3 percent drop in 

efficacy when using a fill gas like 

krypton, and accordingly the market has 

clearly adopted xenon and uses it 

almost exclusively. (NEEA and NPCC, 

No. 34 at p. 2, 5) The CA IOUs also 

stated that their research indicated that 

most, if not all, commercially available 

parabolic aluminized reflector (PAR) 

lamps, including those that are lower 

efficacy products or minimally 

compliant with the 2009 Lamps Rule, 

are already using xenon as their fill gas. 

The CA IOUs, therefore, concluded that 

additional xenon would not be required 

to meet higher standards. (CA IOUs, No. 

32 at pp. 9–10) 

Based on feedback from manufacturer 

interviews, DOE confirmed that the 

majority of covered standards-compliant 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24089 

IRLs are utilizing xenon. However, DOE 

also learned that the amount of xenon 

used in 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 continues to 

consider high efficiency inert fill gas as 

a technology option. 

Integrally Ballasted Low Voltage Lamps 

DOE also considered integrally 

ballasted low voltage lamps as a 

technology option in the preliminary 

analysis. 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. 

NEMA stated that integrally ballasted 

low voltage lamps are not viable at high 

wattages, and the technology is 

expensive and rarely used. Therefore, 

NEMA asserted that this technology is 

for a niche product, and cannot be 

applied across the board. (NEMA, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 

74–75; NEMA, No. 36 at p. 7) 

While the technology is not 

appropriate for higher wattage products, 

the CA IOUs argued that it is still a valid 

design option for reduced wattage 

lamps. The CA IOUs explained that in 

halogen infrared reflector (HIR) lamps, 

making the filament a denser target 

increases the amount of radiation that is 

successfully reflected back to it, thereby 

increasing the lamp efficacy. At line 

voltage, a higher wattage halogen burner 

incorporates a relatively large diameter 

filament; however a lower wattage 

capsule must use a finer filament. For 

these low wattage lamps, reducing the 

line voltage to low voltage allows the 

use of a shorter, fatter filament, which 

is ideal for HIR technology. While a 

lamp greater than 50 W is suited for line 

voltage and may operate at too high of 

a temperature for an integral ballast, a 

lamp less than 50 W is better suited for 

low voltage operation and run at 

temperatures compatible with an 

integral transformer. Particularly, as 

halogen lamps are designed to be more 

efficacious, lower reduced wattage 

products will be more common; for this 

reason, the CA IOUs envisioned 

integrally ballasted low voltage halogen 

products to be the predominant design 

strategy for very high efficacy halogen 

products going forward. (CA IOUs, No. 

32 at p. 9) 

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 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 is no 

longer considering integrally ballasted 

low voltage lamps as a technology 

option for improving lamp efficacy. 

Higher Efficiency Burner 

DOE did not consider a higher 

efficiency halogen burner as a 

technology option in the preliminary 

analysis. DOE acknowledged that use of 

a double-ended burner in an IRL can 

increase the efficacy compared to a 

single-ended burner. Further, because 

double-ended burners could not fit into 

small diameter IRLs (i.e., diameters less 

than or equal to 2.5 inches), DOE 

applied a 3.5 percent reduction when 

scaling efficacy levels from large 

diameter lamps (i.e., all diameters 

greater than 2.5 inches) that could 

utilize a double-ended burner to small 

diameter lamps. (For further discussion 

on IRL scaling factor see section VI.D.3.g 

and chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.) 

Based on further research and 

interviews with manufacturers, DOE 

confirmed in the NOPR analysis that a 

key aspect of higher efficiency IRLs is 

HIR technology. Because the type of 

burner utilized is an important 

component of an HIR lamp, in this 

NOPR analysis, DOE is considering 

higher efficiency burners as a 

technology option to increase IRL 

efficacy. Single-ended burners feature a 

lead wire inside of the capsule that 

carries current between the filament and 

the electrical connection in the base of 

the lamp. The presence of this wire 

inside of the capsule prevents a certain 

amount of energy from reaching the 

capsule wall and being reflected 

(recycled) back to the capsule filament. 

However, double-ended burners have a 

lead wire outside of the capsule that 

does not interfere with the reflectance of 

energy back to the filament, allowing for 

a more efficacious lamp. Hence, DOE is 

proposing higher efficiency burner as a 

technology option that can increase 

efficacy of IRLs. 

Summary of IRL Technology Options 

Of the IRL technology options 

presented in the preliminary analysis, 

DOE is no longer considering integrally 

ballasted low voltage lamps as a 

technology option. In addition to the 

IRL technology options identified in the 

preliminary analysis, DOE is proposing 

the inclusion of the higher efficiency 

burner as a technology option. In 

summary, in this NOPR analysis, DOE is 

proposing the IRL technology options 

listed in Table VI.2. 

TABLE VI.2—IRL TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS IN THE NOPR 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. 

Efficient Filament Coiling .................................... Coiling the filament to increase surface area, thus increasing light output. 

Crystallite Filament Coatings .............................. Layers of micron or submicron crystallites deposited on the filament surface that increases 

emissivity of the filament. 

Efficient Filament Orientation ............................. Positioning (horizontal or vertical) the incandescent filament to increase light emission from the 

lamp. Vertical orientation, used by majority of lamps, allows for greater light emission. 

Higher Efficiency Inert Fill Gas ........................... Filling lamps with alternative gases, such as Krypton, to reduce heat conduction. 

Higher Pressure Tungsten-Halogen Lamps ....... Increased halogen bulb capsule pressurization, allowing higher temperature operation. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24090 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VI.2—IRL TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS IN THE NOPR ANALYSIS—Continued 

Name of technology option Description 

Non-Tungsten-Halogen Regenerative Cycles .... Novel filament materials that regenerate. 

Infrared Glass Coatings ...................................... When used with a halogen capsule, this is referred to as a 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 Luminescence .................... A low voltage cathodoluminescent phosphor that emits green light (visible region of light) upon 

impingement by thermally ejected electrons, increasing the lumen output. 

Higher Efficiency Reflector Coatings .................. Alternative reflector coatings such as silver, with higher reflectivity increase the amount of directed light. 

Corner Reflectors ................................................ Individual corner reflectors in the cover glass that reflect light directly back in the direction from 

which it came. 

High Reflectance Filament Supports .................. Filament supports that include a reflective face that reflects light to another filament, the reflective face of another filament support, or radially outward. 

Permanent Infrared Reflector Coating Shroud ... Permanent shroud with an IR reflector 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 capsule, where it does not 

interfere with the reflectance of energy from the capsule wall back to the capsule 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 preliminary analysis for 

GSFLs and IRLs. 

1. General Service Fluorescent Lamp 

Design Options 

In the preliminary analysis, of the 

GSFL technology options identified, 

DOE did not consider screening out 

higher efficiency lamp fill gas 

composition and glass coatings; 

however, DOE received several 

comments on these two design options. 

DOE did not receive any feedback on 

the other GSFL design options put forth 

in the preliminary analysis. 

Higher Efficiency Lamp Fill Gas 

Composition 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

determined that higher efficiency lamp 

fill gas composition met the screening 

criteria and considered it as a design 

option. As previously described, lamp 

fill gases such as argon increase 

mobility of mercury ions and electrons, 

facilitating recombination and thereby 

increasing UV output and resulting in 

higher lamp efficacy. Krypton is 

primarily used as a fill gas in reduced 

wattage lamps because it lowers lamp 

wattage, thereby resulting in higher 

lamp efficacy. NEMA noted that the 

resulting reduced wattage lamps have 

issues with cold temperature 

applications, striations, and 

dimmability due to the use of krypton 

and pointed out that these items are 

performance characteristics that should 

be considered in the screening analysis. 

NEMA encouraged DOE to explore the 

trade-offs to ensure the right balance is 

obtained. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 78–79) 

Based on previous manufacturer 

feedback, DOE is aware that the 

presence of krypton in reduced wattage 

lamps causes issues with lamp starting 

and striations in cold temperature 

applications below 60–65 °F. Feedback 

from manufacturers in interviews has 

also indicated that problems 

encountered with dimming linear 

fluorescent lamps, including lamp 

starting, striations, and dropout, are 

exacerbated by the use of krypton in 

reduced wattage lamps. Krypton, which 

lowers the wattage of a fluorescent 

lamp, is the primary fill gas used in 

reduced wattage fluorescent lamps. 

Based on feedback from manufacturers 

the use of any amount of krypton will 

result in dimming issues and increase 

with the amount of krypton. 

Philips noted that issues with 

dimming reduced wattage lamps could 

also be related to the ballast as well as 

compatibility with the dimmer and 

lamp. Philips further noted that they 

had observed that a lamp-ballast system 

would dim successfully in one building 

but fail when put in a different building. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24091 

22 DiLaura, D. L., K. W. Houser, R. G. Mistrick, 

and G. R. Steffy. IESNA Lighting Handbook: 

Reference and Application, 10th Edition. New York: 

IESNA, 2011. 

23Trushell, Charles and Liviu Magean. Method of 

manufacturing a fluorescent lamp having getter on 

a UV reflective base coat. U.S. Patent No. 7,500,896 

B2, filed May 9, 2005, and issued Mar 10, 2009. 

(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

30 at p. 225) 

Despite the issues with dimming and 

operation in cold temperatures, DOE has 

determined that reduced wattage lamps 

using krypton can be found on the 

market in various wattages. Feedback 

from manufacturers in interviews also 

indicates that reduced wattage lamps 

comprise a significant portion of their 

GSFL shipments. Additionally, 

consumers have other options, as more 

reliable dimming can be attained using 

full wattage lamps and fluorescent 

lamps designed to be operated in cold 

temperature applications exist on the 

market. 

Therefore, DOE has determined that 

higher efficiency lamp fill gas 

composition, specifically in the form of 

krypton, meets the criteria of being 

technologically feasible and practicable 

to manufacture as it is used in 

commercially available products. DOE 

has found no evidence to indicate it has 

adverse impacts on health and safety. 

Because DOE is considering standard 

levels that ensure the availability of 

both full and reduced wattage lamps, 

DOE has determined that the use of this 

technology does not have an adverse 

impact on product utility or availability. 

Therefore, DOE proposes to maintain 

higher efficiency lamp fill gas as a 

design option for GSFLs. 

Glass Coatings 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

determined that glass coatings met the 

screening criteria and considered them 

as a design option. To increase the UV 

absorption by the phosphors, the lamp 

glass can be covered with an 

antireflective coating. This coating is a 

refractory oxide, such as aluminum 

oxide (Al2O3), silicon oxide (SiO2), and 

titanium oxide (TiO2) that reflects any 

UV radiation that passes through the 

phosphor back onto the phosphor, 

allowing a greater portion of UV to be 

absorbed, thereby increasing light 

output and lamp efficacy. NEMA stated 

that glass coatings should be screened 

out as the techniques are not feasible, 

which is the reason they are not already 

widely used. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 7; 

NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

30 at pp. 70) 

DOE determined that most modern 

lamps utilize glass coatings that 

minimize the absorption of mercury and 

act as reflectors of UV radiation.22 An 

undercoat layer, preferably composed of 

aluminum oxide and a getter material, 

reflects UV radiation that has passed 

through the luminescent material of the 

lamp back onto the material for 

increased visible light output and also 

reduces the contaminants in the lamp. 

A patent relevant to this technology 

notes that such undercoating is a 

common feature of modern fluorescent 

lamps.23

Because this technology option is 

being used in commercially available 

fluorescent lamps, DOE considers it to 

be practicable to manufacture. DOE is 

not aware of any evidence indicating 

that the technology has adversely 

impacted product utility or health and 

safety. Therefore, DOE proposes to 

maintain glass coatings as a design 

option for GSFLs. 

In summary, in this NOPR analysis 

DOE is proposing 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 NOPR TSD for 

further details on the GSFL screening 

analysis. 

2. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Design 

Options 

DOE did not receive any feedback on 

IRL design options put forth in the 

preliminary analysis. 

Higher Efficiency Burners 

As mentioned previously, in this 

NOPR analysis DOE is proposing the 

additional technology option of a higher 

efficiency burner as a means to improve 

IRL efficacy. DOE evaluated the higher 

efficiency burner technology against the 

screening criteria. DOE found that 

higher efficiency burners, such as the 

double-ended burner, are currently 

being utilized in commercially available 

lamps and have demonstrated that they 

are technologically feasible, practicable 

to manufacture, install, and service on 

a commercial scale by the compliance 

date of any amended standards, and do 

not result in adverse impacts on product 

utility or availability, or health and 

safety. DOE acknowledges that doubleended burners cannot be used in small 

diameter lamps without changing the 

physical shape of the lamp, which may 

impact whether the lamp can fit 

standard fixtures, and thereby affect 

product utility. Therefore, DOE is 

proposing higher efficiency burners as a 

design option only for IRLs with 

diameters greater than 2.5 inches. 

In summary, in this NOPR analysis 

DOE is proposing as design options the 

following IRL technologies that have 

met the screening criteria: 

• Higher Temperature Operation 

• Thinner Filaments 

• Efficient Filament Coiling 

• Efficient Filament Orientation 

• 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 Burner 

See chapter 4 of the NOPR 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)) In a general comment, 

NEMA requested that DOE ensure CSLs 

do not potentially eliminate utility from 

the market. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 20) As 

noted, when assessing factors for 

product class divisions, DOE considers 

consumer utility. 

DOE received several comments 

regarding product classes considered in 

the preliminary analysis. 

1. General Service Fluorescent Lamp 

Product Classes 

In the preliminary analysis DOE 

considered product classes for GSFLs 

based on the following three factors: (1) 

CCT; (2) physical constraints of lamps 

(i.e., lamp shape and length); and (3) 

lumen package. DOE received 

comments regarding the CCT product 

class division and a suggestion to 

establish a product class division based 

on a lamp’s dimming functionality. DOE 

did not receive feedback on the other 

product class divisions put forth for 

GSFLs in the preliminary analysis. 

CCT 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

considered CCT, noted in degrees 

Kelvin (K), as a class setting factor, 

specifically, product classes for GSFLs 

with a CCT less than or equal to 4,500 

K and a product class for GSFLs with a 

CCT greater than 4,500 K. NEEA and 

NPCC noted that while DOE stated that 

GSFLs with a CCT greater than 4,500 K 

show a decline in efficacy, DOE did not 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24092 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

state the degree of the decline of 

efficacy, whether it was consistent 

across manufacturers, or if the decline 

was inherent in the phosphor mixes 

required to produce the higher CCT 

values. NEEA and NPCC noted that they 

may support having a separate product 

class for these lamps, but that additional 

data is needed. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 

34 at p. 3) 

CCT is a measure of the perceived 

color of white light emitted from a lamp. 

The lower CCTs correspond to warm 

light and are in the red wavelengths 

while the higher CCTs correspond to 

cooler light and are in blue wavelengths. 

The human eye is less responsive to 

light in the blue wavelengths and 

therefore, efficacy decreases in lamps 

with higher CCTs. The phosphor blend 

used in a lamp substantially impacts the 

lamp’s CCT. For example, the use of rare 

earth phosphors results in light emitted 

at wavelengths to which the human eye 

is most sensitive, thereby increasing the 

lamp efficacy. Therefore, different 

phosphor blends in lamps achieve 

different CCTs. (See chapter 3 of the 

NOPR TSD for further details on 

fluorescent lamp technology.) 

DOE determined through analysis and 

confirmed with manufacturers that 

lamps with CCTs greater than 4,500 K 

start showing a decline in efficacy. 

Feedback from manufacturers varied 

regarding the exact efficacy reduction 

correlated with CCT and whether it was 

consistent across GSFL types. DOE’s 

evaluation of catalog and compliance 

efficacies for similar lamp types at 

different CCTs for various 

manufacturers has shown that in 

general, there is a reduction in the range 

of 2–6 percent going from a CCT of 

4,500 K or less to a CCT greater than 

4,500 K. (See section VI.D.2.h and 

chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for scaling 

to higher CCT product classes.) 

Therefore, because consumers are 

afforded a different perception of light 

at different CCTs and efficacy is 

impacted with varying CCTs, DOE 

proposes to maintain CCT as a product 

class division factor. Specifically DOE is 

proposing to establish a product class of 

lamps with CCTs less than or equal to 

4,500 K and a product class with CCTs 

greater than 4,500 K. 

Dimming Utility 

NEMA noted that DOE may not set 

standards that would eliminate full 

wattage GSFLs because the Secretary 

may not prescribe standards ‘‘likely to 

result in the unavailability in the United 

States in any covered product type (or 

class) of performance characteristics 

(including reliability), features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are 

substantially the same as those generally 

available in the United States at the time 

of the Secretary’s finding.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(4)) NEMA emphasized that as 

dimmability and uniformity of light 

(absence of flicker or striation) are all 

performance characteristics highly 

desirable in the marketplace, they must 

be maintained. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 4) 

Further, NEMA stated that potential 

energy savings from dimming will be 

reduced or lost if DOE eliminates full 

wattage 32 W GSFLs from the market. 

(NEMA, No. 36 at p. 15) Lutron agreed 

that elimination of full wattage lamps 

that are argon-filled would also get rid 

of dimming. (Lutron, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 25) 

EEI noted that the increase of lighting 

controls requirements in building codes 

such as those put out by American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and 

Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 

and International Energy Conservation 

Code (IECC) means that dimmability is 

a performance characteristic necessary 

for operation in commercial buildings. 

(EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 

at p. 79–80) The CA IOUs reiterated the 

importance of not eliminating dimming 

products from the market. They 

suggested that if there are two sets of 

products, one with dimming capability 

and one with higher efficacy, there may 

be grounds to create separate product 

classes so that covered products will 

comply with standards either by having 

higher efficacy or by dimming. (CA 

IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 

at pp. 135) 

DOE acknowledges that there are 

issues with dimming reduced wattage 

lamps that do not typically manifest in 

full wattage lamps. DOE is aware that 

unreliable dimming is in part due to the 

use of krypton as the fill gas in reduced 

wattage lamps as well as other factors. 

(See the discussion on higher efficiency 

lamp fill gas composition in VI.A.1.) 

Therefore, DOE is ensuring that any 

proposed level can be met by full 

wattage lamps. Because the utility of 

dimming is being preserved in the 

existing product class structure and for 

the analyzed standard levels, DOE is not 

proposing fill gas that allows for reliable 

dimming as a product class setting 

factor. (See section VI.D.2.g and chapter 

5 of the NOPR TSD for the GSFL 

engineering analysis.) 

Summary of GSFL Product Classes 

In this NOPR analysis, DOE is 

proposing the product classes for GSFLs 

summarized in Table VI.3. See chapter 

3 of the NOPR TSD for further details 

on each GSFL product class. 

TABLE VI.3—GSFL PRODUCT

CLASSES IN NOPR ANALYSIS

Lamp type CCT 

4-foot medium bipin .............. ≤4,500 K 

>4,500 K 

2-foot U-shaped .................... ≤4,500 K 

>4,500 K 

8-foot single pin slimline ....... ≤4,500 K 

>4,500 K 

8-foot recessed double contact high output ................. ≤4,500 K 

>4,500 K 

4-foot T5, miniature bipin 

standard output ................. ≤4,500 K 

>4,500 K 

4-foot T5, miniature bipin 

high output ........................ ≤4,500 K 

>4,500 K 

2. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Product 

Classes 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

considered 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 (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. DOE received several comments 

on the rated voltage class setting factor. 

DOE did not receive feedback on the 

other product class divisions put forth 

for IRLs in this preliminary analysis. 

Rated Voltage 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

considered 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. 

IRLs mainly come in rated voltages of 

120 or 130. This product class division 

establishes two separate product classes 

for the 120 V IRLs and the 130 V IRLs. 

NEEA and NPCC stated that DOE 

should maintain separate product 

classes for lamps that are less than 125 

V and those that are greater than or 

equal to 125 V. They indicated that if 

there were demand for 130 V lamps, it 

would be highly likely that standards 

compliant 130 V lamps would enter the 

market, as there is nothing inherent in 

the standard levels that would eliminate 

130 V lamps. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 

at p. 4) 

Advanced Lighting Technologies 

(ADLT) agreed, pointing out that 

combining lamps less than 125 V and 

greater than or equal to 125 V lamps 

into one product class would allow 130 

V lamps on the market that fall below 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24093 

24 DiLaura, D. L., K. W. Houser, R. G. Mistrick, 

and G. R. Steffy. IESNA Lighting Handbook: 

Reference and Application, 10th Edition. New York: 

IESNA, 2011. 

25ELs span multiple lamps of different wattages. 

In selecting ELs, DOE considered whether these 

multiple lamps can meet the standard levels. 

the July 2012 efficacy requirement of 

5.9P0.27 when operated at 120 V. ADLT 

gave the example that a 130 V 70 W 

lamp would be required to produce 19.5 

lm/W under DOE’s CSL 1 of 6.2P0.27 for 

less than 125 V lamps. However, 

operating the same 130 V, 70 W lamp 

in a 120 V socket would result in 

lowering the wattage to 61.5 W and 

efficacy to 16.8 lm/W,24 which equates 

to 5.4P0.27. Therefore, a 130 V, 70 W 

lamp operating at 120 V would fall well 

below the July 2012 requirement of 

5.9P0.27. (ADLT, No. 31 at p. 2) 

Existing DOE test procedures provide 

for lamps rated at 130 V to be tested at 

130 V and for lamps rated at 120 V to 

be tested at 120 V. However, DOE is 

aware that a large number of consumers 

actually operate 130 V lamps at 120 V, 

which results in longer lifetime but 

lower efficacy. With a single EL for 

lamps rated at each voltage, this 

situation would effectively lead to a 

lower efficacy requirement for these 130 

V lamps run at 120 V, compared to 120 

V lamps run at 120 V. The 130 V lamps 

would not require the same level of 

technology as 120 V lamps to meet the 

same standard, and, thus, would be 

cheaper to produce. Therefore, setting 

higher standards for IRLs without 

accounting for voltage differences could 

result in increased migration to 130 V 

lamps instead of the 120 V lamps. When 

consumers operate these lamps at 120 V, 

they may need to purchase more lamps 

to obtain sufficient light output, thereby 

increasing energy consumption. Hence, 

in order to preserve energy savings, DOE 

proposes to maintain the rated voltage 

class division that separates covered 

IRLs less than 125 V from those that are 

greater than or equal to 125 V. 

Summary of IRL Product Classes 

In this NOPR analysis, DOE is 

proposing the product classes for IRLs 

summarized in Table VI.4. See chapter 

3 of the NOPR TSD for further details 

on each IRL product class. 

TABLE VI.4—IRL PRODUCT CLASSES IN NOPR ANALYSIS

Lamp type Diameter 

(in inches) Voltage 

Standard Spectrum .................................................................................................................................................. >2.5 ≥125 V 

<125 V 

≤2.5 ≥125 V 

<125 V 

Modified Spectrum ................................................................................................................................................... >2.5 ≥125 V 

<125 V 

≤2.5 ≥125 V 

<125 V 

D. Engineering Analysis 

1. General Approach 

The engineering analysis is generally 

based on commercially available lamps 

that incorporate the design options 

identified in the technology assessment 

and screening analysis. (See chapters 3 

and 4 of the NOPR TSD for further 

information on technology and design 

options.) The methodology consists of 

the following steps: (1) Selecting 

representative product classes, (2) 

selecting baseline lamps, (3) identifying 

more efficacious substitutes, and (4) 

developing efficacy levels by directly 

analyzing representative product classes 

and then scaling those efficacy levels to 

non-representative product classes. The 

details of the engineering analysis are 

discussed in chapter 5 of the NOPR 

TSD. The following discussion 

summarizes the general steps of the 

engineering analysis: 

Representative product classes: DOE 

first reviews covered lamps and the 

associated product classes. When a 

product has multiple product classes, 

DOE selects certain classes as 

‘‘representative’’ and concentrates its 

analytical effort on these classes. DOE 

selects representative product classes 

primarily because of their high market 

volumes. 

Baseline lamps: For each 

representative product class, DOE 

selects a baseline lamp as a reference 

point against which to measure changes 

resulting from energy conservation 

standards. Typically, a baseline model 

is the most common, least efficacious 

lamp sold in a given product class. DOE 

also considers other lamp characteristics 

in choosing the most appropriate 

baseline for each product class such as 

wattage, lumen output, and lifetime. 

More efficacious substitutes: DOE 

selects higher efficacy lamps as 

replacements for each of the baseline 

models considered. When selecting 

higher efficacy lamps, DOE considers 

only design options that meet the 

criteria outlined in the screening 

analysis (see section VI.B or chapter 4 

of the NOPR TSD). For GSFLs, DOE 

pairs each lamp with an appropriate 

ballast because fluorescent lamps are a 

component of a system, and their 

performance is related to the ballast on 

which they operate. 

Efficacy levels: After identifying the 

more efficacious substitutes for each 

baseline lamp, DOE develops ELs. DOE 

bases its analysis on three factors: (1) 

The design options associated with the 

specific lamps studied; (2) the ability of 

lamps across wattages to comply with 

the standard level of a given product 

class; 25 and (3) the max tech EL. DOE 

then scales the ELs of representative 

product classes to those classes not 

directly analyzed. 

DOE received a general comment on 

the methodology used in this 

rulemaking to develop efficacy levels for 

both GSFLs and IRLs. NEMA noted that 

additional adjustments for variation of 

product performance for manufacturing 

and testing variations must be afforded 

not only to compliance but to 

interpretations of published catalog 

data. NEMA referred DOE to NEMA 

LSD–63 Measurement Methods and 

Performance Variation for Verification 

Testing of General Purpose Lamps and 

Systems for guidance on proper 

application of statistical analysis for 

lighting products. (NEMA, No. 36 at pp. 

11–12; Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 134) 

DOE reviewed NEMA LSD–63 to 

determine whether additional 

adjustments due to manufacturing and 

testing variation were needed based on 

the guidance provided in the document. 

DOE determined that the guidance was 

not applicable to the datasets utilized by 

DOE to conduct the analysis, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24094 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

26The publicly available compliance information 

for GSFLs can be found in DOE’s Compliance 

Certification Database available here: 

www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/. 

specifically lamp manufacturer catalog 

data and DOE’s certification database. 

DOE received feedback from 

manufacturers that catalog data 

represents the long term average 

performance of products. In 

comparison, LSD–63 provides guidance 

for comparing a small sample set of test 

data to rated catalog values through 

statistical analysis to determine if the 

small sample set is part of the long term 

rating distribution. Because the 

guidance prescribed in LSD–63 is 

relevant for small sample sets and DOE 

is basing its analysis on catalog data 

representing long term performance 

data, DOE did not make adjustments for 

variation using this guidance. 

Further, as discussed in section 

VI.D.2.a, DOE considers certification 

data provided in DOE’s database to 

account for variation when establishing 

the minimum efficiency requirements 

for each efficacy level. By accounting for 

the compliance requirements when 

establishing efficacy levels, DOE 

incorporates manufacturing and testing 

variation and therefore uses values 

representative of the energy use of the 

products. 

Stakeholders had several comments 

regarding the engineering analysis 

presented in the preliminary TSD 

specific to GSFLs and IRLs. The 

following sections discuss and address 

feedback received from stakeholders for 

each product. DOE requests comment 

on the overall methodology, 

assumptions, and results of the GSFL 

and IRL engineering analyses. 

2. General Service Fluorescent Lamp 

Engineering 

DOE received comments on the 

engineering analysis for GSFLs 

presented in the preliminary TSD. 

Stakeholders provided feedback on 

DOE’s data approach, representative 

product classes, baseline lamps, 

selection of more efficacious substitutes, 

lamp-and-ballast pairings, max tech 

levels, CSLs, and scaling. The following 

sections summarize the comments and 

responses received on these topics, and 

present the proposed GSFL engineering 

for this NOPR analysis. 

a. Data Approach 

For the preliminary analysis, DOE 

considered commercially available 

lamps when possible. DOE used 

performance data of the commercially 

available lamps presented in 

manufacturer catalogs to identify 

potential baseline lamps and develop 

initial efficacy levels. 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. However, DOE also 

analyzed publicly available data 

submitted to DOE by manufacturers to 

demonstrate compliance with existing 

energy conservation standards.26 DOE 

adjusted efficacy levels to account for 

certification data when available. 

Usability of Certification Data and 

Catalog Data 

The CA IOUs noted statements made 

during the public meeting indicated that 

the catalog data may not be precise as 

it is not subject to any reporting 

regulations and further the certification 

database may be inaccurate. The CA 

IOUs asked that clarification be 

provided regarding the data used in the 

GSFL analysis. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 

12–13) The CA IOUs also noted that a 

large number of products in DOE’s 

certification database did not seem to 

have been included in this rulemaking 

analysis for GSFLs. In particular, the CA 

IOUs noted that there were about 20 or 

30 products that are above 96 lm/W for 

the representative 4-foot MBP product 

class from about ten manufacturers 

including MaxLite, Satco, Philips, and 

Westinghouse, as well as a product 

exceeding 100 lm/W. (CA IOUs, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 114– 

115) 

GE suggested that because such high 

measured lm/W values are not 

achievable, the issue may be that the 

information in the certification database 

is being misread or there may be 

confusion among manufacturers about 

what exactly to report in each column 

which could be resulting in false 

calculations. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at p. 115, pp. 141) GE 

noted that manufacturers have questions 

pending to DOE regarding certification 

reporting. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 141) The CA 

IOUs agreed with GE that there could be 

inconsistencies or confusion with which 

values to report and encouraged DOE to 

look into these issues further. (CA IOUs, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 

115–116) ASAP pointed out that there 

may be possible enforcement issues if 

there are products in the certification 

database that are non-compliant. (ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 

139) GE added that it could be that the 

lamps are in compliance but the claims 

being made are aggressive. (GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 141) 

NEEA disagreed that the certification 

database was being misread. NEEA 

recommended the use of a consistent set 

of data and requested general 

clarification on the data utilized in the 

analysis. (NEEA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 139–140) 

ASAP asked if there is a discrepancy 

between catalog and certification values 

for products. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 146–147) 

Philips explained that values initially 

published in catalogs are based on a 

small set of samples and these values 

change as the sample size increases and 

is more representative of manufacturing. 

The initially published catalog values 

are eventually synched with values 

based on the greater sample size but 

catalogs are updated only every two or 

three years. Further there is some 

allowable difference between the 

marketed efficacy values and the 

certification efficacy values. (Philips, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 

147–148) 

NEEA and NPCC stated that they are 

unable to comment extensively on the 

GSFL analysis due to DOE’s use of 

catalog efficacy values and ANSI rated 

wattages instead of measured and/or 

certified values including using test data 

at appropriate test conditions such as 

testing at 25 °C. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 

34 at p. 2, 3) Noting that comments by 

manufacturers during the public 

meeting indicated that catalog and 

certification values will be different, 

NEEP as well as NEEA and NPCC 

recommended DOE use measured and/ 

or certified values for its analysis, and 

not use catalog values for any part of the 

analysis. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at p. 

2, 3; NEEP, No. 33 at p. 2) NEEA and 

NPCC stated that once it had seen 

measured and/or certified values, it 

suspected the range of lamp 

performance will be much narrower 

than presented in the preliminary 

analysis. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at p. 

2, 3) NEEP stated that while there 

appear to be significant energy savings 

for GSFLs at CSL1, DOE’s use of catalog 

data puts the accuracy of these estimates 

into question. (NEEP, No. 33 at p. 2) 

DOE understands the concerns raised 

by stakeholders regarding the difference 

between catalog and certification values 

and their subsequent recommendations 

to utilize certification data. At the time 

of the preliminary analysis, DOE’s 

certification database consisted of data 

for only 38 percent of covered GSFLs. 

Because not all commercially available 

products had associated certification 

data, DOE was unable to rely solely on 

certification data in the preliminary 

analysis. At the time of the NOPR 

analysis, DOE’s certification database 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24095 

contained data for 68 percent of the 

covered commercially available lamps. 

While this was an increase from the 

preliminary analysis, it still did not 

represent a comprehensive dataset on 

which to base an engineering analysis. 

Therefore, in this NOPR analysis, DOE 

again 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 

proposed levels can be met based on the 

certification values submitted by 

manufacturers to demonstrate 

compliance with standards. 

Wattage 

The CA IOUs asked why DOE is using 

ANSI rated wattage to calculate efficacy 

when the certification database lists 

specific wattages for products. (CA 

IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 

at pp. 96) The CA IOUs stated that using 

a rated wattage of 32.5 W gives an 

expected average efficacy and 

recommended looking at whether lamps 

are performing at different levels of 

efficacy than projected and setting 

baselines and standards around more 

measured data rather than a rated 

wattage. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at p. 100) 

NEMA noted the rated wattage is 

based on a very large number of samples 

that are averaged out 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. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 98) GE did not 

think industry had a firm position on 

the issue, recognizing different wattages 

can be used. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 99–100; 

NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

30 at pp. 98–99) 

For the preliminary analysis and the 

NOPR analysis, DOE used catalog data 

to develop initial CSLs and ELs and 

assessed certification data to make any 

adjustments to the levels. As noted, 

DOE’s certification database does not 

include data for all covered GSFLs; 

therefore, the measured wattages of all 

commercially available covered lamps 

are not readily accessible. Additionally, 

DOE identified inconsistencies with the 

values reported for wattage, specifically 

in some cases nominal wattage may be 

reported rather than the measured 

wattage in DOE’s certification database. 

Therefore, as mentioned previously, 

DOE used manufacturer lamp catalogs 

to establish initial CSLs in the 

preliminary analysis and ELs in the 

NOPR. To determine catalog efficacies, 

DOE used catalog lumen output and 

ANSI rated wattage instead of the 

nominal wattage provided by 

manufacturers in catalogs. ANSI rated 

wattage is the result of standardized 

ANSI testing and represents an industry 

agreed upon wattage, as explained by 

NEMA. If an ANSI standard did not 

provide a rated wattage for a lamp type 

analyzed, efficacy was calculated using 

the nominal wattage. 

For the assessment of certification 

values, DOE used the reported values 

for efficacy, which 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. 

Using Data at 25 Degrees Celsius 

NEMA stated that DOE should 

conduct all its analyses, payback and 

feasibility equations based on data 

referenced to and measured at 25 °C, not 

35 °C, otherwise, results will be skewed 

because efficiency can ‘‘appear’’ higher 

at 35 °C for certain products made 

(optimized) for those conditions. NEMA 

noted that DOE’s test procedure, 

existing and previous rules, as well as 

reporting and catalogs, use 25 °C data. 

(NEMA, No. 36 at p. 18; NEMA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 127) GE 

noted that discussions during the 2009 

Lamps Rule had concluded that T5 

lamps should be tested at 25 °C as 

currently done by labs because testing 

becomes very unreliable at 35 °C. 

Therefore, it is not appropriate to have 

a lm/W level based on 35 °C. (GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 89–90) 

Philips stated that lamps for which 

efficacy values are provided at 35 °C 

operating temperature in catalogs are 

particular amalgam lamps that were 

designed specifically for that 

environment. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at p. 127) 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

developed efficacy levels based on 

performance at 25 °C because the DOE 

test procedure for GSFLs requires the 

lamps to be tested at 25 °C, including T5 

lamps. However, because all 

manufacturers do not provide lumen 

output data at 25 °C for T5 lamps in 

their catalogs but do provide it at 35 °C, 

DOE developed initial efficacy levels 

based on 35 °C catalog data for T5 

lamps. This allowed DOE to evaluate 

performance for all T5 lamps based on 

data provided by manufacturers at the 

same operating temperature. As noted, 

because the DOE test procedure used to 

determine compliance with standards 

requires GSFLs to be tested at 25 °C, 

DOE adjusted the initial efficacy levels 

to reflect operation at 25 °C. To do this, 

DOE utilized information in lamp 

manufacturer catalogs that provided 

performance characteristics for lamp 

operation at both 25 °C and 35 °C. In 

cases where this information was not 

available, DOE adjusted the 35 °C data 

to reflect lamp operation at 25 °C. 

Specifically, when operated at 25 °C, the 

lumen output of T5 lamps is 

approximately 10 percent lower than 

the lumen output of such lamps when 

operated at 35 °C. For this NOPR 

analysis, DOE has maintained this 

approach and developed efficacy levels 

based on performance at 25 °C. 

Decimal Usage for lm/W 

Philips stated that the CSLs analyzed 

in the preliminary analysis are to the 

tenths decimal place which provides an 

artificial measure of accuracy that 

doesn’t even exist and Philips doesn’t 

think it can be measured accurately. 

(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

30 at p. 146) Regarding this comment 

that reporting lm/W to one significant 

digit is not conducive to repeated and 

reliable measurements, the CA IOUs 

stated the rulemaking must adhere to 

the existing DOE test procedure that 

calculates an efficacy value using a 

specific sample size and confidence 

limit procedure. (CA IOUs, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 149– 

151) 

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 is analyzing efficacy levels in this 

rulemaking rounded to the nearest tenth 

of a lumen per watt as DOE maintains 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24096 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

27At the time of this analysis, the following 

manufacturers had been granted exception relief 

exempting their 700 series T8 lamps from current 

standards: Philips, GE, OSI, Ushio America, Halco 

Lighting Technologies, Premium Quality Lighting, 

Inc., Tailored Lighting, Inc., Litetronics 

International, Inc., Satco Products, Inc., DLU 

Lighting USA, Westinghouse Lighting Corporation, 

Ascent Battery Supply, LLC, Eiko, Ltd, Topaz 

Lighting Corporation, Technical Consumer 

Products, Feit Electric Company. 

28Philips 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. 

that this is an achievable level of 

accuracy. 

Using High Frequency Test Data 

According to NEMA, in recognition of 

the marketplace shift to electronic high 

frequency (HF) ballasts, the American 

National Standards Institute Lighting 

Group has drafted new standards for the 

electrical and photometric 

characterization of GSFL T8 lamps that 

are based on HF rather than the former 

low frequency 60 Hz reference ballasts. 

When these new standards are 

published later in 2013, the industry 

will comply and begin characterizing 

their products using HF-based 

photometry. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 2) 

NEMA also stated that current test 

procedures unfairly compare energysaver lamps to standard lamps, owing to 

the removal of cathode heat voltage 

from the energy-efficiency calculation of 

energy-saver lamps, thus they cannot be 

compared without unfairly skewing the 

numbers in favor of low-wattage lamps. 

High frequency measurement standards 

account for this difference. (NEMA, No. 

36 at pp. 14–15) Therefore, NEMA 

recommends that this rulemaking 

should be based on the new ANSI HF 

standards. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 2) 

The current GSFL test procedure as 

specified in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendix R requires lamps be tested at 

low frequency unless only high 

frequency ballast specifications are 

available for the lamp. The test 

procedure also specifies that for high 

frequency testing, cathode heat should 

not be used when the lamp is in 

operation. DOE acknowledges that high 

frequency reference specifications may 

be in development for additional lamp 

types and may consider standards based 

on high frequency operation after ANSI 

publishes the revised industry standard. 

700 Series Waiver 

NEMA also noted that 700 series 

lamps are under the U.S. Office of 

Hearings and Appeals (OHA) 

compliance waivers from the July 2012 

standards. Therefore, their performance 

and market changes are still several 

years away from being known. (NEMA, 

No. 36 at p. 1) 

In April of 2012, several 

manufacturers 27 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.28

Because this waiver will expire in 2014, 

and any standards adopted by this 

rulemaking are expected to require 

compliance in 2017, DOE has conducted 

this analysis for GSFLs assuming that 

the waiver would not be in place and 

has therefore not considered noncompliant 700 series lamps in its 

analysis. DOE notes that the term ‘‘700 

series’’ is widely used in industry when 

referring to fluorescent lamps with a CRI 

in the range of 70 to 79. See section V.A 

for the proposed definition of a 700 

series lamp. 

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. For GSFLs, in the preliminary 

analysis 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 

as shown (in gray) in Table VI.5. NEMA 

agreed with the representative product 

classes presented for GSFLs. (NEMA, 

No. 36 at p. 7) 

TABLE VI.5—GSFL REPRESENTATIVE

PRODUCT CLASSES

Lamp type CCT 

4-foot medium bipin .............. ≤4,500 K 

>4,500 K 

2-foot U-shaped .................... ≤4,500 K 

>4,500 K 

8-foot single pin slimline ....... ≤4,500 K 

>4,500 K 

8-foot recessed double contact high output ................. ≤4,500 K 

>4,500 K 

4-foot T5, miniature bipin 

standard output ................. ≤4,500 K 

>4,500 K 

4-foot T5, miniature bipin 

high output ........................ ≤4,500 K 

>4,500 K 

NEEA questioned why none of the 

products with CCT greater than 4,500 K 

were being directly analyzed and noted 

that at least one should be assessed in 

order to ensure the analysis is 

accounting for the magnitude of 

difference between greater than and less 

than or equal to 4,500 K CCT products. 

(NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

30 at p. 88) 

As noted previously, DOE chose 

representative product classes based on 

high market volumes. DOE received 

feedback from manufacturers in 

interviews indicating that the volume of 

lamps with CCT greater than 4,500 K is 

considerably lower than the volume of 

lamps with CCT less than or equal to 

4,500 K. In addition, DOE used 

manufacturer feedback and catalog data 

to quantify the difference in 

performance between lamps with higher 

CCTs and lamps with lower CCTs. For 

these reasons, DOE did not directly 

analyze lamps with CCT greater than 

4,500 K in the preliminary analysis and 

this NOPR analysis. DOE scaled the 

directly analyzed product classes with 

CCTs less than or equal to 4,500 K to 

those with CCTs greater than 4,500 K in 

the preliminary and NOPR analyses. See 

section VI.D.2.h and chapter 5 of the 

NOPR TSD for further information. 

EEI stated it thought that the 2-foot Ushaped lamps would have sales 

comparable to some of the other product 

classes. EEI also did not agree with 

determining the efficiency standard for 

the 2-foot U-shaped lamps using the 4- 

foot MBP lamps as a proxy. (EEI, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 86–88) 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

utilized the 4-foot MBP linear 

fluorescent products to scale to the 2- 

foot U-shaped products, as both 

products use the same fluorescent 

technology, span the same range of 

wattages, and, without its bent curve, 

the 2-foot U-shaped lamp would be 

approximately the same length as the 4- 

foot MBP linear lamp. Thus, DOE could 

determine impact on efficacy from the 

bent curve and scale from the 4-foot 

MBP product class. Further, the market 

share of 2-foot U-shaped lamps is 

significantly lower than 4-foot MBP 

lamps. As indicated in the LMC, T8 4- 

foot linear lamps comprise 44 percent of 

all linear fluorescent lighting, whereas 

T8 2-foot U-shaped lamps make up just 

2 percent. Therefore, in this NOPR 

analysis, DOE did not directly analyze 

the 2-foot U-shaped lamps and scaled 

ELs from the 4-foot MBP product class 

to the 2-foot U-shaped product class. 

See section VI.D.2.h and chapter 5 of the 

NOPR TSD for further information. 

c. Baseline Lamps 

Once DOE identifies the 

representative product classes for 

analysis, it selects baseline lamps to 

analyze in each class. Typically, a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24097 

baseline lamp is the most common, least 

efficacious lamp that just meets existing 

energy conservation standards. For 

fluorescent lamps, the most common 

lamps were determined based on 

characteristics such as wattage, lumen 

output, lifetime, and CCT. To identify 

baseline lamps, DOE reviews product 

offerings in catalogs, shipment 

information, and manufacturer feedback 

obtained during interviews. 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

considered commercially available 

lamps as baselines. In some cases, the 

most common, least efficacious 

commercially available product was at 

an efficacy above the existing standard 

level. Specifically, for the 8-foot RDC 

HO, T5 MiniBP SO, and T5 MiniBP HO 

product classes, DOE was unable to 

identify a commercially available 

product at the existing standard level. 

DOE received several comments 

regarding the selection of these lamps 

with efficacies higher than the existing 

standard levels as baselines. 

NEMA stated that the arguments for 

baseline, CSL 0 in the preliminary TSD, 

are based on predictions of market shift 

that erroneously justify a new baseline 

higher than the minimum requirements 

put forth by the 2009 Lamps Rule. 

(NEMA, No. 36 at p. 1) NEMA 

questioned why the baselines for 

product classes were not set at the 

standard level adopted in the 2009 

Lamps Rule. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 85–85) The CA 

IOUs recommended DOE use the 

efficacy levels set in the 2009 Lamps 

Rule as the baselines for all GSFL 

product classes because minimum 

product performance generally 

gravitates to the minimum standards set 

for the product. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 

13) GE concurred, stating that the 

market will move to lamps at that level 

due to the cost of rare earth materials. 

Therefore, GE asserted that it is easy to 

make the assumption that lamps will 

gravitate towards that minimum level 

over time and that that should be the 

analysis going forward over the next six 

to ten years. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 93–94) 

NEEA and NPCC agreed that DOE 

should use products that minimally 

comply with existing standards as 

baselines and this would be validated 

by the measured and/or certified values. 

(NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at p. 1, 4) The 

CA IOUs also noted that the certification 

database shows that there are products 

right at the level, particularly for the 4- 

foot MBP class. (CA IOUs, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 93–94) 

As noted previously, DOE assesses 

commercially available products on the 

market and chooses baseline lamps 

representative of the common 

characteristics within that product class 

and just meet existing standards. 

However, feedback from stakeholders 

and manufacturer interviews has 

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 believes this trend could continue 

and additional lamps may be offered 

that just meet the existing standard level 

for the remaining product classes. 

Therefore, in this NOPR analysis DOE 

is proposing baselines at the existing 

standard levels for all product classes. 

For the 4-foot MBP product class, DOE 

determined the baseline selected in the 

preliminary analysis to be the least 

efficient product on the market at the 

existing standards. For the 8-foot SP 

slimline product class, DOE also 

changed the baseline lamp to be the 

least efficient product on the market at 

the existing standards. For 

representative product classes in which 

there were no commercially available 

lamps at the existing standard level, 

DOE modeled baseline lamps. To 

determine the performance 

characteristics of these lamps, DOE took 

the ANSI rated wattage of the most 

common, least efficacious commercially 

available lamp and calculated the lumen 

output required to develop an efficacy at 

the existing standard level. DOE 

assumed the modeled baseline lamp 

would have similar characteristics as 

the most common commercially 

available lamps in each product class, 

including lifetime and lumen 

depreciation. DOE modeled baseline 

lamps for the 8-foot RDC HO, T5 

MiniBP SO, and T5 MiniBP HO product 

classes. 

If DOE considered additional types of 

GSFLs in the scope of this rulemaking, 

NEEA and NPCC recommended that for 

product classes that do not currently 

have a standard, DOE should establish 

the baseline at the lowest level of 

efficiency commonly found in the 

marketplace. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 

at p. 1, 4) In this NOPR analysis, DOE 

is not considering additional types of 

GSFLs that are not subject to standards. 

See section V.B for more details. 

NEEP noted that the 2011 Vermont 

Market Characterization and 

Assessment Study conducted by 

Navigant for Vermont’s Public Service 

Department (mentioned previously in 

this notice) established baselines for 

certain products in the state’s 

commercial sector. NEEP urged DOE to 

utilize the fluorescent lighting data 

collected to corroborate DOE’s findings. 

(NEEP, No. 33 at p. 3) 

DOE reviewed the study and found 

that, given the level of detail provided, 

it was difficult to use the results to 

corroborate DOE’s baseline selections. 

The study aims to characterize the 

prevalence of T8 lamps, high 

performance T8 lamps, T12 lamps, and 

T5 lamps in the state of Vermont. While 

it provides market share information for 

standard T8s and high performance T8s, 

it does not provide this information by 

level of efficiency for T5 lamps. Further, 

the lengths of these lamp types are not 

included, and thus DOE was unable to 

compare the results on a product class 

basis. 

When considering general overall 

trends, the study confirmed that T8 

lamps are significantly more prevalent 

than T12 lamps, and T8 standard 

efficiency lamps are more commonly 

installed than high performance T8 

lamps. These high level results support 

certain aspects of the baseline 

selections, namely the selection of T8 

standard performance lamps at the 

baseline. However, the study covers a 

very limited service area and therefore 

cannot be regarded as indicative of the 

most commonly installed lamp types at 

a national level. 

DOE is proposing the baseline lamps 

for GSFLs specified in Table VI.6. See 

chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for further 

details on this assessment. DOE requests 

comment on the baseline lamps 

analyzed in the NOPR analysis, in 

particular the modeled baseline lamps 

in the 8-foot RDC HO, T5 MiniBP SO, 

and T5 MiniBP HO product classes. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24098 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 preliminary 

analysis, 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. 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 comments 

regarding its choices for more 

efficacious substitutes in the 

preliminary analysis. 

T5 HO Product Class 

For the preliminary analysis, in its 

assessment of commercially available 

products, DOE was unable to find a full 

wattage T5 HO lamp with an efficacy 

higher than the baseline. However, DOE 

did find several more efficacious, 

reduced wattage T5 HO lamps at higher 

levels of efficacy. As discussed in 

section VI.D.2.e, DOE is only analyzing 

efficacy levels that can be met by full 

wattage lamps. Therefore, in the 

preliminary analysis, DOE modeled a 

more efficacious full wattage T5 HO 

lamp. Specifically, DOE created a higher 

efficacy model lamp using a more 

efficacious commercially available 

reduced wattage T5 HO lamp to 

calculate the characteristics of a full 

wattage T5 HO lamp of comparable 

efficacy. The CSL considered for the T5 

HO product class was set according to 

the efficacy of this modeled full wattage 

lamp. 

DOE received several comments 

regarding this approach. NEMA stated 

that it could not comment on the 

manufacturability or functionality of the 

T5 HO model lamp put forth in the 

preliminary analysis because the 

product does not exist, and it is poor 

practice to invent new products. 

(NEMA, No. 36 at p. 8) NEMA stated 

that if DOE is unable to use a 

commercially available lamp for 

analysis for this product class it should 

not pursue an increased efficiency level. 

However, in the case that DOE does 

intend to further regulate this product 

class, NEMA stated DOE should arrange 

for the construction and testing of a 

representative number of this modeled 

lamp to obtain information on 

manufacturing feasibility. (NEMA, No. 

36 at p. 8–9) Philips agreed, stating that 

DOE is designing and inventing new 

lamps and it is not known whether they 

are even feasible. This approach could 

potentially result in a product class 

where there are no products available. 

(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

30 at p. 124) 

GE stated it had to get more 

information but noted that its engineers 

had significant concerns regarding the 

T5 MiniBP HO model lamp and the high 

efficacy of the max tech level being 

considered for this product class. Noting 

that it had not seen DOE take this 

approach before, GE stated that DOE 

seems to be going from T5 efficacy 

levels that are relatively easy to meet to 

efficacy levels that may not even be 

technically feasible. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 125–126) 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

concluded that the higher efficacy level 

achieved by reduced wattage T5 HO 

lamps demonstrated the potential for a 

full wattage lamp to achieve an efficacy 

level above the baseline. Accordingly, 

DOE modeled the lamp efficacy of a 

higher efficacy full wattage lamp using 

commercially available reduced wattage 

lamps. DOE acknowledged in the 

preliminary analysis that in determining 

whether it is appropriate to consider a 

CSL based on this model lamp, DOE 

would gather additional information on 

the manufacturability and functionality 

of this lamp, as well as its projected 

efficacy, when measured according to 

the DOE test procedure. DOE does not 

have the necessary information to 

determine whether the higher efficacy 

full wattage T5 HO model lamp was 

technologically feasible, and therefore is 

not considering the higher efficacy 

modeled T5 HO lamp in the NOPR 

analysis. 

As noted previously, in response to 

the stakeholder comments discussed in 

section VI.D.2.c, DOE modeled a 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP29AP14.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24099 

29Mean lumen output is a measure of light output 

midway through the rated life of a lamp. 

30BF 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 

Continued 

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. The more efficacious T5 HO 

lamps are shown in Table VI.7. 

Lifetime Characteristics 

NEEP stated that Energy Efficiency 

Program Administrators from Efficiency 

Vermont and National Grid noted that 

the rated life values for the lamps DOE 

has identified as more efficacious 

substitutes (for 4-foot MBP) are low. 

They specifically pointed out that GE’s 

reduced wattage 25 and 28 W lamps and 

their high lumen 32 W lamps are all 

rated between 40–50,000 hours (instant 

start [IS], 3 hours per start). Further 

Philips rates their reduced wattage 25 

and 28 W lamps at 32,000 hours (IS, 3 

hours per start). ‘‘Extended life’’ lamps 

offer even longer rated lifetimes. (NEEP, 

No. 33 at p. 3) 

As noted in section VI.D.2.c, baseline 

lamps are selected in part based on the 

most common characteristics of their 

respective product classes, and DOE 

selects more efficacious substitutes with 

similar performance characteristics as 

the baseline representative unit when 

possible. Thus, the baseline and more 

efficacious substitutes selected 

represent the most common lifetimes for 

each product class. In the case of the 4- 

foot MBP product class, DOE found that 

a 24,000 hour lifetime on IS ballasts 

with 3 hour starts and a 40,000 hour 

lifetime on programmed start ballasts 

with 3 hour starts were the most 

common lifetimes for the product class. 

DOE notes that the rated lifetime values 

cited by NEEP for GE’s reduced wattage 

25 and 28 W lamps and high lumen 32 

W lamps represent rated lifetime on a 

programmed start ballast with 3 hour 

starts rather than an IS ballast. Therefore 

the 40–50,000 hour lifetimes cited by 

NEEP do align with the rated lifetimes 

(programmed start, 3 hours per start) of 

the more efficacious substitutes 

selected. Further, DOE received 

manufacturer feedback during 

interviews that the lifetime values of the 

more efficacious substitutes were 

representative of their respective 

product classes. Therefore, in this NOPR 

analysis, DOE is maintaining the same 

more efficacious substitutes as selected 

in the preliminary analysis. DOE 

requests comment on the rated lifetimes 

of the GSFL baselines and more 

efficacious substitutes. 

Summary of GSFL Representative 

Lamps 

DOE received no other comments 

regarding the selection of more 

efficacious substitutes for GSFLs. The 

GSFL representative lamps analyzed in 

the NOPR are shown in Table VI.7. 

TABLE VI.7—GSFL REPRESENTATIVE LAMPS

Product classes EL Lamp 

diameter 

Nominal 

wattage 

Rated 

wattage 

Rated 

efficacy 

Initial light 

output 

Mean light 

output 

Life 

CRI 

W W lm/W lm lm hr 

4-foot MBP ............. EL 1 ............. T8 32 32.5 90.0 2,925 2,770 21,000 85 

EL 2 ............. T8 25 26.6 93.0 2,475 2,350 24,000 85 

EL 2 ............. T8 32 32.5 95.4 3,100 2,945 24,000 85 

EL 2 ............. T8 28 28.4 96.0 2,725 2,590 24,000 85 

8-foot SP slimline .. EL 1 ............. T8 59 60.1 98.2 5,900 5,490 24,000 85 

EL 2 ............. T8 59 60.1 99.0 5,950 5,650 24,000 85 

EL 2 ............. T8 54 54.0 105.6 5,700 5,415 24,000 85 

EL 2 ............. T8 50 50.0 108.0 5,400 5,075 24,000 85 

8-foot RDC HO ...... EL 1 ............. T8 86 84.0 95.2 8,000 7,600 18,000 78 

EL 2 ............. T8 86 84.0 97.6 8,200 7,800 18,000 86 

T5 MiniBP SO* ...... EL 1 ............. T5 28 27.8 93.5 2,600 2,418 30,000 85 

EL 2 ............. T5 28 27.8 98.2 2,730 2,594 30,000 85 

EL 2 ............. T5 26 26.0 100.0 2,600 2,470 30,000 85 

EL 2 ............. T5 25 25.0 104.0 2,600 2,475 35,000 85 

T5 MiniBP HO* ...... EL 1 ............. T5 54 53.8 82.7 4,450 4,275 25,000 85 

EL 1 ............. T5 49 49.0 90.8 4,450 4,140 35,000 85 

EL 1 ............. T5 47 47.0 91.9 4,320 3,969 30,000 84 

* 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO and HO rated efficacy, initial lumen output, and mean lumen output given at 25 °C. 

e. General Service Fluorescent Lamp 

Systems 

Because fluorescent lamps operate on 

a ballast in practice, in the preliminary 

analysis, DOE analyzed lamp-andballast 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, in the preliminary analysis DOE 

analyzed more efficacious systems that 

maintain mean lumen output 29 within 

10 percent of the baseline system, when 

possible. Further, in the preliminary 

analysis, DOE selected replacement 

systems that do not have higher energy 

consumption than the baseline system. 

DOE considered two different 

scenarios in the preliminary analysis: 

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24100 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

available at www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0016. 

31BLE is the ratio of the total lamp arc power to 

ballast input power multiplied by the appropriate 

frequency adjustment factor. 

luminous efficiency 31 (BLE). In the 

preliminary analysis, for 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. 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. This resulted in the 

mean lumen output being either 10 

percent above or below the baseline 

lumens for certain lamp-and-ballast 

scenarios. 

DOE received several comments 

regarding its methodology in identifying 

more efficacious lamp-and-ballast 

systems, specifically regarding selection 

of ballasts, maintenance of mean lumen 

output within 10 percent of the 

baseline, and energy saving options not 

explored in the preliminary analysis. 

Ballast Selection 

NEMA agreed with the lamp and 

ballast pairings presented in the 

preliminary analysis. (NEMA, No. 36 at 

p. 8) However, NEMA also stated that 

GSFL performance is highly dependent 

on ballast selection and pairing. NEMA 

pointed out that NES of lighting systems 

will not be affected significantly by this 

proposed rulemaking on GSFL efficacy 

due to the overwhelming influence of 

ballast selection on final performance. 

(NEMA, No. 36 at p. 1) 

As mentioned, because fluorescent 

lamps operate on a ballast in practice, 

DOE analyzed lamp-and-ballast systems 

in the engineering analysis. The impacts 

of these systems on NES were analyzed 

in the NIA. See section VI.I for more 

information on the NES of the proposed 

GSFL systems. 

The CA IOUs expressed concern 

regarding some of the replacement 

systems identified, including lamps 

operating on residential ballasts and 

programmed start ballasts. The CA IOUs 

questioned why a residential ballast 

with a ballast factor of 0.83 was selected 

when DOE could have chosen a ballast 

with a lower ballast factor of 0.77 and 

still stayed within five percent of initial 

lumens. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at p. 253–255) The 

CA IOUs also questioned a specific 

lamp-and-ballast replacement scenario 

considered in the preliminary analysis 

in which a nominal 32 W lamp with an 

efficacy of 95 lm/W, installed with a 

0.88 BF ballast, replaced a 32 W lamp 

at 89.2 lm/W, also using a 0.88 BF 

ballast. (See table 8.5.3 of the 

preliminary TSD.) The CA IOUs noted 

that this retrofit results in a 7 percent 

increase in light output and no 

reduction in energy consumption. If 

DOE had paired a 0.78 BF ballast with 

the more efficacious lamp, the retrofit 

would have resulted in a reduction in 

light output of only 5 percent, and 

would achieve some reduction in energy 

consumption and some energy cost 

savings for the end user. (CA IOUs, No. 

32 at pp. 13–14) 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

considered only commercially available 

ballasts when selecting ballasts to pair 

with lamps. The CA IOUs suggested a 

ballast with a 0.77 BF for the residential 

2-lamp instant start replacement 

scenario and a ballast with a 0.78 BF for 

the 2-lamp programmed start scenario, 

however, DOE found that these ballasts 

do not exist. Because there were no 

residential 2-lamp instant start low BF 

ballasts or 2-lamp programmed start low 

BF ballasts commercially available that 

would also maintain mean lumen 

output within 10 percent of the baseline 

system, DOE was unable to analyze 

ballasts with lower BFs than those 

selected for these scenarios. DOE 

instead selected the same ballast as the 

baseline as this was the lowest BF 

ballast commercially available. 

Ten Percent Mean Lumen Output 

Threshold 

NEMA explained that in the past it 

was common practice to reduce light 

levels by 10 percent or more when 

retrofitting from a T12 to a T8 lighting 

system because older lighting systems 

were typically designed to higher light 

levels. Over the years, IES light level 

requirements have been reduced, 

especially in office applications where 

the use of computers reduces the need 

for high light levels. DOE must analyze 

the future retrofit situation that will 

occur after 2018 in which 4-foot linear 

fluorescent systems will have been 

retrofitted to a T8 or better fluorescent 

system already operating at the 

appropriate lower light levels. Retrofits 

beyond this 2018 time period should be 

expected to maintain the new, lower 

recommended IES light levels where 

they are already in place. Therefore, 

unlike T12 to T8 conversions, projecting 

further light level reductions of 6 to 14 

percent as is done in DOE’s analysis 

cannot be justified against the T8 

systems operating in 2018. For a fair 

economic comparison, DOE should seek 

to match the existing light levels within 

a +/– 5 percent range. (NEMA, No. 36 

at p. 8; GE, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 30 at pp. 90–91; GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 110–112; 

Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

30 at pp. 105–106) 

GE stated that it is not typical to 

replace lighting systems lamp for lamp 

that are more than 10 percent lower in 

light output unless the space is 

considered overlit to begin with or the 

space was repurposed. (GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 90–91) 

For a fair comparison between lighting 

systems, GE recommended that DOE 

stay as close as possible to 10 percent 

and not to go beyond this threshold as 

some systems do in the analysis 

presented. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 119–120) 

EEI agreed that at this time, retrofits 

are being done from T8 to T8 and 

electronic ballast to electronic ballast 

and therefore lumen depreciation is 

limited, at most 10 percent versus 20 or 

30 percent when replacing a T12. EEI 

noted that this could make a difference 

in design for a new building and total 

renovations that are meeting building 

codes. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 30 at pp. 109–110) EEI 

recommended analyzing equal to or 

higher lumen output replacement 

systems to maximize consumer utility in 

terms of maintaining lumen output in 

retrofit scenarios. (EEI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at p. 121) Cooper 

Lighting added that light level is 

important in accurately and correctly 

doing a task in a space and the impact 

of light levels on efficiency in the 

workplace should be given 

consideration. (Cooper, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 110) 

The CA IOUs agreed with DOE’s 

analysis of replacement systems that 

maintained mean lumen output within 

10 percent of the mean lumens of the 

baseline system. Based on experience 

from offering rebate lamps through its 

programs, the CA IOUs had found that 

nine times out of ten after changing the 

lights in a commercial space, the 

complaints are that it is too bright. The 

CA IOUs asserted that most spaces were 

not designed exactly to IES standards 

but give a little extra light initially. 

Additionally, the CA IOUs noted that 

lumen maintenance is a significant issue 

with fluorescent systems, particularly 

because the replacement of older T12 

systems with newer, more efficacious 

systems makes the space seem even 

brighter after a retrofit. The CA IOUs 

further stated that the scenarios where 

you increase light output by 5, 8, 12 

percent are not going to work for 

consumers and reducing light output by 

2, 4, 6, 8 percent will still seem too 

bright. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 106–108) 

As stated previously, because light 

output decreases over time, DOE 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24101 

32Light 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. 

analyzed more efficacious systems that 

maintain mean lumen output within 10 

percent of the baseline when possible. 

DOE established the 10 percent 

threshold based on feedback from 

manufacturers that, in general, 

consumers would not notice a change in 

light output that is up to 10 percent. 

Manufacturers noted during interviews 

that when a space needs to be relamped, 

lumen depreciation has already 

typically occurred and thus lower light 

levels of a newly installed lamp would 

likely not be detected. Manufacturers 

also noted that while application 

dependent, designing to achieve energy 

savings is common and a decreased 

lumen output as a result is generally 

accepted as long as it is somewhere in 

the range of 10 percent of the baseline 

system mean lumen output. DOE 

concluded that selecting lamp-andballast system replacements within 10 

percent of the baseline system when 

possible ensures sufficient light levels 

are maintained and accurately reflects 

common practices. Therefore, in this 

NOPR analysis, DOE is continuing to 

utilize the criterion of maintaining 10 

percent of the mean lumen output when 

possible in developing lamp-and-ballast 

replacement scenarios. 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. DOE continued to 

do this in the NOPR analysis because 

feedback during manufacturer 

interviews confirmed that changes in 

mean lumen output outside 10 percent 

of the baseline system are acceptable in 

some applications. 

In the preliminary analysis, some 

lamp-and-ballast replacement systems 

maintained light output within 10 

percent of the baseline system but did 

not save energy. DOE analyzed these 

lamp and ballast combinations as the 

only replacement option because they 

met the 10 percent mean lumen output 

criterion. For the NOPR analysis, DOE 

considered additional scenarios for this 

situation based on feedback from 

stakeholders and manufacturer 

interviews. DOE added another 

replacement option in which the 

consumer could prioritize energy 

savings by selecting a lamp-and-ballast 

system that reduced lumen output by 

more than 10 percent but also reduced 

energy consumption. Therefore, for 

certain lamp-and-ballast replacement 

scenarios, two ballast selections may 

exist: (1) A ballast that maintains system 

mean lumen output within 10 percent of 

the baseline; and (2) a ballast that 

achieves energy savings but does not 

maintain system mean lumen output 

within 10 percent of the baseline. DOE 

added this option only if ballasts with 

the required lower ballast factor were 

commercially available. Thus, it 

remains possible that certain scenarios 

do not result in energy savings if a lower 

BF ballast or reduced wattage lamp is 

not available (e.g., 8-foot RDC HO 

product class). See chapter 5 of the 

NOPR TSD for more information. 

In response to the lamp-and-ballast 

system selections presented in the 

preliminary analysis, EEI commented 

that light output was being reduced 

between 8 and 13.8 percent. EEI stated 

this is important because even if it is 

possible to meet the watts per square 

requirements in new buildings, the 

lumen output requirements on the 

surface must also be met by putting in 

more fixtures. Therefore, EEI argued that 

system input power calculations 

presented in the preliminary analysis 

may show savings that disappear once 

the space is designed to put in more 

fixtures. (EEI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 103–105) 

Philips noted that putting in more 

fixtures is not going to help because 

fixtures are mainly in the middle of the 

room. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 105–106) 

As noted, for the lamp-and-ballast 

replacement scenarios, 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 when possible. DOE 

determined that maintaining 10 percent 

of mean lumen output allows for 

changes in lumen output within an 

acceptable range to the consumer. If this 

was not possible, DOE prioritized 

energy savings and analyzed a lampand-ballast system that reduced light 

output by more than 10 percent but 

saved energy relative to the baseline 

system. DOE did not analyze the 

installation of additional fixtures due to 

feedback received from stakeholders 

that spacing adjustments are not 

practical (for a discussion of this 

conclusion, see section VI.G.9). 

Energy Savings Over Light Output 

The CA IOUs and NEEA and NPCC 

did not agree with DOE’s consideration 

of lamp-and-ballast system 

replacements where the light output 

increases without a reduction in system 

wattage. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 13–14; 

NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at p. 2, 4) The 

CA IOUs stated that commercial 

occupants are sensitive to changes in 

workplace lighting, and react negatively 

to light increases. Furthermore, 

commercial building operators are very 

sensitive to operating costs; and will 

choose the retrofit option that results in 

energy cost savings without 

significantly reducing the light levels 

unless the space was known to be 

underlit. Therefore, where DOE is 

presented with a choice between a 

lighting retrofit that would result in an 

increase of light levels between 0–10 

percent, with no energy savings, and 

another that would result in a decrease 

of light levels between 0–10 percent, 

with energy savings, DOE should model 

the energy saving option as the most 

likely scenario for consumers. (CA 

IOUs, No. 32 at p. 14) 

The CA IOUs and NEEA and NPCC 

cited the following available options for 

reducing system wattage without 

reducing system lumen output by more 

than 10 percent: installing reduced 

wattage lamps, reducing ballast factors, 

delamping, and installing dimming 

ballasts. Though some reduced wattage 

T8 lamps currently have some difficulty 

dimming as well as their full wattage 

counterparts, this is only an issue for 

lamps installed with dimming ballasts. 

(Although, they noted that this may be 

improving in the future through the use 

of dimming ballasts designed to operate 

reduced wattage lamps.) The CA IOUs 

noted that reduced wattage lamps, lower 

ballast factor ballasts, or delamping are 

valid options, when not using a 

dimming ballast. Further even if a 

dimming ballast is installed, higher 

efficacy (brighter), full wattage lamps 

can be installed and tuned to the 

appropriate light level, which reduces 

system wattage. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 

13–14) 

The CA IOUs and NEEA and NPCC 

noted that using these measures to 

achieve energy savings for the end user 

is a far more likely scenario for a realworld lighting retrofit project. (CA IOUs, 

No. 32 at pp. 13–14; NEEA and NPCC, 

No. 34 at p. 2, 4) NEEA and NPCC 

added that resulting energy cost savings 

also help pay for the retrofit, and 

retrofits may only infrequently result in 

increased light levels. (NEEA and NPCC, 

No. 34 at p. 2, 4) 

DOE acknowledges that consumers 

may prioritize energy savings over 

maintaining light output in some 

applications. DOE also observes that 

several options exist to reduce system 

wattage while maintaining lumen 

output. DOE analyzed reduced wattage 

lamps and low BF ballasts as 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24102 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

33Light 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. 

replacement options in the engineering 

analysis. DOE also analyzed the use of 

dimming ballasts paired with both 

reduced wattage and full wattage lamps 

(for applicable product classes) to 

achieve energy savings in a lighting 

controls scenario conducted as a 

sensitivity in the LCC and NIA. See 

appendix 6A and chapter 12 of the 

NOPR TSD for further information on 

the dimming analysis. 

In addition to the above mentioned 

approaches utilized in the preliminary 

analysis, DOE added scenarios in the 

NOPR to incorporate the feedback from 

stakeholders that some consumers 

would prioritize energy savings over 

increasing or maintaining light output. 

As discussed previously, for the lampand-ballast replacement scenarios that 

resulted only in increased light output, 

DOE added another replacement option 

for this situation in which the consumer 

could prioritize energy savings by 

selecting a lamp-and-ballast system that 

reduced lumen output by more than 10 

percent but also reduced energy 

consumption. DOE received feedback 

from manufacturers that maintenance of 

less than 10 percent of lumen output of 

the baseline system is more likely than 

increasing lumen output when replacing 

systems in order to achieve energy 

savings. Thus, DOE added the option for 

a consumer to select a lower BF ballast, 

if commercially available, that results in 

mean lumen output outside 10 percent 

of the baseline system in order to 

provide an energy-saving option if 

possible. As in the preliminary analysis, 

DOE did not consider delamping in this 

NOPR because manufacturer feedback 

confirmed that delamping is not 

common practice when retrofitting 

existing T8 systems. 

Summary 

DOE maintained its overall 

methodology from the preliminary 

analysis for selecting lamp-and-ballast 

systems with the addition of new 

replacement options in some scenarios 

for the NOPR analysis to incorporate 

stakeholder feedback. To develop 

representative lamp-and-ballast system 

pairings, DOE used manufacturer 

feedback and information provided in 

the 2011 Ballast Rule to determine the 

most common fluorescent lamp ballasts. 

In the preliminary and NOPR analyses, 

DOE paired the representative ballasts 

utilized in the 2011 Ballast Rule with 

the representative lamps selected in this 

analysis to characterize the most 

common lamp-and-ballast combinations 

present in the market. 

In events where consumers needed to 

replace both the lamp and the ballast, 

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 33 but saved energy relative to 

the baseline system. 

In the preliminary analysis, some 

lamp-and-ballast replacement systems 

maintained light output within 10 

percent of the baseline system but did 

not save energy. In the preliminary 

analysis, DOE analyzed these lamp-andballast combinations as the only 

replacement option because they met 

the 10 percent mean lumen output 

criterion. However, in the NOPR 

analysis, DOE added another 

replacement option for this situation in 

which the consumer could prioritize 

energy savings by selecting a lamp-andballast system that reduced lumen 

output by more than 10 percent but also 

reduced energy consumption. DOE 

added this option only if ballasts with 

the required lower BF were 

commercially available. See chapter 5 of 

the NOPR TSD for more information. 

DOE welcomes comments on its 

methodology for developing lamp-andballast systems and as well as the results 

of these GSFL systems. 

f. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

DOE received several comments on 

the max tech level presented in the 

preliminary analysis for GSFLs. Lutron 

commented that with the exception of 

the 4-foot MBP class, CSLs presented in 

the preliminary analysis were higher 

than the max tech levels identified in 

the 2009 Lamps Rule. Lutron noted that 

for the 8-foot SP slimline product class 

the max tech level in the 2009 Lamps 

Rule was 98 lm/W while the CSL level 

being considered is at 99 lm/W; for the 

8-foot RDC HO product class the 2009 

Lamps Rule max tech was 95 lm/W 

while the preliminary analysis CSL is 97 

lm/W; for the T5 MiniBP SO product 

class the 2009 Lamps Rule max tech 

level was 90 lm/W while the 

preliminary analysis CSL is 98.2 lm/W; 

for the T5 MiniBP HO product class the 

2009 Lamps Rule max tech level was 76 

lm/W and the preliminary analysis CSL 

is 86.2 lm/W. (Lutron, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 129–130) 

NEEA and NPCC doubted the data used 

because CSLs presented were at higher 

efficacy levels than the max tech levels 

identified in the 2009 Lamps Rule. 

(NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at p. 2, 3) 

NEMA also commented that having one 

CSL eliminates DOE’s ability to analyze 

standard levels other than the baseline 

and max tech and makes it more likely 

that max tech will become the new 

standard. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at p. 350) 

NEMA asked for an explanation of 

CSL levels higher than the max tech 

identified in the 2009 Lamps Rule for 

the 8-foot lamps. (NEMA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 12–13) 

Lutron stated and NEMA concurred that 

unless there had been major 

technological breakthrough in 

fluorescent lamps, adopting standards 

more stringent than the max tech levels 

identified in the 2009 Lamps Rule 

would not be justified. (Lutron, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 129– 

130; NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 30 at pp. 137) Philips and GE 

confirmed that there had been no recent 

technology changes in fluorescent lamp 

technology to warrant higher levels 

being considered than the max tech 

levels identified in the 2009 Lamps 

Rule. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at p. 130; GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 130– 

131) NEMA concluded that because 

there have been no noteworthy 

technological breakthroughs since the 

last rulemaking or great changes in the 

market, the maximum-feasible 

performance levels of the previous rule 

have not changed (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 

1) 

GE noted that because the 2009 

Lamps Rule was moving from relatively 

modest efficiency levels, the discussion 

did not center around what lm/W are 

being reported and what is stated in 

catalogs. However, GE noted that in this 

rulemaking because the levels being 

considered are at very high levels it is 

important to consider whether the lm/ 

W numbers are actually achievable. GE 

recommended that for max tech levels 

DOE use test data that show exactly 

what these products are capable of and 

not base levels on marketing claims to 

avoid situations where the established 

efficacy turns out to be unachievable, 

resulting in the elimination of a product 

class. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24103 

34ELs span multiple lamps of different wattages. 

In selecting CSLs, DOE considered whether these 

multiple lamps can meet the ELs. 

No. 30 at pp. 144–146) Specifically, GE 

noted that it was concerned that the 

CSLs presented were based on more 

aggressive marketing claims in catalogs 

and not on any real change in 

technology. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 138–139) 

DOE identified several commercially 

available lamps performing at efficacy 

levels higher than the max tech levels 

established in the 2009 Lamps Rule. 

Thus, manufacturers appear to be 

utilizing more advanced technologies or 

to be more efficiently utilizing existing 

technologies. The efficacy values 

provided in manufacturer product 

catalogs and certification data supplied 

by manufacturers indicate that these 

levels are achievable. DOE welcomes 

comment on the max tech levels 

identified in this analysis and more 

information on the accuracy of catalog 

and certification data. 

g. Efficacy Levels 

After identifying more efficacious 

substitutes for each of the baseline 

lamps, in the preliminary analysis DOE 

developed CSLs 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; 34 and (3) 

the max tech level. When evaluating 

CSLs in the preliminary analysis, DOE 

considered only CSLs at which a full 

wattage version of the lamp type was 

available because reduced wattage 

lamps have limited utility. DOE 

received several comments on the CSLs 

considered in the preliminary analysis. 

NEMA recommended revisions to the 

CSLs presented in the preliminary 

analysis. Specifically, NEMA proposed 

a level at 89 lm/W for the 4-foot MBP 

product class, 97 lm/W for the 8-foot SP 

slimline product class, 94 lm/W for the 

8-foot RDC HO product class, 90 lm/W 

for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO product 

class, and 80 lm/W for the 4-foot T5 

MiniBP HO product class. (NEMA, No. 

36 at p. 9) Further, in reference to T5 

lamps, NEMA noted that regardless of 

whether DOE had presented CSLs at 25 

°C or 35 °C, the efficacies of the 

analyzed products are too high to serve 

as representative products. (NEMA, No. 

36 at p. 10) 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

considered two CSLs for the 4-foot MBP 

product class. DOE found two levels of 

efficacy above the existing standard that 

commercially available lamps were able 

to achieve. The baseline represented a 

standard 800 series full wattage T8 

lamp. CSL 1 (90.0 lm/W) represented an 

improved 800 series full wattage T8 

lamp in which the phosphor mix and/ 

or coating was enhanced to increase 

efficacy. CSL 2 (93.0 lm/W) represented 

an 800 series full wattage T8 high lumen 

lamp able to achieve a higher efficacy 

with even more advanced phosphors. 

Reduced wattage lamps also met CSL 2. 

DOE analyzed publicly available 

certification data to determine if any 

adjustments were needed to ensure that 

proposed levels can be met based on the 

certification data. DOE determined that 

the representative units and/or 

equivalent lamps complied with the 

CSLs for the 4-foot MBP product class. 

DOE therefore concluded that no 

adjustments were necessary in the 

preliminary analysis based on the 

available certification data. 

In response to the preliminary 

analysis CSLs, NEMA proposed revising 

CSL 1 to 89 lm/W for the 4-foot MBP 

product class, which is equivalent to the 

existing standard. In the NOPR analysis, 

DOE continued to identify two levels of 

efficacy above the baseline. 

Manufacturer-provided information in 

catalogs indicates that there are two 

distinct product lines available with 

efficacies higher than the baseline 

products. The baseline level represents 

a standard 800 series full wattage T8 

lamp. In the NOPR analysis, DOE 

maintained EL 1 (90.0 lm/W) which 

represents an improved 800 series full 

wattage T8 lamp. DOE also maintained 

EL 2 (93.0 lm/W) which represents 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 the preliminary 

analysis value of 93.0 lm/W to 92.4 lm/ 

W based on additional certification data. 

DOE considered one CSL for the 8- 

foot SP slimline product class at 99.0 

lm/W in the preliminary analysis. The 

baseline represented a standard 800 

series full wattage T8 lamp, and DOE 

identified one level of efficacy above the 

baseline. CSL 1 represented an 

improved 800 series full wattage (59 W) 

T8 lamp in which the phosphor mix 

and/or coating is enhanced to increase 

efficacy. Reduced wattage lamps also 

met this CSL. DOE determined through 

publicly available compliance reports 

that the 54 W representative unit and/ 

or equivalent lamps complied with CSL 

1. Thus, DOE concluded that no 

adjustment was necessary to CSL 1 in 

the preliminary analysis. 

NEMA recommended revising CSL 1 

to 97 lm/W for the 8-foot SP slimline 

product class, which is equivalent to the 

existing standard, in response to the 

preliminary analysis. For the NOPR 

analysis, as mentioned previously, DOE 

selected a new baseline lamp that just 

complies with the existing standard 

level of 97 lm/W. 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. 

For the 8-foot RDC HO product class, 

DOE had put forth CSL 1 at 97.0 lm/W 

in the preliminary analysis. The 

baseline represented a 700 series full 

wattage (86 W) T8 lamp, and DOE 

identified one level of efficacy above the 

baseline. CSL 1 represented a shift from 

700 series to 800 series full wattage T8 

lamps. Based on available certification 

data for the 86 W T8 representative unit 

and/or equivalent lamps at CSL 1, DOE 

adjusted CSL 1 from 97.6 lm/W to 97.0 

lm/W for 800 series full wattage T8 

lamps. 

In response to the CSL proposed in 

the preliminary analysis for the 8-foot 

RDC HO product class, NEMA suggested 

changing CSL 1 to 94 lm/W. DOE 

revised its analysis for the NOPR and 

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 now 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 

again 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 

remains 97.6 lm/W. DOE notes that this 

level representing the 800 series design 

option in the preliminary analysis 

(previously CSL 1) was adjusted to 97.0 

lm/W; however, based on additional 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24104 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

certification data, an adjustment is not 

necessary. 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE had 

considered one CSL at 98.2 lm/W for the 

4-foot T5 MiniBP SO product class. The 

baseline represented an 800 series full 

wattage (28 W) T5 lamp with basic 

coating, gas composition, and phosphor 

mix. CSL 1 represented an improved 

800 series full wattage T8 lamp in 

which the phosphor mix and/or coating 

was enhanced to increase efficacy. 

Reduced wattage lamps also met this 

level. DOE then compared the 

certification data to the initial efficacy 

level at 25 °C to determine if 

adjustments were necessary. DOE 

determined through publicly available 

compliance reports that the 

representative unit and/or equivalent 

lamps complied with CSL 1. Therefore, 

DOE did not adjust the initial CSL 

considered for this product class. 

NEMA recommended revising CSL 1 

to 90 lm/W for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO 

product class. DOE updated its analysis 

for the NOPR and 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 

less efficient full wattage (28 W) lamp. 

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 T8 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 

additional certification data. 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

considered one CSL for the 4-foot T5 

MiniBP HO product class at 86.2 lm/W. 

The baseline represented an 800 series 

full wattage (54 W) T5 lamp with basic 

coating, gas composition, and phosphor 

mix. CSL 1 represented reduced wattage 

lamps, including 50 W T5 and 47 W T5 

lamps, or an improved 800 series full 

wattage T8 lamp in which the phosphor 

mix and/or coating is enhanced to 

increase efficacy. Because there were no 

commercially available full wattage 

higher efficacy replacements for the 4- 

foot T5 MiniBP HO baseline lamps, DOE 

modeled a more efficacious full wattage 

lamp. DOE determined through publicly 

available compliance reports that the 

commercially available reduced wattage 

representative units and/or equivalent 

lamps complied with CSL 1. Therefore, 

DOE did not adjust the initial CSL 

considered for this product class. 

For the T5 MiniBP HO product class, 

NEMA suggested revising CSL 1 to 80 

lm/W. DOE agrees with NEMA that 

there is only one level of efficacy above 

the baseline level for this product class; 

however, performance based on 

commercially available lamps 

corresponded to 76 lm/W. DOE revised 

its analysis for the NOPR and 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 less efficient full wattage 

(54 W) lamp. Manufacturer-provided 

information in catalogs indicates that 

there is one distinct product line 

available with 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 evaluating EL 1 at 82.7 lm/W. 

NEMA commented that having one 

CSL eliminates DOE’s ability to analyze 

standard levels other than the baseline 

and max tech and makes it more likely 

that max tech will become the new 

standard. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at p. 350) EEI also 

expressed concern that besides the 4- 

foot MBP product class, only one CSL 

was being considered for all other 

product classes which was also 

representative of the max tech level 

based on the criteria that full wattage 

lamps had to meet every CSL being 

considered. EEI further noted that it was 

not aware of any other rulemaking 

where no other levels were proposed 

between the baseline and max tech. 

(EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 

at pp. 124, 135–137) 

As described in the preceding 

paragraphs, DOE revised its engineering 

analysis for the NOPR analysis. DOE 

surveyed the market, analyzed product 

catalogs, and took into account feedback 

from manufacturers to develop ELs. 

Based on this assessment, DOE 

identified varying levels of efficacy that 

reflected technology changes and met 

the criteria for developing ELs outlined 

above. In the NOPR, DOE is considering 

two ELs in each product class with the 

exception of the T5 MiniBP HO product 

class. 

DOE also received several comments 

regarding full wattage lamps meeting 

efficacy levels under consideration. 

NEMA stated that if the efficacy level at 

CSL 2 for the 4-foot MBP lamp can be 

achieved only with more efficient 

krypton-filled (i.e., reduced wattage) 

fluorescent lamps, it will come at the 

cost of reliable dimming that will have 

an impact on energy savings compared 

to the baseline. Lutron stated that the 

full wattage lamps in both the T8 and 

T5 categories are the only ones for 

which there are dimming standards in 

the industry. Lutron expressed concern 

that the CSLs being considered by DOE 

would eliminate full wattage lamps and 

that would result in a loss of significant 

energy savings, not just the theoretical 

energy savings associated with the lamp 

efficacy, which may or may not result in 

any actual energy savings in buildings. 

(Lutron, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

30 at pp. 133–134) NEMA strongly 

cautioned DOE to bear in mind that 

reduced wattage lamps are often 

‘‘energy saver’’ models, which lack the 

robust performance of full wattage 

models. Full functionality for dimming, 

a desirable characteristic, is typically 

only available in full wattage models. 

(NEMA, No. 36 at p. 11) 

DOE acknowledges that there are 

limitations with using reduced wattage 

fluorescent lamps. DOE received 

feedback during manufacturer 

interviews that reduced wattage lamps 

cannot act as replacements for full 

wattage lamps in all applications, 

particularly in cold temperature 

applications below 60–65 °F. 

Manufacturers also noted that striations 

remain an issue for reduced wattage 

lamps because not all ballasts contain 

striation control circuitry, and those 

equipped with striation control circuitry 

do not completely eliminate striation. 

Further, manufacturers identified issues 

with dimming reduced wattage lamps 

indicating that these lamps dim 

unreliably in certain applications. 

Manufacturers noted that problems 

encountered with dimming linear 

fluorescent lamps, including lamp 

starting, striations, and dropout, are 

exacerbated by the use of krypton in 

reduced wattage lamps (see section 

VI.C.1 for more information). Therefore, 

DOE has continued to ensure that full 

wattage lamps can meet all ELs under 

consideration in this NOPR analysis. 

For the NOPR analysis, DOE used 

updated catalog and certification data, 

which resulted in slightly different ELs 

than those considered in the 

preliminary analysis. The ELs for the 

representative product classes of GSFLs 

are presented in Table VI.8. For further 

information on the development of ELs, 

please refer to chapter 5 of the NOPR 

TSD. DOE welcomes comments on the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24105 

35Current standards for the 4-foot MBP product 

classes are 89 lm/W for CCT ≤4,500 K and 88 lm/ 

W for CCT >4,500 K. Because the difference 

between existing standards is small, the allowable 

scaling factor is restricted to 2 percent. 

methodology used to develop ELs for 

GSFLs as well as on the ELs. 

TABLE VI.8—SUMMARY OF ELS FOR GSFL REPRESENTATIVE PRODUCT CLASSES

CCT Lamp type 

Efficacy level 

lm/W 

1 2 

≤4,500 K ............................................. 4-foot MBP ...................................................................................................... 90.0 92.4 

8-foot SP slimline ............................................................................................ 98.2 99.0 

8-foot RDC HO ............................................................................................... 94.0 97.6 

4-foot T5 MiniBP SO ...................................................................................... 93.5 97.1 

4-foot T5 MiniBP HO ...................................................................................... 82.7 N/A 

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 ≤4,500 K, with the exception 

of 2-foot U-shaped lamps. For the 2-foot 

U shaped product class DOE scaled the 

efficacy levels developed for the 4-foot 

MBP product class. 

Therefore, efficacy levels developed 

for lamp types with CCTs less than or 

equal to the 4,500 K were scaled to 

obtain levels for higher CCT product 

classes not analyzed. In the preliminary 

analysis, DOE developed this scaling 

factor by identifying pairs of the same 

lamp type manufactured by the same 

manufacturer, within the same product 

family, and differed only by CCT. DOE 

determined the average difference in 

efficacy between these lamp pairs to be 

2 percent. DOE received several 

comments on this approach and 

resulting scaling factor. 

CCT Scaling 

NEMA stated that the 2 percent 

decrease for lamps with CCT >4,500 K 

is insufficient to reflect the actual drop 

in lm/W that occurs. NEMA stated it is 

well known in the industry that as CCT 

increases above 4,500 K, the lumen 

output and consequently the lm/W 

continues to decrease. Actual 

performance data for the common 

F32T8 5,000 K tri-phosphor lamps 

indicates the decrease in lm/W to be in 

the 4–6 percent range and in the 6–8 

percent rage for an F32T8 6,500 K triphosphor lamp. NEMA noted that this 

reduction in lm/W at >4,500 K CCT 

becomes more significant for higher 

targets of lm/W. (NEMA, No. 36 at pp. 

12–13) 

NEMA also noted that the 1 percent 

reduction from the 4-foot MBP product 

class with ≤4,500 K CCT to the higher 

CCT lamps set by the 2009 Lamps Rule 

was a significant error in the analysis. 

NEMA stated that because of the 

resulting high lm/W target for the 4-foot 

MBP lamps, the T8 tri-phosphor 6,500 

K products were almost eliminated from 

the market. Further, NEMA asserted that 

when the waiver of standards for 700 

series lamps is lifted this product may 

be eliminated because manufacturers 

may not be able to reliably meet current 

regulations for the high CCT products. 

(NEMA, No. 36 at pp. 12–13) 

GE stated that the 2 percent decrease 

for the high chromaticity lamps is 

probably accurate. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 153–154) 

NEMA recommended a scaling factor 

that allows a decrease of at least 7 

percent to accommodate the average 

performance of the higher CCT’s. These 

highly efficient high CCT families of 

products have been growing in 

importance and sales in recent years 

due to results from studies (i.e., IESNA 

TM–24) indicating that lighting that has 

more blue component actually provides 

for better visual capabilities, especially 

for the aging population. NEMA stated 

that this has resulted in a noticeable 

shift in the market to >4,500 K products. 

Any increase in the lm/W requirements 

for the >4,500 K lamps will eliminate 

some, and possibly all, of these higher 

performing high CCT lamps in the 

remaining classifications. While the 

prior ruling may have already destined 

the elimination of the 6,500 K triphosphor 4-foot T8–T12 linear 

classification of GSFLs, there is still the 

opportunity to protect the 5,000 K triphosphor family of lamps by not 

changing the lm/W targets for this 

group. (NEMA, No. 36 at pp. 12–13) 

Based on comments received from 

stakeholders and feedback in 

manufacturer interviews, DOE 

reassessed the scaling analysis for the 

higher CCT lamps. DOE examined the 

differences in efficacies between lower 

and higher CCT lamps in each product 

class based on performance data 

provided in manufacturer catalogs. 

Finding substantial variation in the 

percent reduction in efficacy associated 

with increased CCT among product 

classes, DOE is proposing a separate 

scaling factor for each product class. 

DOE is proposing to maintain a 2 

percent scaling factor for the 4-foot MBP 

product class in order to ensure that any 

proposed level does not allow for more 

energy use than the current minimum 

standard.35 Based on its assessment, 

DOE is proposing a 3 percent scaling 

factor for the 2-foot U-shaped product 

class, 5 percent for the 8-foot SP 

slimline product class, 2 percent for the 

8-foot RDC HO product class, 6 percent 

for the T5 SO product class, and 5 

percent for the T5 HO product class. 

DOE also verified the scaling factors 

developed against certification data. 

Further, DOE confirmed that lamps with 

CCT greater than 4,500 K will meet the 

scaled levels. See chapter 5 of the NOPR 

TSD for more information on CCT 

scaling. DOE welcomes comments on 

the scaling factors developed to scale 

GSFL product classes from the less than 

or equal to 4,500 K CCT lamps to the 

greater than 4,500 K CCT lamps. 

2-Foot U-Shaped Scaling 

NEMA stated that the scaling factor 

for 2-foot U-shaped lamps of 2 percent 

is too small. Because no technology 

changes or improvements have been 

made to U-shaped lamps during the past 

three years, NEMA recommended 

remaining consistent with the 2009 

Lamp Rule scaling factor and use 6 

percent. NEMA added that the 

efficiency of these lamps cannot be 

significantly, feasibly raised, so the 

minimum efficiency of these products 

should remain 84 lm/W. (NEMA, No. 36 

at p. 12) GE noted there are some 

confounding factors for which DOE 

needs to account if the scaling factor 

analysis for the 2-foot U-shaped class is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24106 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

36Philips 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. 

based on catalog data and even 

manufacturer to manufacturer data. GE 

stated that efficacy difference was more 

likely in the 4–6 percent range as 

opposed to what is found in catalog 

data. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 30 at p. 154) 

DOE reassessed the scaling analysis 

for 2-foot U-shaped lamps based on 

comments received. In the preliminary 

analysis, DOE had based its scaling 

assessment on lamp performance data 

found in catalogs. However, DOE 

revised its analysis to utilize 

certification data for the NOPR based on 

feedback received from manufacturers 

indicating that confounding factors exist 

that are not reflected in catalog data. By 

comparing certification data for 2-foot 

U-shaped lamps with equivalent 4-foot 

MBP lamps, DOE determined an average 

efficacy reduction of 6 percent for the 2- 

foot U-shaped lamps from the 4-foot 

MBP lamps was appropriate. DOE 

confirmed that the technology impacts 

of the scaled ELs for the 2-foot U-shaped 

lamps were consistent with those of the 

proposed ELs for the 4-foot MBP 

product class. See chapter 5 of the 

NOPR TSD for more information on 2- 

foot U-shaped scaling. DOE welcomes 

comments on the scaling factor 

developed to scale from the 4-foot MBP 

product class to the 2-foot U-shaped 

product class. 

i. Rare Earth Phosphors 

NEMA restated its support of previous 

submitted comments of its concerns 

regarding the rare earth phosphor issue. 

(NEMA, No. 36 at p. 14) NEMA asked 

how the analysis accounts for the 

current shortage of rare earth elements 

and the existing practice of waivers and 

further how these factors impact 

compliance capability. (NEMA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 131– 

132) NEMA recommended the DOE 

confer with Dr. Alan King of the Critical 

Materials Institute of the AMES 

Laboratories to fully understand and 

predict the availability of critical 

materials, including rare earth elements. 

He observed to the NEMA Lighting 

Systems Division recently that once a 

material becomes critical, it tends to 

stay critical, with fluctuations, but no 

slacking of demand/criticality until the 

product demand disappears altogether. 

(NEMA, No. 36 at p. 14) 

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 twoyear 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.36

DOE understands a constrained supply 

of rare earth phosphors may have 

impacts on the production of higher 

efficiency fluorescent lamps. DOE also 

acknowledges that supply and demand 

of rare earth phosphors should continue 

to be considered when evaluating 

amended standards for GSFLs. Thus as 

in the preliminary analysis, for this 

NOPR analysis DOE is considering a 

scenario of increased rare earth 

phosphor prices in the LCC and NIA. 

See appendices 7B and 9B of the NOPR 

TSD for more information. 

3. Incandescent Reflector Lamp 

Engineering 

For IRLs, DOE received comments on 

the engineering analysis presented in 

the preliminary TSD. Stakeholders 

provided feedback on the metric used to 

measure IRL efficacy, as well as 

feedback on DOE’s representative 

product classes, selection of more 

efficacious substitutes, baseline lamps, 

max tech level, CSLs, scaling, and 

proposing standards for IRLs. The 

following sections summarize the 

comments and responses received on 

these topics, and present the IRL 

engineering methodology for this NOPR 

analysis. 

a. Metric 

Existing IRL standards are based on 

lamp efficacy measured as the lumen 

output of the lamp per watt supplied to 

the lamp. Further, the scope of coverage 

for existing IRL standards includes 

lamps that are equal to or greater than 

40 W and less than or equal to 205 W. 

(See section V.C for further information 

on IRL scope.) Noting that wattage is a 

factor in defining the scope of IRLs 

covered, The CA IOUs recommended 

moving in the direction of lumen-based 

standards because lumens are useful to 

a consumer, whereas watts are no longer 

a useful metric. For example, the CA 

IOUs noted that lamp packaging that 

says that the lamp’s rated 55 W equals 

70 W does not make sense. The CA 

IOUs recommended that in general, 

DOE should do as much as possible to 

help shift discourse to be lumen-based 

instead of wattage-based, and standards 

are one way to help do so. Additionally, 

the CA IOUs stated that for a specific 

product type, manufacturers are 

accustomed to designing to a wattage 

because that is what consumers are used 

to (e.g., designing to 50 W regardless of 

the product efficacy), which produces a 

volume of products giving more or less 

light. However, the CA IOUs asserted 

that efficacy should be improved by 

reducing wattage rather than increasing 

light output. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 45–48) 

EEI, however, noted that the wattage 

equivalency provided on packaging is 

useful to the consumer. They noted that 

the standards are in lumens per watt, 

which is a formula that provides a 

requirement for lamps to be more 

efficient on an efficacy, rather than 

wattage, basis. However, especially for 

incandescent lamps, packaging stating 

that the 72 W halogen lamp is equal to 

an old 100 W incandescent lamp lets 

consumers know what they are getting, 

including the associated light output. 

Otherwise, as historically higher watts 

produce higher lumens, consumers 

would be confused, especially with 

CFLs and LED lamps. (EEI, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 48–50) 

Energy conservation standards must 

prescribe either a minimum level of 

energy efficiency or a maximum 

quantity of energy use, where the former 

is a ratio of the useful output of services 

to the energy use of the product. 42 

U.S.C. 6291(5)(6) The existing standard 

for IRLs is a lumens per watt, or lamp 

efficacy, metric. Setting a standard 

based on lumens alone would not 

capture the efficiency of the product nor 

allow for a true comparison of efficiency 

across lamp wattages. By relating the 

input power to the light output, this 

metric appropriately measures the 

efficiency of the lamp. 

Regarding setting standards that 

would drive manufacturers to meet 

energy conservation standards by 

reducing wattage and not increasing 

light output, DOE standards do not aim 

to favor any one design pathway for 

achieving energy efficiency and saving 

energy. DOE employs an equation that 

relates lumens to wattage and sets a 

minimum efficacy requirement across 

all wattages for IRLs. This power law 

equation captures the potential efficacy 

using a particular design option for all 

wattages. DOE acknowledges that 

manufacturers may choose to increase 

lumen output rather than decrease 

wattage to meet the minimum efficacy 

requirement. Therefore, the engineering 

analysis considers energy-saving 

options. Further, lumen outputs that are 

not within 10 percent of the baseline 

lumens are not considered in the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24107 

analysis. (See chapter 5 of the NOPR 

TSD for further details on the 

engineering analysis.) The NIA 

considers all available options for 

consumers in choosing IRLs. (See 

section VI.J and chapter 12 of the NOPR 

TSD.) 

DOE acknowledges consumer 

understanding of the relationship 

between watts and lumens could be 

improved through labeling and 

marketing of lamps. However, this is not 

within the scope of DOE’s authority in 

this rulemaking. Therefore, because the 

lumens per watt metric is an 

appropriate measure of the energy 

efficiency of IRLs and DOE considers 

energy savings when developing 

efficacy levels, DOE is not proposing to 

change this metric for IRLs in this 

rulemaking. 

b. 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 preliminary 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.9. NEMA agreed with 

the representative product classes 

presented for IRLs. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 

7) DOE did not receive any other 

comments regarding representative 

product classes for IRLs. In this NOPR, 

DOE is maintaining the same IRL 

representative product classes as 

presented in the preliminary analysis. 

TABLE VI.9—IRL REPRESENTATIVE PRODUCT CLASSES

Lamp type Diameter 

(in inches) Voltage 

Standard spectrum .................................................................................................................................................. >2.5 ≥125 

* <125 

≤2.5 ≥125 

<125 

Modified spectrum ................................................................................................................................................... >2.5 ≥125 

<125 

≤2.5 ≥125 

<125 

* Representative. 

c. Baseline Lamps 

Once DOE identifies representative 

product classes for analysis, it selects 

baseline lamps to analyze in each 

representative product class. Typically, 

a baseline lamp is the most common, 

least efficacious lamp that meets 

existing energy conservation standards. 

To identify baseline lamps, DOE 

reviews product offerings in catalogs, 

shipment information, and 

manufacturer feedback obtained during 

interviews. For IRLs, the most common 

lamps were determined based on 

characteristics such as wattage, 

diameter, lifetime, lumen package, and 

efficacy. 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

identified a PAR38 lamp as the most 

prevalent lamp shape and diameter in 

the representative product class. From 

all PAR38 lamps with the most common 

characteristics, DOE selected two lamps 

that just met existing standards as 

baselines. One was a 60 W halogen lamp 

with a lifetime of 1,500 hours that 

utilized a higher efficiency inert fill gas 

and a higher efficiency reflector coating, 

and had an efficacy right at the existing 

standard, 5.9P 0.27. The other was a 60 

W HIR lamp with a lifetime of 3,000 

hours that utilized IR glass coatings and 

had an efficacy very close to the existing 

standard. DOE received several 

comments on its selection of two 

baselines for IRLs. 

The CA IOUs and NEEA and NPCC 

stated that DOE should use only one 

baseline lamp which should have an 

efficacy that just meets the current IRL 

standards, and it should provide the 

minimum lamp life expected of these 

products. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at p. 163; CA IOUs, 

No. 32 at p. 2; NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 

at pp. 2, 4–5) The Joint Comment stated 

that DOE must select the least 

efficacious lamp meeting current 

conservation standards as its baseline 

for IRLs. (Joint Comment, No. 35 at p. 

2) ASAP also stated that DOE should 

not consider two baselines and pointed 

out that typically, a baseline is the 

commercially available product with the 

lowest efficiency. ASAP provided the 

example of a dishwasher rulemaking, 

where the most common dishwasher 

was an ENERGY STAR compliant 

product. As this product was above the 

minimum of the last standard, the 

previous standard itself was used as the 

baseline. Thus, using the most common 

product is different than using the least 

efficient product available. (ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 

158) 

NEMA also disagreed with two 

baselines for IRLs, stating that the two 

baseline products being compared are 

not identical, and a dual-baseline will 

eliminate a product class. NEMA further 

recommended that rather than expend 

numerous resources trying to interpolate 

what the market ‘‘might’’ be, DOE 

should simply employ the baseline 

selection criteria from the 2009 Lamps 

Rule and use the standard from that 

rulemaking as the baseline. (NEMA, No. 

36 at p. 7) NEMA stated that the 

arguments for baseline, CSL 0 in the 

preliminary TSD, are based on 

predictions of market shift that 

erroneously justify a new baseline 

higher than the minimum requirements 

put forth by the 2009 Lamps Rule. 

(NEMA, No. 36 at p. 1) 

The CA IOUs, NEEA and NPCC, and 

GE agreed that the true baseline is the 

less efficient product with the shorter 

lifetime (i.e., the 60 W halogen lamp 

with a 1,500-hour lifetime). (CA IOUs, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 

163; NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at p. 5; 

GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at 

pp. 159–161) The CA IOUs and the Joint 

Comment noted that the 60 W halogen 

lamp with a 1,500-hour lifetime is 

representative of the minimum 

performance that is compliant with July 

2012 standards, which require an 

efficacy of 17.8 lm/W for a 60 W lamp. 

(CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 2; Joint 

Comment, No. 35 at p. 2) 

The CA IOUs, NEEA and NPCC, the 

Joint Comment, and GE also agreed that 

the 60 W HIR lamp with a 3,000-hour 

lifetime was not a baseline lamp 

because it was using more advanced 

technology. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 2– 

3; NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at pp. 2, 4– 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24108 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

37More information on these lamps is provided 

in the written comment available on regulations.gov 

under docket number EERE–2011–BT–STD–0006. 

5; Joint Comment, No. 35 at p. 2) The 

CA IOUs, ASAP, and NEEA and NPCC 

noted there is a trade-off between 

lifetime and efficacy in incandescent 

lamp designs and absent other design 

improvements, an increase in lamp life 

results in a decrease in efficacy, and 

vice versa. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 2– 

3; ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

30 at p. 159; NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 

at pp. 4–5) Because the second lamp 

proposed as a baseline lamp in DOE’s 

analysis has a longer life and a higher 

efficacy, it clearly includes some other 

advanced design features that have 

allowed for improved performance in 

both metrics. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 2– 

3) The Joint Comment added that if the 

lifetime of the second baseline lamp was 

reduced to 1,500 hours to allow for an 

accurate comparison to the first baseline 

lamp, its efficacy would be even greater 

than 18.3 lm/W. (Joint Comment, No. 35 

at p. 2) Further, the CA IOUs and NEEA 

and NPCC pointed out that the higher 

cost of the HIR lamp indicated that it 

was a more technologically advanced 

product than the halogen lamp. (CA 

IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 2–3, NEEA and 

NPCC, No. 34 at pp. 2, 4–5) 

The CA IOUs also noted that 

minimum product performance 

generally gravitates towards the 

minimum standards set for a product 

and such IRL products are on the 

market. Therefore, the CA IOUs 

contended it is inaccurate to define a 

baseline product that is higher than the 

minimum standard. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at 

p. 2) ASAP further added that by 

introducing the 60 W HIR, 3,000-hour 

lifetime lamp as a baseline, DOE took 

that first, most cost effective 

improvement and averaged it into the 

baseline. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at p. 161) 

DOE recognizes that the HIR baseline 

lamp with the longer lifetime 

considered in the preliminary analysis 

is using more advanced technology than 

the halogen baseline lamp. Therefore, in 

this NOPR, DOE is not proposing to 

analyze the 60 W HIR lamp with a 

3,000-hour lifetime as a baseline lamp. 

DOE is proposing one baseline 

represented by the 60 W halogen lamp 

with a 1,500-hour lifetime. 

The CA IOUs noted that, historically, 

many reflector lamps have been offered 

with a minimum lifetime of 1,000 hours, 

and generally no fewer. Therefore, DOE 

could even more accurately represent 

the baseline by lowering the baseline 

lifetime to 1,000 hours. (CA IOUs, No. 

32 at p. 2) 

DOE reviewed product offerings in 

catalogs, shipment trends, and 

information obtained during 

manufacturer interviews to identify the 

common characteristics of lamps that 

meet standards. Based on DOE’s 

analysis, the 1,500-hour lamps are much 

more common than other lower lifetime 

lamps, including 1,000-hour lamps, 

among the covered IRLs. Therefore, DOE 

is proposing a 1,500-hour lamp as the 

baseline. 

Stakeholders also commented on 

whether it was necessary to have 

different lamp lifetimes for different 

sectors. GE stated that the consumer 

market, which does not necessarily need 

the long lifetime, is looking for a less 

expensive opening price point. 

However, the 60 W HIR with the 3,000- 

hour lifetime would be sold to a 

commercial customer who is more 

concerned about long operating hours 

and does not want to replace lamps 

frequently. Therefore, the commercial 

consumer will gravitate more towards 

the higher technology lamp, trying to 

reduce maintenance costs. (GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 159– 

161) 

The CA IOUs disagreed that a shorter 

lifetime lamp was appropriate for only 

the residential sector and a longer 

lifetime lamp for the commercial sector. 

They stated that products with shorter 

lifetimes are commonly marketed and 

sold into various market segments, 

including the commercial sector. They 

provided the examples of Halco 

Haloxen SPAR Series product line and 

the Satco Xenon Halogen line,37 both of 

which are standards-compliant 1,500- 

hour life lamps specifically marketed for 

use in the commercial sector. According 

to the CA IOUs, this suggests that the 

shorter lifetime products (1,000–1,500 

hours) are appropriate to represent the 

baseline lamp for both the residential 

and commercial sectors. (CA IOUs, No. 

32 at p. 2) NEEA and NPCC added that 

both the 60 W halogen lamp with a 

1,500-hour lifetime and the 60 W HIR 

lamp with a 3,000-hour lifetime can be 

found at typical do-it-yourself (DIY) 

stores and in commercial lamp catalogs. 

(NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at p. 5) 

Several stakeholders asked for further 

information about the market share 

breakdown of these lamps by sector. EEI 

asked about the percentage of the IRL 

market that is residential versus 

commercial. (EEI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 163–164) EEI 

also asked how the baseline 

characteristics put forth in the 

preliminary analysis compared to those 

in the marketplace in terms of what is 

actually being sold using 2012 or 2013 

data. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 30 at p. 157) Noting that it was 

difficult to determine where a lamp 

going through distribution channels 

such as Home Depot or Lowe’s ends up, 

NEEA asked how DOE determines 

which lamps are in the residential 

sector and which are in the commercial 

sector (e.g., by distribution channel or 

socket). (NEEA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at p. 164) NEMA 

asked if the 2010 LMC contained data 

on sockets in specific sectors so as to 

determine what percentage of those tend 

to be the higher technology. (NEMA, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 

165–166) 

ASAP agreed that the market is 

important but noted that it is factored 

into the downstream analyses. ASAP 

provided an example that if 100-percent 

of commercial shipments are already at 

this level, then this will be reflected in 

the shipments analysis and it would 

flow through to the LCC and NIA, rather 

than be built into the baseline. (ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 

162–163) 

DOE acknowledges that different 

lamps may be popular in different 

market sectors. The 2010 LMC provides 

data on the inventories of halogen 

reflector lamps in each sector. However, 

because there is nothing that would 

limit the use of a covered IRL in a 

specific sector, DOE does not conduct 

sector-based assessments in the 

engineering analysis. Rather, the LCC 

and NIA consider lamp use in different 

market sectors. The LCC analysis 

provides results for each analyzed lamp 

in each relevant sector. The shipments 

analysis accounts for the number of 

shipments by sector and the popularity 

of analyzed lamps in each sector. The 

results are subsequently used in the NIA 

analysis. Please see section VI.J for more 

detail. 

Summary of IRL Baseline Lamps 

DOE is proposing the baseline lamp 

for IRLs specified in Table VI.10. For 

further information, please see chapter 5 

of the NOPR TSD. DOE requests 

comments on its selection of baseline 

lamps for IRLs. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24109 

38 In the equation, ‘‘life0’’ is equal to the design 

life at the designed efficacy (lpw0), while ‘‘life’’ is 

the resultant life when the designed efficacy is 

altered to a new operational efficacy (lpw). 

TABLE VI.10—IRL BASELINE LAMP

Representative product class 

Baseline lamp 

Lamp 

type Descriptor 

Wattage Efficacy 

Initial 

light 

output 

Lifetime 

W lm/W lm hr 

Standard Spectrum, Voltage <125 V, Diameter 

>2.5 Inches.

PAR38 Improved Halogen .............. 60 17.8 1,070 1,500 

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 preliminary 

analysis, DOE considered substitute 

lamps that saved energy and, where 

possible, had a light output within 10 

percent of the baseline lamp’s light 

output. In identifying the more 

efficacious substitutes, DOE utilized a 

database of commercially available 

lamps. In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

identified a higher efficacy, lower 

wattage lamp, referred to in this analysis 

as an improved HIR lamp with a 

lifetime of 4,400 hours, as a more 

efficacious substitute for the two 

baseline lamps. DOE received several 

comments regarding its choice for a 

more efficacious substitute. 

ASAP expressed concern that two 

dependent variables, lumens per watt 

and lifetime, are changed so that the 

more efficacious substitute is providing 

not just greater efficacy but also more 

light, more hours of lighting, and greater 

utility. The product is different and is 

designed to meet some commercial 

consumers’ desire for a long-lived 

product. If the hours were reduced for 

that product to be equivalent to the 

baseline lamp lifetime, it would have a 

significantly higher efficacy from an 

engineering perspective. ASAP 

concluded that lifetime is a limiting 

factor on the efficacies that can be used 

for the selection of more efficacious, 

commercially available lamps. (ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 

169) 

The CA IOUs provided information 

on the relationship between lifetime and 

efficacy in incandescent lamps, noting 

that a lamp’s efficacy could be improved 

by increasing current, but if no other 

design options are employed, the lamp 

will have a shorter lifetime. On the 

other hand, decreasing current can 

increase lamp lifetime, but if no other 

design changes are made, the resulting 

product would have a reduced efficacy. 

The CA IOUs also put forth a 

relationship where life = life0 × {lpw/ 

lpw0}¥7.1 to show that the efficacy of a 

lamp could be improved at the expense 

of lamp life rather than investment or 

improvement in the lamp design.38 (CA 

IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 3–4) 

DOE recognizes that there is an 

inverse relationship between efficacy 

and lifetime for IRLs. The engineering 

analysis focuses on commercially 

available products. DOE is aware that to 

meet higher efficacy levels, 

manufacturers can choose to produce 

lamps with a shorter lifetime than the 

baseline lamp to achieve higher efficacy. 

Given that manufacturers responded to 

the July 2012 standards by introducing 

IRLs with shorter lifetimes, DOE 

understands that 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 under 

consideration in the NOPR analysis. 

(See chapter 5 of the NOPR 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 

13C of the NOPR TSD). 

In the main engineering analysis, DOE 

did not model IRLs with shortened 

lifetimes at efficacy levels higher than 

those at which they are currently 

commercially available because DOE 

believes that lifetime is a feature valued 

by consumers. DOE believes typical 

lifetimes of IRLs regulated by this 

rulemaking are between 1,500 and 4,400 

hours. The longest lifetime products are 

available at EL 1, the highest analyzed 

efficacy level in this NOPR analysis. 

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. 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE had 

put forth a representative lamp with a 

4,400-hour lifetime and improved HIR 

technology as the more efficacious 

substitute. For the NOPR analysis, after 

reassessing updated catalog and 

compliance information, DOE identified 

an alternative representative lamp that 

better reflected the minimum efficacy 

level for lamps with improved HIR 

technology. This representative lamp 

has a lifetime of 4,200 hours. Because 

there is a range of lifetimes available at 

a higher efficacy, in addition to the 

4,200-hour representative lamp, DOE is 

proposing a second representative lamp 

as a more efficacious substitute at EL 1 

in this NOPR analysis. The 2,500-hour 

lamp offers a different technology 

pathway to achieve EL 1, namely IR 

glass coating without the use of higher 

efficiency reflector coatings. Therefore 

DOE analyzes the 2,500-hour lamp as a 

representative lamp at EL 1. DOE 

requests comment on the lifetimes of the 

IRL baseline and more efficacious 

substitutes. 

Summary of IRL Representative Lamps 

DOE is proposing the representative 

lamps for IRLs specified in Table VI.11. 

For further information please see 

chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. DOE 

requests comments on its selection of 

representative lamps for IRLs. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24110 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

39ETCC presentation, Dec 2010, slide 2. 

www.etcc-ca.com/pdfs/10_2X_Incandescent_ET_

Open_Forum_121207_R1.pptx. 

40EPRI report # 1025779; www.epri.com/

abstracts/Pages/

ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=0000000

00001025779&Mode=download. 

41www.2xlightdirect.com/product-categories/aline. 

42www.2xlightdirect.com/product-categories/2xmr16. 

TABLE VI.11—IRL REPRESENTATIVE LAMPS

Representative product class 

Representative lamps 

Lamp 

type Descriptor 

Wattage Efficacy * 

Initial 

light 

output 

Lifetime 

W lm/W lm hr 

Standard Spectrum, Voltage <125 V, Diameter 

>2.5 Inches.

PAR38 HIR ...................................... 55 18.5 980 2,500 

PAR38 Improved HIR ...................... 55 18.5 1120 4,200 

* Efficacy values are based on data from DOE’s certification database. 

e. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

DOE presented one efficacy level (CSL 

1) for consideration in the preliminary 

analysis. Therefore, this level was also 

the max tech level identified for IRLs. 

DOE received several comments on the 

max tech level presented in the 

preliminary analysis. 

The CA IOUs expressed their belief 

that DOE had not captured the total 

potential energy savings from IRL 

standards. They noted that according to 

the 2010 LMC, IRLs represent a sizable 

end use, an estimated 39 TWh of annual 

energy use in the United States. (CA 

IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 1–2) The CA IOUs 

cited the case of Natural Resources 

Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 

1355, 1391–92 (D.C. Cir. 1985), in which 

the D.C. Circuit Court explained the 

EPCA provision that requires DOE to 

identify and analyze the ‘‘maximum 

technology feasible level’’ to determine 

whether that level is both cost-effective 

and feasible. The ruling further stated 

that DOE must explain why a standard 

achieving max tech was rejected. (CA 

IOUs, No. 32 at p. 4) Specifically, CA 

IOUs made the following assertions 

regarding the max tech for IRLs 

presented in the preliminary analysis: 

(1) There are commercially available 

IRLs higher than the max tech; (2) 

advanced technology being used in 

other lamp types can be transferred to 

produce higher efficacy IRLs; and (3) 

there are prototype IRLs that 

demonstrate the feasibility of higher 

efficacy IRLs. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 

4–7) 

The CA IOUs commented that there is 

a wide array of currently, commercially 

available products that are significantly 

more efficient, by 13–20 percent, than 

the CSL proposed by DOE. (CA IOUs, 

No. 32 at p. 4) In the DOE certification 

database there is a Philips 70 W PAR38 

at 22 lm/W, which is 13 percent better 

than CSL 1; a Philips 55 W lamp at 20.1 

lm/W, which is 10 percent better than 

CSL 1; and a GE lamp at 23 lm/W, 

which is 12 percent better. The CA IOUs 

noted that OSI’s best products are not 

yet in DOE’s certification database. They 

also noted that smaller manufacturers 

with products such as one with 25 

percent higher performance than CSL 1 

are not represented in the analysis. (CA 

IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 

at p. 172) ASAP stated it is important 

that DOE analyze a max tech level 

chosen from all lamps on the market 

and then examine the impacts of that 

level on utility. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 181–182) 

NEEA and NPCC stated products that 

should be commercially available in 

2013 range in efficacy from the 

minimum federal standard to over 30 

lm/W, and max tech is probably over 35 

lm/W, even at lower wattages, far above 

what DOE has acknowledged. (NEEA 

and NPCC, No. 34 at pp. 2, 5) NEMA, 

however, stated that there have been no 

noteworthy technological breakthroughs 

since the last rulemaking or great 

changes in the market. Therefore, the 

maximum-feasible performance levels of 

the previous rule have not changed. 

(NEMA, No. 36 at p. 1) 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

evaluated the latest catalogs and DOE’s 

certification database to identify the 

most efficacious IRLs to develop the 

max tech level. DOE selected more 

efficacious replacements with a similar 

reflector shape (PAR38) and lumen 

output (within 10 percent) as the 

baseline lamp. In the engineering 

analysis, DOE considered only 

replacements that saved energy. Based 

on DOE’s analysis, the max tech 

presented in the preliminary analysis 

represented the highest-efficacy 

commercially available lamp meeting 

these criteria. 

The CA IOUs noted that over the last 

few years, a number of products have 

been designed and tested using 

improved halogen IR capsules with new 

mixes and more layers of materials in 

the thin-film coatings. IRLs have 

demonstrated efficacies above 30 to 35 

lm/W, with efficacies of 45 lm/W (with 

a 1,000-hour lifetime) having also been 

achieved for omni-directional lamps in 

lab settings.39 The CA IOUs cited a 

November 2012 Electric Power Research 

Institute (EPRI) study 40 that conducted 

extensive photometric, electrical, and 

durability testing on a 32 lm/W A-lamp, 

including extended lifetime 

measurements and testing of the lamp’s 

ability to withstand sudden changes in 

voltage, to assess its performance. All 

lamps were still functional at 1,000 

hours and 70 percent of the test samples 

exceeded 2,000 hours. The independent 

study concluded that the high efficacy 

lamps were ‘‘a true 100 watt 

incandescent-equivalent with respect to 

all output/performance values, 

lifespan.’’ The CA IOUs argued that the 

high efficiency halogen IR capsules in 

those lamps could be inserted into 

reflector lamps as well. (CA IOUs, No. 

32 at pp. 5–6) 

The CA IOUs further noted that 

Venture Lighting is offering 2X halogen 

A-lamps ($6.98, 32 lm/W, 1,500 

hours) 41 and 2X halogen MR–16 lamps 

($6.90, 22 lm/W, 6,000 hours) 42 on the 

Web site, www.2XLightDirect.com. The 

2X lamps are deemed to be two times 

as efficient as their typical incandescent 

counterparts. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 5– 

6) CA IOUs emphasized that the 2X 

MR–16 is a commercially available 

product using technology that can be 

used in other lamp form factors. The CA 

IOUs acknowledged, however, that the 

MR–16 lamp, which is not a covered 

product, cannot be used for a direct 

comparison with the lamps covered 

under this rulemaking due to different 

design parameters, coatings on the 

lenses, and low voltage operation. 

Additionally, the CA IOUs stated that 

the challenges encountered with 

designing a smaller form factor lamp 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24111 

43www.2xlightdirect.com/product-categories/2xpar. 

44Appendix A is available at the end of the CA 

IOUs written comment in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

45ETCC presentation, Dec 2010, slide 5. http://

www.etcc-ca.com/pdfs/10_2X_Incandescent_ET_

Open_Forum_121207_R1.pptx 

46At the time of the NOPR analysis, these lamps 

were not commercially available. 

47While DOE independently verified efficacy 

values, the manufacturer’s testing for lifetime was 

still ongoing at the time of the NOPR analysis. 

such as an MR–16 may be more easily 

overcome with PAR lamps. (CA IOUs, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 

170–173, 179–180) The CA IOUs noted 

that the Web site 

www.2Xlightdirect.com, where these 2X 

lamps can be found, states that PAR 

lamps are ‘‘coming soon.’’ 43 (CA IOUs, 

No. 32 at pp. 5–6) 

Philips stated that it is unknown if 

IRLs utilizing the 2X lamp technology 

are technically viable. Philips provided 

the example that a 37 lm/W lamp can 

be demonstrated, but that it could only 

last 24 hours. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 173–174) 

DOE acknowledges that efficacious Ashape and MR–16 lamps are currently 

being offered on the market. However, 

DOE cannot assume that lamp designs 

and technologies that work for certain 

lamp shapes (e.g., MR–16 and A-shape 

lamps) and at low voltages will achieve 

the same efficacies in the IRLs that are 

the subject of this rulemaking. The 

incandescent lamps studied by EPRI 

and available from Venture Lighting (the 

2X A-lamps and MR–16s) are not 

covered IRLs. They do not utilize the 

same reflector shapes and the MR–16s 

do not operate at the same input voltage 

as the covered IRLs. Therefore, DOE 

cannot consider these lamp types to 

determine a max tech for IRLs. 

The CA IOUs asserted that covered 

IRLs exist in prototype form that are 

dramatically more efficient than DOE’s 

proposed CSL. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 

4) The CA IOUs stated that, in 2009, 

they funded the development of a superefficient PAR lamp achieving 37 lm/W 

at 57 W with a lifetime of 1,500 hours. 

The CA IOUs provided information 

about the lamp and its testing 

completed in 2009.44 (CA IOUs, No. 32 

at p. 6; CA IOUs, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at p. 173) 

Additionally, the CA IOUs pointed 

out a presentation from the Emerging 

Technologies Coordinating Council 

(ETCC) site 45 that includes information 

about the market potential for advanced 

IR coatings. Several PAR lamps 

achieving approximately 30 lm/W are 

forecasted to be available by mid-2013, 

at a price point of $8 to $9.46 The CA 

IOUs stated that they are tracking the 

development of these products and 

intend to obtain samples to submit to 

DOE. The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to 

reach out to manufacturers of these 

products directly to understand more 

specifics about product development 

schedules, manufacturing capability, 

likely cost points, technical potential, 

and to potentially obtain prototypes of 

these lamps. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 6) 

The CA IOUs concluded that DOE 

needs to look at max tech and then 

identify what is cost effective, feasible 

and can be scaled up for production. 

The CA IOUs noted that this was not 

adequately addressed in the preliminary 

analysis. Further, the CA IOUs 

suggested that one of the CSLs should 

be set in line with the max tech level 

and another should be set in line with 

the maximum commercially available 

level. NEEP agreed with this 

recommendation. (CA IOUs, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 170– 

173; CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 6–7; NEEP, 

No. 33 at p. 3) The Joint Comment also 

stated that to properly identify the max 

tech level, DOE should examine those 

sources referenced in the CA IOUs’ 

comments, namely, EPRI, 

2Xlightdirect.com, and ETCC. (Joint 

Comment, No. 35 at p. 3) 

NEMA stated that if DOE chooses to 

consider higher performance levels 

based on any recently introduced 

technologies, they are obligated to 

conduct actual testing of these lamps for 

all performance parameters, such as 

reliability, lifetime, dimmability, beam 

spread, light pattern, and any other 

performance features expected of new/ 

substitute lamps in this class. (NEMA, 

No. 36 at p. 11) NEMA also cautioned 

DOE that emerging technology and 

prototype models do not reliably 

represent the market, only market 

attempts. NEMA further stated that 

technologies on which to base the future 

of an entire product class must be 

demonstrated and proven for long-term 

feasibility and market acceptance. 

(NEMA, No. 36 at p. 11) 

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.47

DOE notes that the lamps tested were 

prototype lamps and were not 

manufactured during commercial scale 

production runs. However, the 

measured efficacy of the prototype 

lamps greatly exceeded the efficacy of 

commercially available lamps with 

similar lumen packages. DOE does 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. In appendix 5A of the NOPR 

TSD, DOE provides an assessment of 

these higher efficacy prototypes 

(including test data), conducts a further 

examination of the highly efficacious 

lamps relevant to this rulemaking noted 

by stakeholders in comments, and 

specifies the additional information it 

would need to consider prototypes in a 

rulemaking analysis. DOE welcomes 

comments on the max tech level as well 

as any further information on prototype 

lamps. 

While DOE received several 

comments stating that the max tech 

level is greater than that analyzed in the 

preliminary analysis, DOE also received 

comments that the max tech level is not 

higher than the analyzed level. GE 

stated that it did not believe technology 

existed that would triple the efficiency 

of these lamps. GE noted that although 

there may be a few more players in the 

market, the technology itself or what 

can be done with it has not changed in 

the last three or four years. GE asserted 

that the baseline technology represents 

the highest technology available today 

that meets many different needs in the 

marketplace. As efficacy requirements 

increase, even to the CSL 1, utility is 

lost, potentially leading to only one 

product that works for one consumer 

and one application. GE stated that CSL 

1 represents the max tech of what is 

available today that could cover all the 

different market needs. (GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 176– 

178) 

As discussed previously, based on 

DOE’s analysis of commercially 

available lamps and because it does not 

have the adequate information to 

conduct a full analysis on any lamp that 

represents an efficacy level higher than 

EL 1, DOE is proposing 6.2P0.27 as EL 

1 and the max tech level. 

Proprietary Technology 

In response to the max tech level 

presented in the preliminary analysis, 

DOE received several comments 

regarding the use of proprietary 

technology. NEMA stated that for all 

IRLs, no further elevations in product 

performance are possible. As support, 

NEMA quoted from the final rule notice 

of the 2009 Lamps Rule, in which DOE 

had noted that the max tech level was 

possible with the use of the highestefficiency technologically feasible 

reflector, halogen IR coating, and 

filament design and because this would 

require the use of proprietary 

technology, DOE could not consider this 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24112 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

48More information on associated products can 

be found in the written comment available on 

regulations.gov under docket number EERE–2011– 

BT–STD–0006. 

level further in its analyses. 74 FR 

34080, 34096 (July 14, 2009). NEMA 

stated that if DOE proposes to raise the 

CSL above the existing level set by the 

2009 Lamps Rule, DOE must explain 

why the proprietary technology hurdle 

no longer exists, and then explain how 

to achieve those higher CSLs. (NEMA, 

No. 36 at p. 11) Specifically, Philips 

expressed concern that the improved 

reflector technology option, such as a 

silver reflector coating, was proprietary. 

(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

30 at p. 169) GE added that requiring 

proprietary technology could impact 

competition. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 169–170) 

EEI expressed similar concerns as 

NEMA and stated that during the 2009 

Lamps Rule, the Department of Justice 

was concerned about the higher 

standard levels because certain 

technologies for HIR lamps were 

proprietary and that because only a few 

companies made the highest efficacy 

lamp, competition in the industry could 

be impacted. EEI asked whether there 

were issues with the particular 

technology used in the more efficacious 

substitute, such that it might be a 

proprietary technology and made only 

by a very limited number or even one 

manufacturer, which could limit its 

availability and result in an extremely 

high price point. (EEI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 167–168) 

The CA IOUs noted that they had 

provided a number of comments to that 

rulemaking’s docket about alternate 

silverized reflector technologies, and 

suggested that manufacturers would be 

able to utilize them to improve efficacy 

of their lamps. The CA IOUs reported 

that since the 2009 Lamps Rule, several 

manufacturers have begun making 

lamps with silver reflectors, including, 

but not limited to, Halco, Satco, Ushio, 

and Osram Sylvania.48 Further, the CA 

IOUs noted that the Lawrence 

Livermore Lab has a patent; GE and DSI 

likely also have patents related to 

reflector technology. (CA IOUs, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 170– 

171) Given the wide variety of major 

PAR lamp manufacturers that are 

utilizing silverized reflectors, the CA 

IOUs encouraged DOE to consider this 

a viable design option for all IRL 

manufacturers. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 

8–9) 

In the 2009 Lamps Rule, the highest 

level analyzed for IRLs was based on a 

commercially available lamp that 

employed a silver reflector, an improved 

IR coating, and a filament design that 

resulted in a lifetime of 4,200 hours. 

While DOE had determined 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). In interviews 

conducted in the preliminary analysis 

for this rulemaking, manufacturers 

indicated that there were no specific 

patent or intellectual property barriers 

to obtaining commercially available IRL 

technologies. Further, in the 

preliminary analysis, DOE put forth a 

CSL 1 that was based on a commercially 

available improved HIR lamp that does 

not necessarily require a silverized 

reflector coating to achieve its efficacy. 

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. In the NOPR analysis, DOE 

confirmed during interviews that 

proprietary technology is not a barrier to 

achieving the proposed max tech level, 

which is also EL 1. Therefore, in this 

NOPR analysis, DOE is proposing the 

same efficacy level put forth in the 

preliminary analysis. DOE has 

determined that this level can be 

achieved without the use of proprietary 

technology. 

f. Efficacy Levels 

For IRLs, DOE developed a 

continuous equation that specifies a 

minimum efficacy requirement across 

wattages and represents the potential 

efficacy a lamp achieves 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 CSL in the preliminary 

analysis. DOE received several 

comments regarding the CSL presented 

for IRLs in the preliminary analysis. 

The CA IOUs expressed concern that 

there is only one CSL. The CA IOUs 

stated that DOE is not capturing the 

huge potential in the IRL market for 

efficacy gains, both for commercially 

available and non-commercially 

available products. The CA IOUs stated 

that based on commercially available 

IRL products and other known highperforming products, DOE should add at 

least three additional, higher efficacy 

CSLs to its IRL analysis. (CA IOUs, No. 

32 at p. 4) 

The Joint Comment agreed with the 

CA IOUs, stating that DOE should add 

multiple high efficacy CSLs to its 

analysis; ASAP suggested two or three 

additional levels. (Joint Comment, No. 

35 at p. 3; ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 171–172) NEEP 

noted that the higher efficacies in DOE’s 

certification database for standard levels 

should be included in the analysis at 

this stage. NEEP suggested DOE 

consider adding at least two additional 

CSLs to the analysis between CSL 1 and 

the maximum commercially available 

level. (NEEP, No. 33 at p. 3) NEEA and 

NPCC stated there is more than enough 

rationale to examine at least two or 

three additional CSLs, if not three or 

four, including a ‘‘max tech’’ level, 

which DOE has not included for this 

family of products. (NEEA and NPCC, 

No. 34 at pp. 2, 5) 

To demonstrate the feasibility of 

potential efficacy improvements beyond 

the CSL 1 presented in the preliminary 

analysis, the CA IOUs provided a graph 

that showed efficacy levels of 

commercially available lamps from four 

manufacturers based on catalog data, 

plotted against the considered CSL 1 

and the standard from the 2009 Lamps 

Rule. In further support, the CA IOUs 

provided another graph showing 

efficacy levels of over 20 manufacturers 

from DOE’s certification database, also 

plotted against the considered CSL 1 

and the standard from the 2009 Lamps 

Rule. Both graphs show a number of 

lamps above the considered CSL 1. (CA 

IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 4–5) ASAP asked 

how old the data DOE used in its 

preliminary analysis was and why the 

lamps with higher efficacies in DOE’s 

database were not captured. (ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 

171–172) 

For the preliminary analysis, DOE 

conducted a thorough review of the 

latest catalog and certification data 

provided for covered IRLs. Because 

PAR38 lamps are the most popular 

products on the market and a PAR38 

lamp was selected as the baseline, DOE 

considered only PAR38 lamps when 

selecting more efficacious substitutes. 

Further, DOE selected more efficacious 

substitutes with a lumen output within 

10 percent of the baseline lumens, as 

this is the amount of change in light 

output deemed acceptable to 

consumers. (See section VI.D.2.e for 

further information.) 

To ensure energy savings, DOE also 

chose higher efficacy lamps with a 

lower wattage than the baseline lamp. 

DOE also did not consider any lamp that 

could not be purchased in the United 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24113 

States. Some of the products with the 

highest efficacies in DOE’s certification 

database were not found for sale in the 

United States. 

Thus, although there are certain 

lamps with efficacies higher than the 

levels proposed by DOE, DOE did not 

consider them in the preliminary 

analysis for the reasons stated above. 

DOE maintained this methodology for 

the NOPR analysis. 

NEMA stated that the CSL 1 presented 

in the preliminary analysis was 

infeasible given that there have been no 

technological breakthroughs since the 

2009 Lamps Rule. (NEMA, No. 36 at pp. 

9–11) NEMA also commented that 

having one CSL eliminates DOE’s ability 

to analyze standard levels other than the 

baseline and max tech and makes it 

more likely that max tech will become 

the new standard. (NEMA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 350) 

DOE based CSL 1 on commercially 

available products that achieved catalog 

efficacies above the existing standard. 

Specifically, the representative lamp for 

CSL 1 was a commercially available 55 

W IRL with a catalog efficacy of 20 lm/ 

W. Acknowledging that the catalog 

efficacy of a lamp varies from its 

certified efficacy, DOE also reviewed 

certification data for IRLs. Based on 

certification data, DOE accordingly 

adjusted CSL 1, resulting in an efficacy 

level of 6.2P0.27. Because DOE based 

CSL 1 on a commercially available lamp 

and accounted for variances in efficacies 

between catalog and certification data 

when establishing CSL 1, DOE believes 

that CSL 1 is technologically feasible 

and is also the appropriate max tech 

level. 

The CA IOUs recommended that DOE 

revisit the slope of the candidate 

standard lines to better reflect the 

performance of lamps on the market. 

The CA IOUs provided graphs that 

demonstrated three possible additional 

CSLs that could be used to more 

effectively evaluate potential standards 

at higher, technically feasible efficacy 

tiers. The CA IOUs adjusted the slopes 

of the curves to account for higher 

efficacy potential at higher wattage. (CA 

IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 7–8) 

DOE examined the possibility of 

changing the exponent of the existing 

equation for IRL standards to better 

reflect the performance of lamps on the 

market. DOE conducted a best fit 

analysis and determined that the current 

equation accurately reflects the wattages 

and associated efficacies of 

commercially available products. Thus, 

DOE retained the current standard 

equation. 

Summary of IRL Efficacy Levels 

For the NOPR analysis, DOE again 

reviewed the most updated catalog and 

certification data available for covered 

IRLs. As in the preliminary analysis, 

DOE used the catalog data to determine 

initial efficacy levels and then adjusted 

the ELs to ensure that commercially 

available IRLs would meet proposed 

levels based on compliance information 

provided in DOE’s certification 

database. In the preliminary analysis, 

DOE had found there to be certification 

data for only 36 percent of covered IRL 

products compliant with the July 2012 

standards. For the NOPR analysis, DOE 

found that updates to DOE’s 

certification database resulted in 

certification data for 51 percent of 

covered IRL products. 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 proposed EL 

based on the representative lamps is a 

curve that represents a standard across 

all wattages. 

Table VI.12 presents the proposed 

efficacy level for IRLs. See chapter 5 of 

the NOPR TSD for additional 

information on how the engineering 

analysis was conducted. 

TABLE VI.12—EFFICACY LEVELS FOR

STANDARD SPECTRUM, VOLTAGE

<125 V, DIAMETER >2.5 INCHES

IRLS

Efficacy 

level 

Efficacy 

requirement 

lm/W 

EL 1 ...................................... 6.2P0.27

P = rated wattage. 

g. 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 

modified spectrum lamps, smaller 

diameter lamps, and lamps with higher 

input voltages. 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 preliminary analysis, DOE 

scaled from the CSLs developed for the 

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. Therefore, in the preliminary 

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. 

Asserting that double-ended burners 

can be utilized in small diameter lamps, 

NEEA and NPCC and the CA IOUs 

urged DOE not to use an additional 

scaling factor to account for the use of 

a single-ended burner in a small 

diameter lamp. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 

10, NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at p. 6) The 

CA IOUs noted that by providing a 

PAR20 lamp with a double ended 

burner at the public meeting, they had 

demonstrated that double-ended 

burners can be used in small diameter 

lamps. At the preliminary analysis 

public meeting, the CA IOUs had 

presented two small diameter lamps 

with double-ended burners. One was a 

commercially available Philips MR–16 

lamp, which the CA IOUs 

acknowledged to be out of the scope of 

this rulemaking, but asserted that the 

MR–16 burner would fit into a covered 

IRL. The other was a PAR20 lamp 

covered under this rulemaking that was 

not yet commercially available. (CA 

IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 

at pp. 195–197) GE noted that the MR16 

uses a 12 V filament, which is much 

shorter than the filament at 120 V, and 

NEMA stated that many technical 

features are not transferrable between 12 

V and 120 V products. (GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 196– 

197, NEMA, No. 36 at p. 11) The CA 

IOUs acknowledged that the MR16 used 

a 12 V filament, but noted that the 

PAR20 lamp with a double-ended 

burner was designed for operation at 

120 V. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at p. 197) Further, the 

CA IOUs noted that the PAR20 lamp 

with a double-ended burner achieved an 

efficacy of 16.1 lm/W, which is 12 

percent higher than the CSL proposed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24114 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

by DOE for this lamp type in the 

preliminary analysis. (CA IOUs, No. 32 

at p. 10) 

ADLT agreed with the CA IOUs, 

noting that these double-end burners 

have a length of 52 mm and new 

double-end burners are being 

introduced to the market that are 45 mm 

in length, which further mitigates 

mechanical fit problems related with 

smaller reflectors. (ADLT, No. 31 at pp. 

2–3) However, NEMA contended that 

double-ended burners will not fit into 

existing small diameter PAR20 lamps 

without extending the lens cover. The 

extension of the lens cover would lessen 

the utility as the product would not fit 

into all fixtures designed to use PAR20 

lamps, and therefore could not be 

considered as an acceptable substitute. 

(NEMA, No. 36 at p. 12) GE agreed that 

there were difficulties in fitting halogen 

IR burners into small PAR20 envelopes. 

(GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 

at pp. 191–193) 

Regarding the PAR20 lamp with a 

double-ended burner provided by the 

CA IOUs at the preliminary analysis 

public meeting, DOE notes that it must 

also consider how the use of a design 

option affects product utility and 

whether a more efficacious product is 

an appropriate substitute for the existing 

product. DOE must also consider 

whether the product can be 

manufactured at a commercial scale by 

the compliance date of any amended 

standards. Based on feedback given by 

manufacturers in interviews, fitting a 

double-ended burner into a small 

diameter lamp would require changes to 

the physical shape of the lamp, 

specifically requiring an extension of 

the reflector lens. While the modified 

lamp may still meet ANSI standards for 

a small diameter lamp such as a PAR20, 

it would be larger than any 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. 

Past a certain wattage threshold, heat 

dissipation in lamps with a smaller 

envelope using a double-ended burner 

could also become an issue. Further, 

manufacturers stated 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. 

Therefore, in this NOPR analysis DOE 

continues to apply an additional 3.5 

percent reduction factor when scaling 

efficacies of large diameter to small 

diameter lamps to account for the 

limitation of small diameter lamps being 

able to utilize only single-ended 

burners. 

The CA IOUs questioned DOE’s 

methodology for determining the scaling 

factor for large diameter to small 

diameter lamps. The CA IOUs stated 

that it understood DOE compared the 

efficacies of small diameter lamps to 

larger diameter lamps on the market, 

and established that there was a 12 

percent difference. Under the 

assumption that the single-ended burner 

could not fit in small diameter lamps, 

DOE then modeled the losses of using 

a single-ended burner. However, the CA 

IOUs did not understand why these 

losses were added to the original 12 

percent difference which represents the 

efficacy reduction going from a large 

diameter to small diameter lamp. (CA 

IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 

at pp. 194–195) 

ADLT stated that it supported a 12 

percent scaling factor based on the 

impact of the less efficient diameter of 

the reflector because it was independent 

of capsule design. ADLT noted that a 

typical PAR30 aluminum-coated 

reflector with a front lens is 

approximately 75 percent optically 

efficient while the same type of PAR20 

reflector (aluminum coated with a front 

lens) is approximately 66 percent 

efficient. Therefore, ADLT concluded 

that the 12 percent reduction in 

efficiency from large to small diameter 

lamps corresponds to DOE’s findings 

when comparing catalog efficacy data of 

each lamp type from several lamp 

manufacturers (all other features 

remaining approximately the same). 

(ADLT, No. 31 at p. 2) 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

compared the catalog efficacies of 

halogen PAR20 lamps (the most 

common IRL with a diameter less than 

or equal to 2.5 inches) and their PAR30 

or PAR38 counterparts from several 

lamp manufacturers (all other lamp 

features remaining approximately the 

same). Based on these results, DOE 

found that the reduction in efficacy 

caused by the smaller lamp diameter 

was approximately 12 percent for IRLs. 

Because only halogen lamps were used 

(no HIR lamps were included), the 12 

percent included the efficacy difference 

due only to lamp diameter because the 

additional impact of a single-ended 

versus double-ended burner on lamp 

efficacy is relevant only for HIR lamps. 

In the NOPR analysis, using the same 

methodology, DOE confirmed that the 

efficacy reduction from a large diameter 

to a small diameter lamp should be 12 

percent. 

ADLT stated that the 3.5 percent 

scaling factor going from double-ended 

to single-ended burners was also 

unnecessary because single-ended 

burners can be highly efficient within 

small diameter reflectors. They cited the 

example of an MR–16 lamp (2 inch 

diameter reflector) utilizing singleended IR halogen burner with an 85 

percent optical efficiency compared to a 

typical PAR38 (4.75 inch diameter 

reflector, aluminized) with a 78 to 80 

percent optical efficiency. Therefore, 

ADLT urged DOE to consider a 12 

percent reduction factor, which would 

equate to an efficacy requirement of 

5.5P0.27 for small lamp diameters. 

(ADLT, No. 31 at pp. 2–3) 

DOE cannot base its analysis on an 

MR–16 lamp because it is not designed 

to operate at the same voltage as covered 

IRLs, and MR–16 lamps are not the 

subject of this rulemaking; DOE can 

assess the efficiency of a single-ended 

burner only in a small diameter IRL 

covered under this rulemaking. 

With regards to scaling, NEMA stated 

that DOE must ensure not only that the 

filaments and halogen burners must be 

able to be inserted into all lamps scaled, 

but also that the beam characteristics 

required for those lamps, a marketdemanded performance characteristic, 

can be met. NEMA suggested that DOE 

develop demonstration models to verify 

performance; otherwise, scaling is not 

possible. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 12) 

As noted, DOE determined that 

double-ended burners cannot fit into 

small diameter lamps without changes 

to the lamp shape that could affect lamp 

characteristics and thereby product 

utility. Therefore, DOE scaled from large 

diameter lamps with double-ended 

burners to small diameter lamps with 

single-ended burners. DOE did not 

create demonstration models because 

the scaling was based on lamp designs 

in commercially available lamps. 

Operating Voltages Greater Than or 

Equal to 125 Volts 

In the preliminary 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 tested at 130 V to use the same 

technology and possess the same 

general performance characteristics as 

120 V lamps tested 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 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. 

The CA IOUs stated that it can be 

assumed the primary utility of the 130 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24115 

49Ecos Consulting (prepared for Pacific Gas & 

Electric, Natural Resources Defense Council, and 

the Appliance Standards Awareness Project), 2009. 

Optical Losses of Modified Spectrum Lenses on 

Incandescent Reflector Lamps. 

50CryoGas International Magazine, February 4, 

2013 ‘‘Ever Changing Rare Gas Market’’ Richard 

Betzendahl. 

V lamps was long life. However, they 

noted that the utility has not been 

removed from the market, as there are 

still many other commercially available 

long-life lamps. (CA IOUs, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 66–67) 

NEMA clarified that the primary utility 

and selling point of the 130 V lamps 

was their ability to withstand voltage 

spikes. The additional lifetime was just 

an added benefit. (NEMA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 67) 

EEI agreed that in some areas where the 

line voltage can be higher than 120 V, 

the 130 V lamps provided a safeguard 

against the lamp blowing out. (EEI, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 

61–63) NEMA asserted that consumers 

have arguably lost a utility and noted 

that elimination of a market-desired 

performance characteristic is counter to 

requirements in EPCA. (NEMA, No. 36 

at p. 1, 5) Additionally, according to 

EEI, consumers that now have to switch 

from 130 V to 120 V have to buy more 

lamps. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 30 at pp. 61–63) 

DOE received feedback in 

manufacturer interviews that in certain 

areas where voltage spikes may occur, a 

130 V lamp will last longer than a 120 

V lamp. DOE remains concerned, 

however, 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 at 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. 

EEI noted that when 130 V lamps are 

operated at 120 V, their lifetime is 

increased by about 2.5 times. (EEI, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 

61) GE noted that as 130 V lamps are 

operated on higher voltages, their 

efficacy decreases. GE stated that this 

relationship was misanalysed in the 

2009 Lamps Rule, and as a result, the 

July 2012 standards have eliminated 130 

V lamps from the market. (GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 60–61) 

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 NOPR 

analysis, DOE is proposing 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 preliminary analysis, DOE 

established CSLs for modified spectrum 

IRLs by scaling from the CSLs 

developed for the standard spectrum 

product class. DOE determined that a 

reduction of 15 percent from the 

standard spectrum CSLs would be 

appropriate for modified spectrum IRLs. 

The Joint Comment urged DOE to 

eliminate the 15 percent allowance for 

modified spectrum IRLs. The Joint 

Comment noted that a 2009 Ecos 

Consulting study 49 that found an 

average light loss of 9 to 11 percent 

associated with modified spectrum 

lenses. The study also highlighted the 

feasibility of modified spectrum IRLs 

exceeding the highest efficacy levels in 

the 2009 Lamps Rule. Therefore, the 

Joint Comment found that the 15 

percent scaling factor should be 

eliminated, as there are high efficacy 

modified spectrum lamps, or DOE 

should reduce the factor to 10 percent 

to match the findings of the Ecos 

Consulting study. (Joint Comment, No. 

35 at p. 3) 

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. 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

confirmed this 15 percent reduction by 

determining the difference between the 

catalog efficacies of the standardscompliant modified spectrum lamps to 

comparable standard spectrum lamps. 

Using the available data for standardscompliant 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, 

in this NOPR analysis DOE is proposing 

a 15 percent efficacy reduction from a 

standard spectrum IRL to a modified 

spectrum IRL. 

h. 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 availability of 

xenon is decreasing. If standards are set 

at a level requiring the use of xenon, it 

will increase its use, driving up prices 

and reducing availability, similar to the 

rare earth phosphor shortage issue. 

(NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

30 at pp. 80–81) NEMA noted that 

xenon is becoming increasingly scarce, 

and its loss is an automatic 5–7 percent 

efficacy reduction in IRLs. The loss of 

xenon will make it impossible to meet 

CSL 1. NEMA referred DOE to a 

February 2013 article in CryoGas 

International Magazine,50 which 

provides additional information on the 

xenon supply and demand market. 

These estimates show a 2013 increase in 

demand of 15–20 percent followed by 

steady 10 percent demand growth in 

outyears, with a potential for dramatic 

spike if emerging demands from 

technology related to satellites, 

anesthesia and electronics are realized 

as anticipated. NEMA stated that DOE 

should add an investigation of xenon 

availability trends and pricing to its 

analysis. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 3) 

NEEA and NPCC disagreed, stating 

that as there is no current shortage of 

xenon fill gas, and a standard requiring 

it would not demand a significant 

increase in xenon use, then xenon price 

and supply should not be an issue for 

this rulemaking. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 

34 at p. 2, 5) The CA IOUs further noted 

that xenon is already being used as the 

primary fill gas in virtually all IRLs, so 

a requirement of its use would not 

especially impact any constraints on 

supply or price instability in the market. 

(CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 9–10) 

DOE acknowledges that xenon supply 

and prices are an important factor for 

the lighting industry, including IRLs. 

Therefore, in the preliminary analysis 

DOE conducted a market assessment of 

xenon supply, demand, and prices as 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24116 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

51Betzendahl, Richard. ‘‘Still Bullish on Rare 

Gases: A CryoGas International Market Report.’’ 

CryoGas International, February 2012. (Last 

accessed October 25, 2013.) <www.cryogasdigital.com/cryogas/201202?pg=30#pg30> 

well as an LCC sensitivity to determine 

the impact of increased end user lamp 

prices due to increases in the price of 

xenon. DOE updated this assessment for 

the NOPR analysis. 

For the NOPR analysis, DOE 

examined various industry sources 

relevant to the xenon market including 

the February 2013 article in CryoGas 

International Magazine cited by NEMA. 

While, the article did forecast increases 

in xenon demand in 2013 and 2014, it 

also stated that it expected this to flatten 

out due to penetration of LEDs into the 

market. A 2012 CryoGas International 

Magazine article noted that xenon price 

increases predicted for 2012 did not 

occur to the extent expected.51 DOE 

understands that fluctuations in xenon 

supply and price are possible and 

difficult to predict. Based on its 

research, DOE did not find that there 

was currently a major shortage of xenon. 

To further inform the impact of xenon 

demand and prices, in the NOPR 

analysis, DOE conducted an LCC 

sensitivity that determines how high the 

xenon price would have to increase to 

result in zero LCC savings for the 

consumer at the proposed level. Based 

on the results of this analysis, DOE 

determined that EL 1 is achievable even 

with fluctuations in xenon price. See 

appendix 7C of the NOPR TSD for 

complete details on the xenon price 

sensitivity conducted in the LCC. 

Additionally, for this NOPR analysis, a 

xenon price sensitivity was also 

conducted in the NIA. Detailed results 

can be found in chapter 12 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

i. Proposed Standard 

DOE received several comments that 

no standards should be proposed for 

IRLs. NEMA indicated that the CSL 1, 

which was also the max tech level 

presented in the preliminary analysis 

should be eliminated. (NEMA, No. 36 at 

p. 1, 9) GE suggested that the existing 

standard for IRLs is appropriate, and 

DOE does not need to establish a higher 

standard. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 176–178) DOE 

has identified that there are achievable 

efficacy levels higher than the existing 

standard and has developed an EL based 

on the latest catalog and certification 

information. See section VI.D.3.f for 

more details. 

NEMA, in general, did not believe 

that any increase in efficacy for small 

diameter, modified spectrum, or greater 

than 125 V IRLs would be warranted. 

(NEMA, No. 36 at p. 5) NEMA expanded 

on the 130 V IRL, asserting that these 

lamps appear to have been eliminated 

by the 2009 Lamps Rule and arguing 

against further regulation. (NEMA, No. 

36 at p. 1, 5) Further, NEMA found the 

lack of 130 V lamps on the market as 

evidence that current standards for 

these lamps are technically or 

economically infeasible. NEMA noted 

that there is still difficulty in making 

these IRLs comply with the July 2012 

standards. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 5) 

Therefore, NEMA strongly 

recommended that for IRLs with 

voltages greater than or equal to 125 V 

the CSL be ‘‘No New Standard,’’ not 

CSL 0, which implies there are products 

to regulate rather than acknowledging 

the inability to further raise efficiency 

requirements. (NEMA, No. 36 at pp. 10– 

11) 

GE also strongly disagreed with 

applying another 15 percent increase on 

top of an already unachievable standard 

for the 130 V IRLs, particularly when it 

was not clear how energy savings could 

be justified and why products that don’t 

meet existing standards would be 

further regulated. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 191–193) EEI 

asked what percentage of the lighting 

market the 130 V lamps represent and 

questioned what can be gained by 

additional analysis if the standards 

adopted by the 2009 Lamps Rule have 

eliminated 130 V lamps from the 

market. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 30 at pp. 58–60, 68) 

DOE has not found evidence that 

more efficacious small diameter, 

modified spectrum, or 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 the proposed 

efficacy levels. Therefore, in this NOPR 

analysis, DOE is proposing efficacy 

levels for these lamp types. DOE 

requests comment on any technological 

barriers in manufacturing more 

efficacious small diameter, modified 

spectrum, or 130 V rated lamps for 

commercial production. 

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 reverseengineer (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 preliminary 

analysis, DOE estimated end-user prices 

for lamps by establishing discounts from 

manufacturer suggested price lists 

(hereafter ‘‘blue book prices’’). DOE 

revised its methodology for the NOPR, 

as described below, to account for 

additional information that became 

available after publication of the 

preliminary analysis. 

For this NOPR analysis, DOE gathered 

publicly available lamp pricing data 

after the compliance date of the July 

2012 standards. Based on feedback from 

manufacturer interviews, DOE 

determined that GSFLs and IRLs are 

sold through three main channels (state 

procurement, large distributors 

including 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. In the 

preliminary analysis, the medium enduser prices were used in the main 

results of the LCC and NIA analysis 

while the low and high end-user prices 

were used in sensitivity analyses in the 

LCC. DOE received several comments 

on this methodology and the resulting 

end-user prices. NEMA deferred 

comment on product price 

determination to individual 

manufacturer interviews. (NEMA, No. 

36 at p. 13) 

Stakeholders had specific comments 

regarding the IRL prices. ASAP and the 

CA IOUs found the price estimates for 

IRL standards case lamps provided by 

DOE to be higher than the typical 

pricing they found on the market. 

(ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

30 at pp. 200–201; CA IOUs, No. 32 at 

pp. 10–11) The CA IOUs stated that low, 

medium, and high prices were provided 

for a 55 W IRL at 20 lm/W for CSL 1, 

however, CSL 1 required an efficacy of 

only 18.3 lm/W for a 55 W lamp. The 

CA IOUs suggested that DOE collect cost 

information more representative of the 

minimum efficacy needed for each CSL 

analyzed. The CA IOUs asserted high 

outlier price points should not be given 

equal weight in DOE’s analysis; with 

minimal shopping, consumers will find 

lower priced products readily available. 

The CA IOUs provided a table showing 

some end-user price information 

gathered by ASAP and the CA IOUs. 

The information gathered includes price 

points for some of the higher performing 

IRLs from the major manufacturers 

collected from seven different retail 

outlets, including both online outlets 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24117 

and brick and mortar stores, with the 

highest price at $16.49 and the average 

price of $13.03. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 

10–11) NEEA and NPCC also questioned 

the high prices, specifically prices 

greater than $15 for 50–70 W halogen 

lamps with an efficacy of 20 lm/W or 

less. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at p. 6) 

In the preliminary analysis, while the 

representative lamp at CSL 1 had a 20 

lm/W catalog efficacy, its compliance 

values indicated a lower tested efficacy, 

resulting in an adjustment of CSL 1 to 

the 6.2P0.27 coefficient that would result 

in an efficacy of 18.3 lm/W for a 55 W 

lamp. Therefore, in the preliminary 

analysis, DOE determined prices of a 

lamp that represented the minimum 

efficacy at CSL 1. Further, the 

representative lamp prices at CSL 1 for 

IRLs were determined to be $9.29 for the 

low price, $16.34 for the medium price, 

and $23.77 for the high price in the 

preliminary analysis. These prices were 

based on publicly available price data, 

including prices from available state 

procurement contracts and a substantive 

number of Internet retailers. Any lamp 

prices from only one Internet retailer or 

one state procurement contract were 

removed from the pricing analysis, as 

were any extremely high prices (i.e., 

extreme outliers in the price trend 

observed for a lamp). DOE also 

examined the lamp prices cited by the 

CA IOUs and ASAP by identifying 

prices for these lamps at generally 

known lighting retailers, such as Home 

Depot, Lowe’s, Grainger, and 

eLightBulbs, and found average prices 

up to $20. Regarding the CA IOUs’ 

comment that consumers will find 

lower-priced products, DOE conducts 

the high price sensitivity in the LCC in 

part to address scenarios where 

consumers do not purchase lamps at the 

lowest price. 

Several stakeholders provided general 

comments indicating that the prices 

based on Internet retail presented in the 

preliminary analysis were too high. 

ASAP questioned why the Internet 

prices were higher than the DIY store 

prices that make up DOE’s medium 

case. ASAP noted that because such 

stores also sell products online, 

residential consumers would find these 

medium prices on the Internet. 

Additionally, ASAP mentioned that 

commercial customers would be 

educated enough to avoid the higher 

Internet prices, making it unlikely for 

anyone to purchase products at the high 

prices DOE presented. (ASAP, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 204– 

205) GE, however, noted that DOE 

found the prices online, demonstrating 

that the channel does exist. GE also 

stated that some retailers, small stores or 

online sites set their own price points 

and these can be very high. (GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 201) 

For this NOPR analysis, DOE updated 

its pricing database and its blue book 

information and developed updated 

high, medium, and low prices for the 

IRL representative lamps at CSL 1. 

These prices were slightly lower than 

those determined in the preliminary 

analysis because of updated price data 

collected from online retailers and 

updated blue book prices. DOE also 

received updated blue book prices for 

lamps covered under this rulemaking. 

DOE’s pricing analysis intends to 

capture a full range of available prices. 

DOE believes that the medium prices 

used in the main results are 

representative of the average price paid 

by the consumer. 

DOE also received comments 

regarding using a weighted price in its 

main results. NEEA and ASAP urged 

DOE to weight the high, medium, and 

low end-user prices rather than using 

sensitivities. (NEEA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 202–203; 

ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

30 at pp. 203–204) NEEA also 

emphasized the importance of 

weighting the different market prices in 

rulemakings, such as this one, where the 

nature of the product prohibits the 

typical markup analysis methodology. 

(NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

30 at p. 232) While it may be possible 

for some markets sources to charge more 

for the product, NEEA and NPCC 

contended that such pricing has nothing 

to do with the cost efficiency and 

should not impact the analysis. An ideal 

pricing proposal would be one based on 

sales-weighted average pricing. NEEA 

and NPCC urged DOE to seriously 

revisit this part of the analysis. (NEEA 

and NPCC, No. 34 at p. 6) 

NEEA cautioned DOE to be careful in 

determining what fraction of the market 

is paying what price at each channel, 

and ASAP suggested DOE account for 

the end-user and volume of lamps 

specific to a channel. (NEEA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 232; 

ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

30 at pp. 202–203) For the state 

procurement channel, NEEA noted that 

in the lighting market in their service 

area, state contract pricing is available 

for every government or semigovernment entity, and therefore many 

lamps are sold at the low price. (NEEA, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 

231–232) ASAP also noted that many 

lamps are being sold through each state 

procurement contract but cautioned that 

accessibility to these contracts is limited 

and therefore, the low price they offer 

is available to only a very small number 

of consumers. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 202–203) 

Additionally, ASAP remarked that if 

a consumer pays the high price, they are 

probably doing so by choice, as the 

medium price is accessible. ASAP 

likened the scenario to purchasing a 

book, where large online retailers and 

bookstore chains will have the book 

significantly marked down, but a 

consumer could choose to pay a high 

price in order to support a small local 

bookstore. ASAP reasoned that very few 

lamps would be sold at the high price 

and suggested DOE weight the prices 

accordingly. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 202–203) 

Taking into consideration the above 

comments, in this NOPR analysis DOE 

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. See chapter 7 of the 

NOPR TSD for further information on 

the pricing analysis. DOE welcomes 

feedback on the pricing methodology 

used in this 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 

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-andballast system input power (in watts) for 

GSFLs. DOE characterized 

representative lamp or lamp-and-ballast 

systems in the engineering analysis. To 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24118 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

52U.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-jan2012.pdf. 

53U.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. 

54U.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. 

55U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration. RECS Public Use Microdata files. 

2009. Washington, DC. www.eia.gov/consumption/ 

residential/data/2009/. 

56NEEA’s Residential Building Stock Assessment 

available at http://neea.org/resource-center/

regional-data-resources/residential-building-stockassessment. 

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),52 the Commercial 

Building Energy Consumption Survey 

(CBECS),53 the Manufacturer Energy 

Consumption Survey (MECS),54 and the 

Residential Energy Consumption Survey 

(RECS).55

NEMA agreed with the considered 

operating profiles. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 

15) GE also stated that the operating 

hours looked reasonable. (GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 212) 

However, EEI found the similarity 

between the GSFL commercial and 

industrial operating hours to be 

surprising. (EEI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 212–213) 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

calculated weighted average operating 

hours using the probability of a building 

type within each sector using the data 

sources described above. These sources 

provide the most accurate and recent 

data available on a national scale. DOE’s 

approach resulted in similar operating 

hours for the commercial and industrial 

sectors. 

DOE updated the methodology for 

determining operating hours in the 

NOPR analysis. The weighted average 

operating hours are based on the 

probability of a GSFL or IRL within a 

specific building type, rather than based 

on the probability of the building type. 

DOE used the average lamps per square 

foot and the percentage of lamps that are 

linear fluorescent or halogen from the 

2010 LMC to calculate these values. The 

average operating hours using the 

revised methodology are similar to those 

found in the preliminary analysis. For 

further details on the operating hours, 

see chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD. 

NEEA offered data from their 

residential sector energy use field 

survey of 2,200 lighting fixtures in 1,400 

houses. NEEA noted that DOE could use 

the data to verify analyses and findings. 

NEEA also mentioned their commercial 

sector energy use field survey, but stated 

that they might not have those data in 

time for NOPR analyses. (NEEA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 210, 

212) DOE examined NEEA’s Residential 

Building Stock Assessment reports,56

but continued to use the data sources 

described above in its analysis because 

NEEA’s data is limited to the northwest 

region. DOE did not find any recent 

NEEA report regarding energy usage in 

the commercial sector at the publication 

of this notice. 

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 preliminary 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 NOPR 

TSD for further information. 

Regarding the dimming scenarios, 

NEMA noted that the dimming systems 

save more energy than the standards 

considered in this rulemaking. NEMA 

asserted that this furthered their 

arguments that this rulemaking is 

unnecessary and a ‘‘system approach’’ 

would be more advantageous for energy 

efficiency. NEMA contended that DOE 

pursues diminishing returns through 

component standards and distracts 

resources from more beneficial 

efficiency efforts. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 

15) DOE did not consider a system 

approach in this rulemaking because 

EPCA directs DOE to undertake a review 

of standards for GSFLs and IRLs and 

determine if amended standards for 

these lamp types would result in energy 

savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1) and (3)– 

(5)) 

a. General Service Fluorescent Lamp 

Lighting Controls 

In the preliminary analysis, 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. 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 determined 

that the average reduction of system 

lumen output for GSFLs was 33 percent 

based on research and manufacturer 

input. 

GE asked for clarification on how 

DOE was incorporating the percentage 

to which the dimmed lamps were being 

dimmed. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 211) DOE 

incorporated this assumption by 

decreasing the BF of the baseline ballast 

by 33 percent and subsequently 

calculating the system mean lumen 

output of the baseline lamp-and-ballast 

system. DOE then assumed that each 

higher efficacy lamp-and-ballast system 

would be dimmed to equal the mean 

lumen output of the baseline system and 

adjusted the BF accordingly. DOE 

calculated the percentage each higher 

efficacy lamp-and-ballast system was 

dimmed by dividing the BF at the 

dimmed light output by the catalog BF 

at full light output. For more 

information, see appendix 6A of the 

NOPR TSD. 

Several commenters supported DOE’s 

analysis of dimming systems for GSFLs, 

noting that dimming systems are 

growing in popularity and provide the 

potential for significant energy savings. 

NEMA stated that when it encourages 

high efficacy fluorescent retrofits 

through one of its marketing programs, 

it always tries to encourage lighting 

controls. Thus, when a retrofit results in 

increased brightness there is the option 

to dim, which is where the largest 

amount of savings lies. (NEMA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 108– 

109) Further, Lutron stated that it agreed 

that the 33 percent energy savings from 

dimming systems cited in the 

preliminary analysis is close to the 

actual savings that can be expected as 

opposed to the savings estimated from 

higher lamp efficacy. (Lutron, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 73–74) 

Commenters expressed concerns, 

however, regarding the calculated 

energy consumption of a dimmed lampand-ballast system and the inclusion of 

reduced wattage lamps in the dimming 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24119 

57www.lutron.com/en-US/Education-Training/

Pages/Tools/EnergySavingCalc.aspx. 

analysis. Lutron noted that GSFL light 

output and input power do not scale 

perfectly linearly from zero. Lutron 

explained that there is an offset at the 

low end that accounts for the required 

electrode heating, typically a few 

percent of the total maximum rated 

power. The light output and input 

power scale linearly after this point. 

(Lutron, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

30 at p. 220) NEMA referenced their 

white paper LSD–345 and added that 

the need for cathode heat skews efficacy 

calculations. The lower the light output, 

the more cathode heat power increases, 

lowering the efficacy of the system. The 

systems are the most efficacious at full 

power, but NEMA clarified that this 

does not mean that they do not save 

energy when dimmed, only that it is not 

a linear scale. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 14) 

DOE agrees that GSFL light output 

and input power do not scale linearly 

from zero for dimming systems. In the 

preliminary analysis, DOE utilized 

manufacturer-published performance 

characteristics of the dimming systems 

to develop the relationship between 

light output and input power. DOE 

plotted the minimum and maximum 

light output levels and associated 

system input powers published in 

catalogs, and then fit a linear equation 

to the points. The published system 

input power values at minimum light 

output reflected the presence of cathode 

heat at minimum light output and thus 

the linear equations did not originate at 

zero. This approach was maintained in 

the NOPR analysis. For more 

information, see appendix 6A of the 

NOPR TSD. 

Regarding reduced wattage lamps, 

commenters noted that reduced wattage 

lamps, which contain krypton, did not 

provide the same dimming functionality 

as full wattage lamps. GE observed that 

if the GSFL standard is set at a level 

requiring a heavier fill gas, namely 

krypton, then the NES would start to 

decrease. GE and Lutron noted that even 

though controls and dimmers are 

already becoming required in buildings, 

the krypton eliminates the ability to 

control and dim the lamps, negatively 

affecting the energy savings. (GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 220– 

221; Lutron, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 30 at pp. 73–74) Philips stated that 

there is no published testing of dimming 

with krypton fill gas and currently no 

standards for dimming ballasts. (Philips, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 

222) NEMA further emphasized these 

points, cautioning DOE that reduced 

wattage 28 W lamps are less feasible to 

dim than 32 W lamps. NEMA suggested 

DOE model a 32 W lamp for their 

dimming analyses. NEMA further stated 

that CSLs should be set to retain the 32 

W lamps. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 14) 

DOE acknowledges that reduced 

wattage lamps may dim unreliably in 

certain applications. DOE discusses the 

dimmability of reduced wattage lamps 

in VI.B.1. In the preliminary analysis 

and this NOPR analysis, however, DOE 

identified several manufacturers that 

published performance data of both 28 

W and 25 W 4-foot MBP lamps when 

paired with dimming ballasts. This data 

indicates that these reduced wattage 

lamp types can be utilized in some 

dimming applications. For this reason, 

DOE continues to analyze reduced 

wattage 4-foot MBP lamps in its 

dimming analysis in addition to full 

wattage 4-foot MBP lamps. Regarding T5 

lamps, DOE found that catalog 

information generally did not indicate 

that reduced wattage T5 lamps should 

be operated on dimming ballasts. 

Therefore, as in the preliminary 

analysis, DOE does not analyze reduced 

wattage T5 lamps in dimming systems. 

As noted in section VI.D.2.g, DOE has 

ensured that the full wattage lamps in 

all product classes meet the proposed 

ELs so that full wattage lamps are 

available in situations where reduced 

wattage fluorescent lamps are 

unacceptable. 

b. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Lighting 

Controls 

In the preliminary 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. 

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 IRL dimming analysis. 

Lutron stated that they did not have 

independent data, but the estimate of 

five percent of lamps in the commercial 

sector operating on dimmers seems 

reasonably accurate. (Lutron, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 217) 

However, Lutron and NEMA disagreed 

with the value used for the lifetime 

multiplier. 

Lutron commented that the lifetime 

multiplier given for IRLs appears to be 

based on the standard incandescent 

formula published in the IESNA 

Lighting Handbook. Lutron stated that 

the multiplier that should be used for 

halogen PAR lamps, while still between 

three and four, is lower than the 

multiplier DOE used. (Lutron, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 214– 

215) NEMA also disagreed with DOE’s 

assumption that the lamp life for 

halogen products follows the 

incandescent curve of ‘‘Life ∼ V¥13,’’ 

where V is the voltage across the 

filament. Based on NEMA’s research, 

NEMA put forward the proper 

relationship as ‘‘Life ∼ V¥10,’’ which 

would result in a multiplier of 3 rather 

than 4 for the reduction in light output 

DOE considered. Therefore, NEMA 

recommended a multiplier of 3, instead 

of the multiplier of 4 suggested in the 

preliminary TSD. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 

15) 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE did 

not use an equation in the IESNA 

Lighting Handbook to calculate the 

lifetime multiplier and therefore was 

not employing the incandescent curve 

referenced by NEMA or Lutron. Rather, 

DOE used Lutron’s Energy Savings 

Calculator, available on the Lutron Web 

site.57 The values provided in this 

calculator are based on experiments 

conducted on halogen lamps, which 

provide the most accurate 

representation of the lifetime increase 

that occurs as a result of dimming 

halogen IRLs because they are based on 

halogen technology instead of 

incandescent technology and use 

experimental data. In this NOPR 

analysis, DOE has continued to utilize 

Lutron’s Energy Savings Calculator to 

determine the lifetime multiplier 

associated with various levels of 

dimmed light output. 

G. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis and Payback 

Period Analysis 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

conducted LCC and PBP analyses to 

evaluate the economic impacts of 

potential energy conservation standards 

for GSFLs and IRLs on individual 

consumers. 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24120 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

58Fuller, 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. 

59Monte Carlo simulations model uncertainty by 

utilizing probability distributions instead of single 

values for certain inputs and variables. 

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 

change in purchase cost (normally 

higher) by the change in average annual 

operating cost (normally lower) that 

results from the more efficient 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.58

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 (2017, 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 59 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. 

NEMA commented on the general 

LCC methodology used in the 

preliminary analysis, stating that it 

appears the 30-year payback period for 

LCC analysis timeline, about which they 

had previously expressed concern, has 

been stretched to a 70-year period for 

this rulemaking. NEMA assumed the 

time period was chosen to justify 

feasibility arguments that have 

miniscule payback estimates. NEMA 

requested that DOE clarify the 70-year 

forecasting and related analyses, and 

explain the justification for examining 

such a long period. (NEMA, No. 36 at 

pp. 3–4) 

The PBP is the amount of time it takes 

the consumer to recover the assumed 

higher purchase cost of a moreefficacious product through lower 

operating costs. DOE calculates and 

presents the payback period for all LCC 

scenarios, regardless of the value of the 

payback period, including the long 

payback periods referenced by NEMA. 

Payback periods are one of the factors 

that DOE considers when weighing the 

benefits and burdens of TSLs. 

In the NOPR analysis, DOE generally 

maintained the methodology from the 

preliminary analysis, with a few 

changes. Table VI.13 summarizes the 

approach and data DOE used to derive 

inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations 

for the preliminary analysis as well as 

the changes made for this NOPR. The 

NOPR TSD chapter 8 and its appendices 

provide details on the spreadsheet 

model and of all the inputs to the LCC 

and PBP analyses. The NOPR 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 

NOPR analysis. 

TABLE VI.13—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS IN THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSES * 

Inputs Preliminary TSD Changes for the proposed rule 

Consumer Product Price .................................... Applied discounts to manufacturer catalog 

(‘‘blue book’’) pricing in order to represent 

low, medium, and high prices for all lamp 

categories. Used medium prices in the main 

analysis.

Applied discounts to manufacturer 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24121 

TABLE VI.13—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS IN THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSES *—Continued 

Inputs Preliminary TSD Changes for the proposed rule 

Sales Tax ........................................................... Derived population-weighted-average tax values for each census division and large 

state 60 from data provided by the Sales 

Tax Clearinghouse.

Derived sector-specific average tax 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 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.

No change. 

Annual Operating Hours ..................................... Determined operating hours by associating 

building-type-specific operating hour data 

with regional distributions of various building types using the 2010 LMC and EIA’s 

2003 CBECS, 2009 RECS, and 2006 

MECS.

Determined operating hours by associating 

operating hours for a GSFL 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. 

Product Energy Consumption Rate .................... Determined lamp input power for IRLs 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.

No change. 

Electricity Prices ................................................. Electricity: Based on EIA’s Form 861 data for 

2011.

Electricity: Based on EIA’s Form 861 data for 

2011 scaled to 2012 (the dollar year of the 

analysis) using AEO 2013 and the consumer price index. 

Variability: Weighted average national price 

for each sector calculated from the probability of each building type within each 

census division or large state.

Variability: Weighted average national price 

for each sector and lamp type calculated 

from the probability of a GSFL or IRL purchased in each census division or large 

state 

Electricity Price Projections ................................ Forecasted using AEO 2012 ........................... Forecasted using AEO 2013. 

Replacement and Disposal Costs ...................... Commercial and industrial: Included labor and 

materials costs for lamp replacement, and 

disposal costs for failed GSFLs.

No change. 

Residential: Included only materials cost for 

lamps, with no lamp disposal costs.

Product Lifetime ................................................. Ballast lifetime based on average ballast life 

of 49,054 from 2011 Ballast Rule. Lamp 

lifetime based on published manufacturer 

literature where available.

No change. 

Discount Rates ................................................... Commercial and industrial: Derived 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,61 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A– 

94,62 and state and local bond interest 

rates 63.

No change. 

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 64 for 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 

2004, 2007, and 2010. 

Analysis Period ................................................... IRLs and commercial and industrial GSFLs: 

Based on the baseline lamp life in hours divided by the annual operating hours of that 

lamp.

IRLs and commercial and industrial GSFLs: 

No change. 

Residential GSFLs lamp failure: 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24122 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

60The four large states are New York, California, 

Texas, and Florida. 61 Damodaran Online, The Data Page: Historical 

Returns on Stocks, Bonds, and Bills—United States 

(2013). Available at: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/

∼adamodar. (Last accessed September, 2013.) 62U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 

Circular No. A–94 Appendix C (2012). Available at: 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a094/a94_

appx-c. 

63Federal Reserve Board, Statistics: Releases and 

Historical Data—Selected Interest Rates—State and 

Local Bonds (2013). Available at: http://

www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/

scfindex.html. 

64The Federal Reserve Board, Survey of 

Consumer Finances. Available at: 

www.federalreserve.gov/PUBS/oss/oss2/

scfindex.html. 

65Sales Tax Clearinghouse. Aggregate State Tax 

Rates. (2013). Available at: http://thestc.com/

STrates.stm. 

TABLE VI.13—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS IN THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSES *—Continued 

Inputs Preliminary TSD Changes for the proposed rule 

Residential GSFLs ballast failure and new 

construction/renovation: Based on the lifetime of the ballast.

Residential GSFLs ballast failure and new 

construction/renovation: No change. 

Compliance Date of Standards .......................... 2017 ................................................................. No change. 

Lamp Purchase Events ...................................... Assessed three events: lamp failure, ballast 

failure (GSFLs only), and new construction/

renovation.

No change. 

* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD. 

1. Consumer Product Price 

In the preliminary analysis, 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. DOE then developed 

low, medium, and high prices based on 

its findings. Medium prices were used 

in the main analysis results. In the 

NOPR analysis, DOE maintained the 

same methodology but 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. 

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 

adjusts prices for each year using the 

experience curve. 

2. Sales Tax 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

obtained state and local sales tax data 

from the Sales Tax Clearinghouse. The 

data represented weighted averages that 

included county and city rates. DOE 

used the data to compute populationweighted average tax values for each 

census division and four large states 

(New York, California, Texas, and 

Florida). 

EEI asked if DOE had any information 

on local sales taxes, such as city or 

county taxes, which would be added to 

the state sales tax. EEI noted that 

without considering the additional local 

taxes, especially in urban areas with 

commercial buildings, DOE may be 

missing relevant sales tax data. (EEI, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 

230–231) NEEA added that there are 

some publicly available local tax data by 

county. (NEEA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at p. 231) 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE used 

the Sales Tax Clearinghouse for sales tax 

data by state. Because the Sales Tax 

Clearinghouse specifies that the 

aggregate rates are weighted averages 

that include county and city rates, DOE 

accounts for the levels of taxes 

described in the comments. 

In this NOPR analysis, DOE used 

updated sales tax data from the Sales 

Tax Clearinghouse.65 DOE recognized 

that a population-weighted tax value 

may not accurately represent the 

probability of a lamp type purchased in 

each census division and large state. 

Therefore, in the NOPR analysis, DOE 

calculated 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. 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. Thus, in the preliminary analysis, 

the sales tax was averaged based on the 

number of people in a region or state, 

whereas in the NOPR, the sales tax is 

averaged based on how many people 

purchase a GSFL or IRL in a region or 

state. 

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 

preliminary 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-andballast system. DOE assumed that 

residential consumers would install 

their own replacement lamps and, thus, 

would incur no installation cost when 

replacing their own lamp. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24123 

66Environmental Health and Safety Online’s 

fluorescent lights and lighting disposal and 

recycling Web page—Recycling Costs. Available at 

www.ehso.com/fluoresc.php. (Last accessed October 

11, 2013.) 

67Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers, 

‘‘National Mercury-Lamp Recycling Rate and 

Availability of Lamp Recycling Services in the 

U.S.’’ Nov. 2004. 

DOE did not receive any comments on 

the installation cost. DOE retained this 

methodology for determining 

installation costs in this NOPR 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. DOE maintained 

its methodology of determining annual 

energy use inputs in this NOPR 

analysis. 

5. Product Energy Consumption Rate 

As in the preliminary analysis, DOE 

determined lamp input power for IRLs 

based on published manufacturer 

literature. 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-andballast 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 NOPR analysis. 

6. Electricity Prices 

For the LCC and PBP in the 

preliminary 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. 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 a weighted average national 

electricity price for each sector using the 

probability of each building type within 

each census division or large state. DOE 

did not receive any comments on this 

approach. 

In the NOPR analysis, 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 

requests comment on its methodology of 

determining average weighted 

electricity prices. 

7. Electricity Price Projections 

To estimate the trends in energy 

prices for the preliminary analysis, DOE 

used the price forecasts in AEO 2012. To 

arrive at prices in future years, DOE 

multiplied current average prices by the 

forecast of annual average price changes 

in AEO 2012. In this NOPR analysis, 

DOE used the same approach, but 

updated its energy price forecasts using 

AEO 2013. DOE intends to update its 

energy price forecasts for the final rule 

based on the latest available AEO. 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, highgrowth, 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 

its methodology for determining 

electricity price projections. 

8. Replacement and Disposal Costs 

In its preliminary analysis, DOE 

addressed lamp replacements occurring 

within the analysis period as part of 

installed costs for considered lamp or 

lamp-and-ballast system designs. 

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 2011$. 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.66 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.67 DOE 

considered the 30 percent lamprecycling 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 

disposal costs for lamps or ballasts from 

the LCC analysis for residential GSFLs. 

DOE received no comments 

concerning these assumed recycling 

rates, disposal costs, and their 

application in the LCC analysis. DOE 

maintained this approach in the NOPR 

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 

preliminary analysis, DOE evaluated 

three types of events that would prompt 

a consumer to purchase a lamp. These 

events are described below. DOE 

requests comments on these lamp 

purchasing events developed for this 

analysis. 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 comments stating that 

fixture spacing is adjusted during new 

construction and renovation. NEEA 

related that during tenant improvement 

in their market, the ceiling is the first 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24124 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

item to be stripped, and the lighting 

system is redesigned as part of the 

regular renovation between tenant 

occupancies. Therefore, NEEA 

contended, brand new ballasts and 

lamps are installed without regard to the 

previous fixture locations. NEEA added 

that T8 lamps are the only lighting 

element likely to be preserved in this 

scenario, and they would be used in a 

new fixture with a new ballast. (NEEA, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 

261–262) EEI commented that there are 

minimum foot-candle requirements to 

light spaces, and scenarios that result in 

lower lumen output from the baseline 

system will also include adjustments to 

the fixture spacing to maintain those 

lumens. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 30 at pp. 257–258) 

NEEA also argued that respacing 

would occur with a new renovation 

because the space would likely gain a 

whole new control system with 

daylighting and dimming fixtures not 

installed previously. Due to a different 

number people in a different office 

configuration, everything would have to 

be redesigned, making renovation more 

like new construction. (NEEA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 263) 

However, Lutron stated that all the 

elements added in the described 

renovation were the result of design and 

technical changes unrelated to the 

lighting regulations. (Lutron, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 263) 

Lutron noted that even if the lighting 

design of a space was completely altered 

during renovation, there would still be 

the same number of lamps and the same 

load. (Lutron, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 262–263) 

DOE also received several comments 

indicating that the respacing of fixtures, 

even in new construction or renovation, 

is unlikely due to ceiling grid 

constraints. NEMA stated that respacing 

is not a practical assumption for this 

rulemaking, and would not happen in 

practice other than to existing readymade dimensions. Spacing is effectively 

constrained by existing practices and 

ceiling grid construction, and not 

determined by the lighting selected. 

Further, NEMA clarified that spacing is 

almost always based on the available 1 

by 1, 2 by 2, or 2 by 4 ceiling grids, and 

that must be factored into the analysis. 

The likelihood of other spacing is near 

zero. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 16) GE agreed 

that the standard 2 by 4 ceiling grids 

make it nearly impossible to respace 

fixtures in response to a change of a few 

lumens per watt. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 258–289) 

NEMA also noted that there is an 

interdependence among the ceiling 

material, the modular wire strings, the 

fixtures, and the fixtures’ performance. 

(NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

30 at pp. 259–260) Philips added that 

when adjusting fixture spacing, the 

hangers for the lights will also have to 

be changed in many scenarios. Given 

that this modification necessitates going 

into the ceiling, and the prevalence of 

asbestos, it is unlikely the consumer 

would want to make this adjustment. 

(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

30 at pp. 260–261) If consumers were 

not installing new lamps, GE believed 

they would more likely switch to a 

ballast with a better ballast factor rather 

than respace fixtures. (GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 258– 

259) 

NEMA further remarked that 

substantial changes in efficacy or lumen 

output are necessary to warrant space 

changes. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 16) GE 

agreed that it would be very unlikely for 

users to respace fixtures to 

accommodate compliant lamps’ lumen 

output. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 30 at pp. 258–289) 

DOE agrees that spacing adjustments 

are not practical. Ceiling grid systems 

typically come in fixed layouts, and 

lamp fixtures are sized to be compatible 

with the commonly available grid 

options. Thus, DOE believes that 

consumers are limited in the spacing of 

fixtures by the ceiling grid and its 

associated components. DOE also agrees 

that consumers would be more likely to 

change light output levels by adjusting 

system components such as the ballast 

factor (i.e., use a high BF or low BF 

ballast) or lamp lumen output levels 

(e.g., 32 W 4-foot MBP high lumen 

lamp) rather than attempting to adjust 

fixture spacing using non-standard 

ceiling grids. DOE acknowledges that 

fixture spacing adjustments may be 

done in certain cases as cited by NEEA. 

Based on available information and the 

other comments discussed above, 

however, such adjustments are not a 

common practice nationwide. Thus, 

DOE did not include spacing 

adjustments as part of the LCC analysis. 

10. Product Lifetime 

a. Lamp Lifetime 

In the preliminary 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 preliminary 

analysis, DOE assumed that a lamp 

subject to group relamping operates for 

75 percent of its rated lifetime, an 

estimate obtained from the 2011 Ballast 

Rule. However, DOE received 

information from manufacturers in 

interviews that consumer behavior has 

changed and group relamping now 

occurs at 85–90 percent of rated life. 

Therefore, in the NOPR analysis DOE 

assumes that a lamp subject to group 

relamping operates for 85 percent of its 

rated lifetime. By considering lamp 

rated lifetimes and the prevalence of 

group versus spot relamping practices, 

DOE derived an average lifetime for a 

GSFL. This ranged from 94 percent of 

rated lifetime for 8-foot SP slimline 

lamps to 96 percent of rated lifetime for 

4-foot MBP lamps. See chapter 8 of the 

NOPR TSD for further details. DOE 

requests comment on its spot and group 

relamping assumptions, particularly the 

percent of rated life at which group 

relamping occurs. 

As stated above, DOE is using 15 

years as the estimated fixture and ballast 

lifetime in the residential sector for 

purposes of its analyses. In the 

preliminary analysis, the lifetime of the 

baseline GSFL in the residential sector 

was calculated by dividing the life in 

hours by the average operating hours of 

a GSFL in the residential sector (648 

hours per year), which resulted in a 

lifetime of 37 years for the baseline 

lamp. Because this lifetime of the 

baseline lamp was longer than the 

average lifetime of a fixture and ballast, 

for the lamp failure scenario, DOE 

assumed that residential sector GSFL 

consumers were able to realize the full 

rated lifetime of their lamps. Therefore, 

at the average operating hours of 648 

hours per year, DOE utilized the full 

lifetime of the baseline lamp (37 years) 

as the analysis period. DOE assumed 

that when a ballast is removed in the 

middle of the analysis period, these 

consumers preserve their lamps, 

purchase a new ballast of the same type 

as the initial ballast, and then have the 

new ballast installed with the preserved 

lamps (incurring a lamp-and-ballast 

system installation cost). In contrast, for 

the ballast failure and new construction 

and renovation events, DOE assumed 

that the ballast or fixture lifetime limits 

the lifetime of an average lamp in the 

residential sector. Under average 

operating hours of 648 hours per year, 

DOE assumed that lamp lifetime of the 

baseline-case and standards-case lamps 

is limited to 9,723 hours or 15 years, 

due to a ballast or fixture failure. See 

section VI.G.9 and chapter 5 of the 

NOPR TSD for a description of lamp 

purchase events. DOE requests comment 

on its general approach to determining 

lamp lifetime for this analysis. 

NEMA disagreed with the assumption 

that lamps will be retained upon ballast 

failure. NEMA stated that the most 

likely thing that occurs when a light 

fixture in the residential sector fails to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24125 

68The 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. 

69The 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. 

provide light is that new lamps are 

purchased. The next step if the fixture 

still does not work is to replace the 

whole fixture, not just the ballast. As a 

result, NEMA contended that a failed 

ballast will result in the lamps (new and 

old) being scrapped (or returned) when 

the entire fixture is replaced. (NEMA, 

No. 36 at p. 16) GE explained that when 

a ballast fails, it can operate in such a 

way that damages the lamp, especially 

the cathodes. When a lamp goes out, a 

residential consumer will likely assume 

that the problem is the lamp itself; very 

rarely would a consumer understand 

that only the ballast needs to be 

replaced and instead replace the entire 

fixture. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 30 at pp. 235–237) 

DOE evaluated the likely replacement 

scenarios suggested by stakeholders and 

agrees that it is more likely for a 

residential consumer to replace an 

entire lamp-and-ballast system rather 

than only the ballast because consumers 

would not necessarily be aware that 

only the ballast failed. Thus, in the 

NOPR analysis, DOE no longer assumes 

that consumers retain their lamp when 

the ballast fails. See Appendix 8B of the 

NOPR TSD for more details. DOE 

requests comment on its approach to 

determining lamp lifetime. 

b. Ballast Lifetime 

Chapter 8 of the preliminary analysis 

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. In this 

NOPR analysis DOE retained the ballast 

lifetimes used in the preliminary 

analysis. 

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.68

In the preliminary analysis, for the 

residential sector, DOE derived discount 

rates from estimates of the interest or 

‘‘finance cost’’ to purchase residential 

products. 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.’’ 69 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. 

EEI pointed out residential consumers 

have a lower discount rate than 

industrial customers do. EEI noted that 

if residential consumers use any form of 

credit, the nominal interest rate 

typically will be above 10 percent. 

Thus, EEI questioned why a wellcapitalized industrial company would 

have a higher discount rate than 

residential consumers with varying 

incomes and credit card interest rates. 

(EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 

at pp. 228–229) 

The discount rate is the rate at which 

future expenditures are discounted to 

estimate their present value. The 

discount rate accounts for consumers 

placing a certain value on spending 

money now versus in the future. For 

residential consumers, DOE estimated 

the discount rate by looking across all 

possible debt or asset classes. Thus, the 

residential discount rate is not limited 

to credit. The residential discount rate 

analysis factors in 12 different methods 

to finance purchases and the rates for 

these methods vary from 0 to 10.4 

percent. As DOE estimates the discount 

rate by looking across all 12 of these 

debt and asset classes, and the discount 

rate is not limited to credit, the average 

rate is lower than 10 percent. For the 

commercial and industrial consumers, 

DOE estimated the cost of capital for 

commercial and industrial companies 

by examining both debt and equity 

capital, and developed an appropriate 

weighted average of the cost to the 

company of equity and debt financing. 

After performing these calculations and 

averaging each discount rate across 

various types of consumers, the 

residential discount rate was calculated 

to be lower than the industrial discount 

rate. Therefore, DOE believes it is 

appropriately determining discount 

rates for all types of consumers and has 

maintained this methodology in this 

NOPR analysis. For further details on 

discount rates, see chapter 8 and 

appendix 8C of the NOPR TSD. 

12. Analysis Period 

The analysis period is the span of 

time over which the LCC is calculated. 

In the preliminary 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. 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. DOE did not 

receive any comments on this 

methodology. DOE maintained this 

approach for determining the analysis 

period in the NOPR analysis. DOE 

requests comment on its LCC analysis 

period assumptions. In particular, DOE 

requests comment on basing the 

analysis period on the baseline lamp life 

divided by the annual operating hours 

of that lamp for the IRL and commercial 

and industrial sector GSFL analyses. 

DOE also requests comment on basing 

the analysis period on the useful life of 

the baseline lamp for a specific event for 

residential GSFLs. 

13. Compliance Date of Standards 

The compliance date is the date when 

a covered product is required to meet a 

new or amended standard. DOE expects 

to publish any amended standards for 

GSFLs and IRLs in 2014. As a result, 

consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5), 

DOE expects the compliance date to be 

2017, three years after the publication of 

any final amended standards. DOE 

received no comments on its expected 

standards compliance date of 2017 and 

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. General Service Fluorescent Lamp 

Life-Cycle Cost Results in the 

Preliminary Analysis 

NEMA and EEI noted that in the 

tables presented at the public meeting, 

the results for the GSFL LCC savings 

included instances of ‘‘NR.’’ (NEMA, 

No. 36 at pp. 15–16; EEI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 245–246) 

NEMA assumed NR indicated that the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24126 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

70The final rule amending energy conservation 

standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts published in 

2011 with a compliance date of November 14, 2014. 

76 FR 70548 (Nov. 14, 2011). 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. 

energy savings were zero or negative 

and stated that figures should be added 

to the results because missing data 

points would skew the findings. NEMA 

stated that DOE should factor CSLs’ 

negative impacts into the analysis or 

give reasons why figures should not be 

included. (NEMA, No. 36 at pp. 15–16) 

EEI attributed the ‘‘NR’’ to the baseline 

and CSL 1 lamps having the same 

nominal and rated wattages. EEI urged 

DOE to show the energy savings for 

every event, even if they are zero. As the 

event is a possibility under standards, it 

will be an economic cost to the 

consumer and the results need to be 

factored into the analysis and reported 

numerically rather than ‘‘NR.’’ (EEI, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 

245–246) 

In the preliminary analysis for the 

lamp replacement scenario, DOE 

utilized ‘‘NR’’ to indicate that no 

replacement option existed that reduced 

energy consumption at a given efficacy 

level because the lamp wattage at the 

higher efficacy level was the same as the 

baseline and the higher efficacy lamp 

was operated on the same ballast. DOE 

revised its NOPR engineering analysis to 

consider lamps that do not reduce 

energy consumption. These were 

incorporated into the NOPR LCC 

analysis. See section VI.D.2.e for further 

details on lamp-and-ballast systems 

developed in the engineering analysis. 

Regarding the instant start 4-foot MBP 

results, EEI also noted that another lamp 

at CSL 2 had the same nominal and 

rated wattage as the baseline lamp, but 

shows positive energy savings. EEI 

asked for an explanation for the 

reported positive energy savings where 

EEI would not expect there to be any. 

(EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 

at pp. 245–246) For the 4-foot MBP 

instant start lamps at CSL 2 with the 

same nominal and rated wattage as the 

baseline lamp, the BF of the ballast on 

which the higher efficacy lamp was 

operating was lower than the BF of the 

ballast on which the baseline lamp was 

operating. A lamp-and-ballast system 

with a more efficacious, similar wattage 

lamp and lower BF ballast will consume 

less energy while maintaining similar 

light output compared to the baseline 

system. DOE considered ballasts with 

varying BFs in the ballast failure event 

and new construction and renovation 

event. 

Lutron expressed concern that there 

were positive LCC savings only for 

reduced wattage lamp replacements. 

Lutron questioned whether DOE was 

taking into account the probable 

increased use of dimming systems in the 

future, especially in new construction 

and renovation. As reduced wattage 

lamps are not compatible with 

dimming, their LCC savings would 

likely be lower than shown, but would 

be greater if total energy use was taken 

into account. (Lutron, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at p. 251) DOE 

accounts for lighting controls in the LCC 

in a sensitivity analysis. See section 

VI.F.2 and appendix 8B of the NOPR 

TSD for more details. 

NEEP provided information that some 

of the ballast failure scenarios included 

in the analysis are very uncommon. For 

example, DOE analyzed T8 programmed 

start ballasts when the vast majority of 

existing ballasts are instant start. (NEEP, 

No. 33 at p. 3) 

Although certain ballast scenarios 

may be less common, DOE’s research 

indicates that they are already in use 

and increasing in market share. In the 

2011 Ballast Rule,70 DOE analyzed 

programmed start ballasts for 4-foot 

MBP lamps directly due to their 

increasing market share. Programmed 

start ballasts are typically used in 

applications with frequent switching 

such as those with occupancy sensors. 

Because lighting controls are becoming 

more common, as discussed in section 

I.A.1.a, the use of programmed start 

ballasts is expected to increase. 

Additionally, DOE notes that the start 

year of the analysis is 2017 and, 

therefore, it was appropriate to include 

programmed start ballasts because of 

their expected increase in market share. 

DOE continued to include these 

scenarios in the LCC NOPR analysis. 

CA Utilities questioned why DOE had 

not considered delamping scenarios, 

using high ballast factors such as 1 or 

1.15, adding reflectors, or other kinds of 

optimized retrofits. (CA IOUs, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 253– 

254) The CA IOUs stated that there 

would be scenarios where DOE could 

use such measures to optimize costeffectiveness. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at p. 254) However, 

EEI reasoned that there are too many 

other options and materials that could 

be included, and some of them would 

be possibilities for the baseline lamps as 

well, such as reflectors and ballasts with 

tandem wiring. EEI concluded that if 

DOE attempts to account for all possible 

scenarios, the analysis may no longer 

reflect what is actually happening with 

lamp efficacy or the most likely retrofit 

or new construction scenario in the 

presence of amended standards. (EEI, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 

254–256) 

NEEA noted that delamping is a fairly 

common scenario, especially if DOE 

considers lighting retrofit as renovation, 

and NEEA stated they may have some 

data on such scenarios. (NEEA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 256) 

GE agreed that delamping is a very 

typical situation when moving from T12 

to T8 systems. GE noted, however, that 

in a T8 to T8 analysis, delamping would 

be much less likely. GE agreed that the 

practice was common in the past, but 

did not anticipate it being that common 

going forward. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 256–257) 

DOE did not analyze delamping in the 

preliminary analysis. Available 

information indicates that delamping is 

not a common retrofit for T8 fluorescent 

systems. DOE received feedback during 

manufacturer interviews that delamping 

was previously very common with T12 

systems as these systems were typically 

designed such that spaces were overlit. 

However, delamping is not common 

with T8 systems because lumen output 

levels have already been reduced to 

comply with newer recommended 

lighting levels and building codes. 

Therefore, DOE maintained its 

assumption and did not considering 

delamping in the NOPR analysis. 

DOE also received comments 

regarding rare earth oxide prices and 

their impact on lamp prices and costs to 

the consumer. NEMA stated that to 

make products conforming to the 2009 

Lamps Rule, the most efficacious rare 

earth phosphors are used. This leaves 

only the amount of rare earth phosphors 

in each lamp as a design option for 

achieving higher efficacy. Additionally, 

NEMA noted that while the phosphor 

weight is increased linearly, the 

correlating efficacy gain diminishes. 

NEMA pointed to the estimates for 4- 

foot T8 lamps, the most common GSFL 

analyzed in this rulemaking. The 

estimates show that to achieve the 

proposed 1.1 percent increase in 

efficacy from 89 lm/W (2009 Lamps 

Rule) to 90 lm/W (CSL 1), nearly 10 

percent more of the associated rare earth 

oxide supply would be consumed. 

Further, to reach the CSL 2 level of 93 

lm/W, more than 40 percent additional 

rare earth phosphors will be needed for 

GSFLs. NEMA anticipated that the 

increased demand for this critical 

material will impact rare earth oxide 

prices and increase the costs of GSFLs 

to U.S. consumers. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 

14) 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

conducted a sensitivity analysis in the 

LCC using low and high rare earth oxide 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24127 

71U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Final 

Report: U.S. Lighting Market Characterization, 

Volume I: National Lighting Inventory and Energy 

Consumption Estimate. 2002. Washington, DC 

<http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

publications/pdfs/ssl/lmc_vol1_final.pdf>. 

72Navigant 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. 

prices developed based on historical 

oxide price data to assess the impact on 

the cost to consumer purchasing a 

GSFL. Because the rare earth oxide 

prices have stabilized since hitting a 

peak in 2011, DOE conducted a 

sensitivity analysis using only a 

forecasted high rare earth oxide price in 

the NOPR analysis. See section VI.I and 

appendix 11B for further information on 

the methodology used to develop rare 

earth oxide prices. DOE also utilized 

information provided by NEMA on how 

the amount of phosphor varies with 

efficacy to develop rare earth oxide 

costs attributable to different ELs. The 

results of this sensitivity are presented 

in appendix 8B of the NOPR TSD. 

Further, DOE also assessed the 

maximum possible increase in rare earth 

oxide prices that would maintain 

positive LCC savings for consumers at 

each EL. See appendix 7B of the NOPR 

TSD for results of this analysis. 

15. Incandescent Reflector Lamp LifeCycle Cost Results in the Preliminary 

Analysis 

A member of Congress commented 

that the July 2012 standards raised 

consumer prices on IRLs from 

approximately $4.50 to $8. The member 

anticipated that additional regulations 

would likely further increase the price 

to $10–12, while the return on 

investment based on energy savings 

would be 8 to 10 years. In this economic 

climate, the member believed imposing 

additional regulations on IRL 

manufacturers would be bad public 

policy. (Barr, No. 25 at p. 2) 

The weighted average lamp prices 

that DOE calculated for IRLs in this 

NOPR analysis are similar to the prices 

the member of Congress provided. (See 

chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD for further 

information.) In the LCC analysis, DOE 

calculates the payback period, which is 

the amount of time it takes the 

consumer to recover the assumed higher 

purchase cost of a more-efficacious 

product through lower operating costs 

(i.e., energy savings). DOE considers the 

calculated payback periods, as well as 

impacts on manufacturers when 

determining if a TSL is economically 

justified. Please see section VII.C of this 

NOPR for more details on the selection 

of the proposed TSL. 

H. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

In analyzing the potential impact of 

new or amended standards on 

consumers, DOE evaluates the impact 

on identifiable sub-groups of consumers 

(e.g., low-income households) that a 

national standard may 

disproportionately affect. In the 

preliminary analysis, DOE stated it was 

considering the following subgroups for 

analysis: Low-income consumers, 

institutions of religious worship, and 

institutions serving low-income 

consumers. 

EEI generally agreed with the 

consumer subgroups considered, but 

noted that how the current RECS data is 

structured would affect the analysis. EEI 

specifically questioned whether RECS 

broke out energy data specific to the 

poverty level. (EEI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 352–353) DOE 

notes that RECS data specifies whether 

consumers are at or below 100 percent 

of the poverty line. DOE believes this 

data is appropriate to conduct an LCC 

analysis on the low-income consumer 

subgroup. 

In the NOPR analysis, DOE evaluated 

low-income consumers and institutions 

that serve low-income populations (e.g., 

small nonprofits) as subgroups. 

However, DOE did not evaluate 

institutions of religious worship as a 

subgroup. In the 2009 Lamps Rule, DOE 

found that institutions of religious 

worship operate for fewer hours per 

year than any other building type in the 

commercial sector according to U.S. 

LMC: Volume I 71 data. DOE’s review of 

the 2010 LMC data indicated that the 

operating hours of institutions of 

religious worship are comparable to 

other commercial building operating 

hours. Therefore, because they do not 

have inputs to the LCC that would be 

different from the main LCC analysis, 

DOE did not analyze them as subgroups. 

The NOPR TSD chapter 9 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 an equipment stock 

and also to calibrate the shipments 

model. The details of the shipments 

model are described in chapter 11 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

The shipments model projects 

shipments of GSFLs and IRLs over a 

thirty-year analysis period for the base 

case (no standards) and for all standards 

cases. DOE invites comment on this 

choice of analysis period. 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 2013 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.72 The SSL 

Program projections extend only to 

2030; DOE extrapolated to the end of the 

shipments forecast period. In the 

preliminary analysis, DOE assumed an 

upper limit on market penetration of 80 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24128 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

73U.S. Department of Energy—Energy Efficiency 

& Renewable Energy Building Technologies 

Program. 2010 U.S. Lighting Market 

Characterization. January 2012. Washington, DC. 

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

publications/pdfs/ssl/2010-lmc-final-jan-2012.pdf. 

74For 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. 

percent for IRLs, 70 percent for 

commercial GSFLs, and 60 percent for 

residential GSFLs. 

Philips questioned why DOE did not 

expect LEDs to take over the entire 

market. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at p. 270) Given that 

LED technology has been progressing 

faster than expected, DOE has revised 

its analysis and is now fitting the 

technology adoption curve, allowing 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. 

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, codedriven implementation of lighting 

controls grows in slowly over time. 

GE noted that, in the future, an 

increasing number of fluorescent 

systems will be controlled and dimmed 

in the commercial sector. GE pointed to 

an increase of controls requirements in 

commercial building codes and 

suggested that the initial five percent 

dimming population assumed in the 

analysis increase over the analysis 

period. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 30 at p. 217) EEI stated that, given 

the amount of dimmers in office spaces, 

they expected the percentage of lamps 

in the commercial sector that are on 

controls to be higher. (EEI, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 216– 

217) EEI noted that the next edition of 

ASHRAE 90.1–2013, contains more 

control systems requirements for more 

lighting fixtures. (EEI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at p. 218) 

DOE is aware that current building 

codes will lead to an increase in the 

fraction of lamps coupled to lighting 

control systems. Accordingly, DOE 

included a projection of growth in the 

fraction of commercial floor space 

subject to such building codes. The 

result is that the fraction of floor space 

utilizing various types of controls grows 

from 30 percent today to a projected 

value of 80 percent in 2046. 

The CA IOUs stated that dimming 

ballasts will become more common with 

time. Specifically, the CA IOUs noted 

that California’s Title 24 will require all 

new commercial buildings, and most 

lighting renovations in existing 

commercial buildings, to install 

dimming ballasts beginning January 

2014. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 13–14) 

Lutron asked if DOE took California’s 

Title 24 into account. (Lutron, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at p. 218) 

The CA IOUs noted that Title 24 would 

not have been included in the 2010 

LMC because the provision was passed 

after the 2010 LMC was published. (CA 

IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 

at pp. 218–219) 

DOE is aware that current building 

energy codes will lead to an increase in 

the fraction of lamps coupled to lighting 

control systems and dimming ballasts. 

Accordingly, in the shipments analysis 

and NIA, DOE included a projection of 

growth in the fraction of commercial 

floor space subject to such state codes, 

including California’s Title 24 

requirements, as renovations and new 

construction trigger compliance 

requirements. As mentioned previously, 

the result is that the fraction of floor 

space utilizing controls grows from 30 

percent today to a projected value of 80 

percent in 2046. DOE assumed that 26 

percent of control systems for GSFL 

applications include dimming ballasts, 

based on data in the 2010 LMC.73 Based 

on assumptions of the fraction of each 

control type that relies on a dimming 

ballast, DOE projects that the market 

share of dimming ballasts grows from an 

estimated 8 percent at present to an 

estimated 20 percent in 2046. DOE seeks 

input on the current fraction of GSFL 

ballast shipments that are dimming 

ballasts and the likely rate of growth of 

dimming ballasts in the future. The 

details of the analysis on controls and 

dimming are presented in chapter 11 

and appendix 11A of the NOPR TSD. 

The price-learning module estimates 

lamp and ballast prices in each year of 

the analysis period using a standard 

price-learning model.74 The model is 

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 NOPR 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. 

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 lampand-ballast system, the full price of the 

system, as well as the energy and 

annualized relamping costs, are 

considered. In this case, the comparison 

between different ballast types and 

product classes is made by considering 

a representative lamp-and-ballast 

combination. 

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 save energy relative 

to the baseline system, the shipments 

analysis allows consumers to choose 

among all 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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24129 

75Bass, F.M. A New Product Growth Model for 

Consumer Durables. Management. 1969. 15(5): pp. 

215–227. 

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-energysaving options relative to the baseline. 

Details of the selection of allowable 

lamp-and-ballast combinations are given 

in chapter 11 of the NOPR 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 renovating lighting systems, 

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. 

The market-share module 

incorporates a limit on the diffusion of 

new technology into the market using 

the widely accepted Bass adoption 

model,75 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 priceand 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. 

Because DOE executes the marketshare 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, renovation, or 

new construction, it accepts only lamps 

or lamp-and-ballast combinations that 

retain lumen capacity within acceptable 

bounds. DOE received a number of 

comments on what consumers would 

find acceptable in terms of changes in 

light levels. 

NEMA stated that while, in the past, 

it was common practice to reduce light 

levels by 10 percent or more when 

retrofitting from a T12 to a T8 lighting 

system, this was because the older 

lighting systems were typically designed 

to higher light levels. NEMA 

commented that, over the years, light 

level requirements specified by IESNA 

have been reduced, so future 4-foot 

linear fluorescent systems will already 

be operating at the appropriate lower 

light levels, and further light level 

reductions of 6 percent to 14 percent 

cannot be justified against the T8 

systems operating in 2018. NEMA stated 

that DOE should seek to match the 

existing light levels within a plus or 

minus 5 percent range. (NEMA, No. 36 

at p. 8) 

The CA IOUs commented that 

scenarios in which lighting designers 

would specify an increase in light 

output instead of a reduction in system 

wattage will not be common in the 

commercial sector because (1) 

commercial occupants are often very 

sensitive to changes in workplace 

lighting and react negatively to light 

increases; and (2) commercial building 

operators are very sensitive to operating 

costs. The CA IOUs further stated that 

commercial building operators will 

prefer a retrofit option that will result in 

energy cost savings (without 

significantly reducing the light levels) 

over another option that increases light 

and doesn’t save energy (unless the 

space was known to be underlit). The 

CA IOUs stated that, where DOE has a 

standards-case modeling choice 

between a lighting retrofit that would 

result in an increase of light levels of 

between 0 percent and 10 percent with 

no energy cost savings, and another that 

would result in a decrease of light levels 

of between 0 percent and 10 percent 

with energy cost savings, DOE should 

model the energy-saving option as the 

most likely scenario for consumers. (CA 

IOUs, No. 32 at p. 14) NEEA and NPCC 

commented on the modeled lamp or 

lighting system replacement options in 

which light output levels are increased 

10 percent or more instead of 

maintaining light levels with an 

appropriate reduction in system power 

use. They contended that it is highly 

unlikely that a lighting retrofit or lamp 

replacement project would be 

undertaken that would result in a light 

output increase without using the 

opportunity to save energy (which often 

pays for or helps pay for the retrofit). 

(NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at pp. 2, 4) 

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 costeffective 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 now 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. 

The CA IOUs commented that there 

are a number of tools available to 

lighting designers to reduce system 

wattage while maintaining acceptable 

light levels. These options include 

installing lower wattage lamps, reducing 

ballast factors, delamping, or installing 

dimming ballasts. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at 

pp. 13–14) NEEA and NPCC commented 

that, if a 32 W T8 lamp replacement is 

undertaken, there are options available 

for maintaining acceptable light output 

while reducing energy use, such as 30 

W and 28 W T8s, ballasts with a lower 

ballast factor, and dimming ballasts. 

(NEEA and NPCC, No. 34 at pp. 2, 4) 

NEMA commented that the energy 

consumption of GSFL systems is highly 

dependent on ballast selection and 

pairing, and asserted that NES of 

lighting systems will not be affected 

significantly by this proposed 

rulemaking on GSFL efficacy due to the 

overwhelming influence of ballast 

selection on final performance. (NEMA, 

No. 36 at p. 1) 

DOE is aware of the substantial 

impact of the ballast and lamp choice on 

the energy consumption of a lamp-andballast system. As discussed earlier in 

this section, the shipments analysis 

explicitly models the possibility that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24130 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

76 DOE conferred with Dr. King, who indicated 

that a good comparison can be made between rare 

earths and cobalt, which are comparable (within 

about a factor of ten) in abundance in the earth’s 

crust. In 1978, world cobalt supplies were 

dominated by a single source (Zaire). In 2010, rare 

earth supplies were dominated by a single source 

(China). In 1978, the use of cobalt was growing both 

in existing and emerging technologies. The same is 

true for rare earths today. Following the 1978 crisis, 

new cobalt mines opened, and substitute materials 

were developed. Markets are pursuing the same 

paths for the rare earths today. DOE examined 

inflation-adjusted cobalt prices from 1970 through 

2012 and found that cobalt prices did continue to 

remain volatile, although later price fluctuations 

were less than half of the initial price peak seen in 

1978. 

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-andballast 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. Given that 

the lamp options considered in this 

rulemaking represent a fairly narrow 

range in lumen output within each 

product class, DOE does not consider 

delamping to be a likely means of saving 

energy for consumers who are only 

replacing failed lamps (see section 

VI.D.2.e for more information on 

delamping). 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 commented that reduced 

wattage lamps have limited utility as a 

substitute for full wattage lamps. NEMA 

noted that, while standard fluorescent 

lamp technology dims reliably, more 

efficient krypton-filled fluorescent 

lamps do not dim reliably in many 

applications. (NEMA, No. 36 at p.6) The 

CA IOUs stated that California’s Title 24 

requirement for controls in new 

buildings will result in high efficacy, 

full wattage T8s capable of dimming to 

custom light levels, ensuring higher 

efficacy lamps yield greater energy 

savings. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 14) The 

Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership 

(NEEP) also noted that high efficacy 

lamps do not impede control 

capabilities. NEEP commented that, 

while manufacturers had said that 

adding control functionality to a 

fluorescent fixture was the next frontier 

of efficiency for GSFLs, regional 

program administrators have not 

reported concerns that high efficacy 

GSFLs sacrifice dimming capabilities. 

(NEEP, No. 33 at p. 2) 

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. 

DOE notes that full wattage lamp 

options are available for all product 

classes at all efficacy levelss considered 

in this analysis. 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. DOE welcomes input on 

the assumption that a limited fraction of 

reduced-wattage 4-foot MBP lamps may 

be coupled to dimming ballasts. 

NEMA commented on the issue of 

lamp replacement upon ballast failure. 

NEMA contends that when a residential 

ballast fails, residential GSFL 

consumers tend to first try to replace the 

lamp, and when that fails they replace 

the entire fixture, discarding the lamps 

from the old fixture. The effect is to 

reduce the lamp’s usage life below its 

potential and therefore to increase 

shipments. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 16) The 

shipments model assumes that when a 

residential ballast fails, all associated 

lamps are assumed to be replaced. 

Rare earth oxides are used in GSFL 

phosphors to increase their efficiency. 

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 preliminary analysis to 

reflect uncertainties in the prices of rare 

earth oxides. 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

assumed that the rare earth phosphor 

content was the same at all considered 

efficacy levels for each lamp type. 

NEMA stated that there is a relationship 

between rare earth phosphor content 

and efficiency. Specifically, NEMA 

indicated that to increase the efficacy of 

4-foot MBP GSFLs from 89 to 90 lm/W 

would require 10 percent more rare 

earth phosphor and to reach 93 lm/W 

would require a 40 percent increase in 

rare earth phosphor. (NEMA, No. 36 at 

p. 14) Based on an examination of 

fluorescent lamp patents, DOE agrees 

with NEMA’s comment, and has 

adjusted its analysis accordingly, as 

described in appendix 11B of the NOPR 

TSD. 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE’s 

reference case assumed that rare earth 

phosphor prices would remain constant 

at the October 2012 level, but DOE 

acknowledged the uncertainty about 

prices and included a scenario with 

much higher prices. NEEP commented 

that DOE appropriately addressed the 

variability of rare earth phosphor prices 

in the preliminary analysis. (NEEP, No. 

33 at pp. 2–3) NEMA commented that 

rare earth phosphors are likely to 

remain critical (i.e., volatile), that prices 

are more likely to go up than down, and 

suggested that DOE consult Dr. Alex 

King of the Critical Materials Institute of 

the Ames Laboratory on the subject. 

(NEMA, No. 36 at p. 14) 

DOE examined the rare earth market 

and believes that the very large 

reduction in rare earth prices seen since 

the 2011 peak may represent some 

stabilization of the market, but it still 

considers future rare earth prices 

significantly uncertain.76 DOE therefore 

considered two price scenarios in its 

shipments modeling for GSFLs, as 

described in appendix 11B of the NOPR 

TSD. The reference scenario assumes 

that rare earth prices remain fixed at 

their September 2013 level. The high 

rare earth price scenario assumes an 

average rare earth price 3.4 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. 

The impact of the latter scenario on the 

results is discussed in section 0. DOE 

invites comment on its assumptions 

about future prices of rare earth 

elements. 

Stakeholders also commented on the 

possibility of future scarcity in the 

supply of xenon gas, which could affect 

future prices of IRLs. NEMA commented 

that xenon is becoming increasingly 

scarce and that its loss would result in 

a 5 to 7 percent reduction in IRL 

efficacy, making it impossible to meet 

CSL 1 of the preliminary analysis (20 

lm/W). NEMA advised DOE to 

investigate xenon availability trends and 

future prices. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 3) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24131 

77Available at www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/24. 

78Williams, 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. 

The CA IOUs commented that xenon is 

already used as the primary gas fill in 

most IRLs and that future efficacy 

standards should not be affected by 

potential constraints on xenon supply or 

xenon price fluctuations. (CA IOUs, No. 

32 at p. 9) NEEA pointed out that there 

is no current shortage of xenon gas fill 

and that a new standard would not 

require any significant amount of 

increased xenon supply. Therefore, the 

supply and price of xenon should not be 

an issue for the rulemaking. (NEEA, No. 

34 at p. 2) 

To assess the need for further 

investigation, DOE conducted a 

sensitivity analysis on the potential 

impact on the rulemaking of a ten-fold 

increase in xenon prices. The impact of 

the latter scenario on the results is 

discussed in section 0.. DOE welcomes 

input on its assumptions regarding the 

future price of xenon gas. 

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 U.S. energy 

consumption with amended energy 

conservation standards against 

projections of energy consumption 

without the standards (the base case). 

Because the shipments model allows 

for substitutions across product classes, 

to understand the impact of setting a 

standard at any given level for any given 

product class, the impact on all other 

product classes must be considered. 

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,77

allowing access to a broad range of 

scenario assumptions for conducting 

sensitivity analyses on specific input 

values. 

TABLE VI.14—INPUTS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

Input Description 

Shipments .......................................................................... Annual shipments from shipments model. 

Compliance date of standard ............................................. January 1, 2017. 

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. 

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 2013 forecasts (to 2040) and extrapolation beyond 2040. 

Electricity site-to-primary energy conversion ..................... A time series conversion factor; includes electric generation, transmission, and distribution losses. 

Discount rates .................................................................... 3% and 7% real. 

Present year ....................................................................... 2013. 

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 given 

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 

GSFL between the base case (without 

new standards) and each of the 

standards cases for lamps shipped 

during the 2017–2046 period. 

NEMA commented that DOE appears 

to be using a new (arbitrary) 70-year 

period in its analysis and requested 

explanation and justification for 

examining such a long stretch of time. 

(NEMA, No. 36 at pp. 2–3) In the NIA, 

DOE accounts for the lifetime impacts of 

the products shipped during a 30-year 

period. In the case of GSFLs and IRLs, 

most of the products are retired from the 

stock within five years. The lifetime 

distribution used by DOE shows a small 

number of lamps shipped for use in 

homes at the end of the 30-year 

shipments analysis period survive for 

much longer. While the energy use of 

these lamps is insignificant to the 

overall results, the calculation period 

for the NIA is extended to account for 

them. 

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. NEEA noted that as many as a 

third of commercial building control 

systems do not achieve their design 

performance and thus yield a smaller 

energy savings than expected. (NEEA, 

No. 30 at pp. 317–318) 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 metaanalysis of studies on the performance 

of actual lighting controls systems in the 

field.78

NEMA pointed out that light output 

and input power do not scale linearly 

for dimming GSFL systems due to the 

increasing importance of cathode heat 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24132 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

power at reduced light levels. (NEMA, 

No. 36 at p. 14) DOE recognizes the 

need for cathode heating in dimming 

ballast systems and has included this 

effect in its energy consumption 

calculations. In particular, the 

shipments analysis and NIA use power 

consumption assumptions identical to 

those used in the engineering analysis, 

which account for cathode heating in 

dimming systems. 

NEMA expressed concern that the 

highest considered efficacy levels would 

lead to the loss of reliable dimming and 

would have a negative impact on NES. 

NEMA asserted that, in future years, 

most of the energy savings from 

fluorescent lighting will be achieved 

through the increased use of lighting 

controls, not through increasing the 

efficacy of lamps, and that an aggressive 

standard on lamp efficacy could make 

these savings unachievable. (NEMA, No. 

36 at p.6) NEMA further suggested that 

DOE perform and report an analysis of 

the impacts of the loss of dimming 

savings for efficacy levels that they 

claimed will drive out dimmable lamps 

in favor of low wattage versions. NEMA 

asserted that this would show a negative 

impact on the market and payback. 

They contended that increased 

efficiency and dimmability are inversely 

proportional. (NEMA 36 at p.17) 

As discussed in the previous section, 

DOE modeled the growth of dimming 

ballasts in the shipments analysis and 

excluded or limited, as appropriate, the 

coupling of reduced wattage lamps to 

these ballasts. Therefore, the issues 

discussed in the previous comment are 

accounted for, and the NES and NPV 

results include any potential loss of 

dimming functionality. 

DOE accounts for the direct rebound 

effect in its NES analyses. 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 NOPR analysis. DOE 

also conducted a sensitivity analysis on 

the rebound rate, which is presented in 

chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. DOE 

welcomes comment on its assumptions 

and methodology for estimating the 

rebound effect for the products covered 

in this NOPR, including potential 

magnitudes of rebound effects. 

DOE converted the site electricity 

consumption and savings to primary 

energy (power sector energy 

consumption) using annual conversion 

factors derived from the AEO 2013 

version of NEMS. Cumulative energy 

savings are the sum of the NES for each 

year in which product shipped during 

2017 through 2046 continue to operate. 

In 2011, in response to the 

recommendations of a committee on 

‘‘Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle 

Measurement Approaches to Energy 

Efficiency Standards’’ appointed by the 

National Academy of Science, DOE 

announced its intention to use FFC 

measures of energy use and GHG and 

other emissions in the NIA and 

emissions analysis included in future 

energy conservation standards 

rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (August 18, 

2011). While DOE stated in that notice 

that it intended to use the Greenhouse 

Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy 

Use in Transportation (GREET) model to 

conduct the analysis, it also said it 

would review alternative methods, 

including the use of EIA’s NEMS. After 

evaluating both models and 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 a more 

appropriate tool for this specific use. 77 

FR 49701 (August 17, 2012). Therefore, 

DOE is using a NEMS-based approach to 

conduct FFC analyses. The approach 

used for today’s NOPR is described in 

appendix 12C of the NOPR TSD. 

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 the period 

starting January 1, 2017 and ending 

December 31, 2046. DOE calculated 

NPV 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 September 2013 

level. The high rare earth price scenario 

assumes that rare earth prices are 3.4 

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 0. 

For IRLs, DOE conducted a sensitivity 

analysis on the potential impact on the 

rulemaking of a ten-fold increase in 

xenon prices. The impact of the scenario 

on the results is discussed in section 0. 

b. Total Annual Operating Cost Savings 

The per-unit energy savings were 

derived as described in section VI.I. To 

calculate future electricity prices, DOE 

applied the projected trend in national 

average commercial and residential 

electricity prices from the AEO 2013 

Reference case, which extends to 2040, 

to the energy prices derived in the LCC 

and payback period 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 2013 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 

NOPR TSD. 

DOE estimated that annual 

maintenance costs do not vary with 

efficiency 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. 

In this part of the analysis, 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24133 

79OMB Circular A–4, section E (Sept. 17, 2003). 

Available at: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_

a004_a-4. 

their present value. DOE estimates the 

NPV using both a 3 percent and a 7 

percent real discount rate, in accordance 

with guidance provided by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) to 

federal agencies on the development of 

regulatory analysis.79 The discount rates 

for the determination of NPV are in 

contrast to the discount rates used in the 

LCC analysis, which are designed to 

reflect a consumer’s perspective. The 7 

percent real value is an estimate of the 

average before-tax rate of return to 

private capital in the U.S. economy. The 

3 percent real value represents the 

‘‘social rate of time preference,’’ which 

is the rate at which society discounts 

future consumption flows to their 

present value. 

K. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

DOE conducted separate MIAs for 

GSFLs and IRLs to estimate the financial 

impact of 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, equipment 

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 case). The difference in INPV 

between the base and standards cases 

represents the financial impact of 

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 sub-group of manufacturers; 

and impacts on competition. 

DOE conducted the MIAs for this 

rulemaking in three phases. In the first 

phase DOE prepared an industry 

characterization based on the market 

and technology assessment, preliminary 

manufacturer interviews, and publicly 

available information. In the second 

phase, DOE estimated industry cash 

flows in the GRIMs using industry 

financial parameters derived in the first 

phase and the shipment scenarios used 

in the NIAs. In the third phase, DOE 

conducted interviews with a variety of 

GSFL and IRL manufacturers that 

account for more than 90 percent of 

domestic GSFL sales and more than 80 

percent of domestic IRL sales covered 

by this rulemaking. During these 

interviews, DOE discussed engineering, 

manufacturing, procurement, and 

financial topics specific to each 

company and obtained each 

manufacturer’s view of the GSFL and 

IRL industries as a whole. The 

interviews provided information that 

DOE used to evaluate the impacts of 

amended standards on manufacturers’ 

cash flows, manufacturing capacities, 

and direct domestic manufacturing 

employment levels. See section 

VII.B.2.b of this NOPR for the 

discussion on the estimated changes in 

the number of domestic employees 

involved in manufacturing GSFLs and 

IRLs covered by standards. See section 

VI.K.4 of this NOPR for a description of 

the key issues manufacturers raised 

during the interviews. 

During the third phase, DOE also used 

the results of the industry 

characterization analysis in the first 

phase and feedback from manufacturer 

interviews to group manufacturers that 

exhibit similar production and cost 

structure characteristics. DOE identified 

one manufacturer sub-group for a 

separate impact analysis—small 

business manufacturers—using the 

small business employee threshold of 

1,000 total employees published by the 

Small Business Administration (SBA). 

This threshold includes all employees 

in a business’ parent company and any 

other subsidiaries. Based on this 

classification, DOE identified 21 GSFL 

manufacturers that qualify as small 

businesses and 15 IRL manufacturers 

that qualify as small businesses. The 

complete MIA is presented in chapter 

13 of the NOPR TSD, and the analysis 

required by the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., is presented 

in section VIII.B of this NOPR and 

chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD. 

2. GRIM Analysis and Key Inputs 

DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the 

changes in cash flows over time due to 

amended energy conservation 

standards. These changes in cash flows 

result in either a higher or lower INPV 

for the standards case compared to the 

base case (the case where a standard is 

not set). The GRIM analysis uses a 

standard annual cash flow analysis that 

incorporates manufacturer costs, 

markups, shipments, and industry 

financial information as inputs. It then 

models changes in costs, investments, 

and manufacturer margins that result 

from amended energy conservation 

standards. The GRIM uses these inputs 

to calculate a series of annual cash flows 

beginning with the base year of the 

analysis, 2013, and continuing to 2046. 

DOE computes INPV by summing the 

stream of annual discounted cash flows 

during the analysis period. DOE used a 

real discount rate of 9.2 percent for both 

GSFL and IRL manufacturers. The 

discount rate estimates were derived 

from industry corporate annual reports 

to the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (SEC 10-Ks). During 

manufacturer interviews GSFL and IRL 

manufacturers were asked to provide 

feedback on this discount rate. Most 

manufacturers agreed that a discount 

rate of 9.2 was appropriate to use for 

both GSFL and IRL manufacturers. 

Many inputs into the GRIM come from 

the engineering analysis, the NIA, 

manufacturer interviews, and other 

research conducted during the MIA. The 

major GRIM inputs are described in 

detail in the sections below. 

a. Capital and Product Conversion Costs 

DOE expects amended energy 

conservation standards of GSFLs and 

IRLs to cause manufacturers to incur 

conversion costs to bring their 

production facilities and product 

designs into compliance with amended 

standards. For the MIA, DOE classified 

these conversion costs into two major 

groups: (1) Capital conversion costs and 

(2) product conversion costs. Capital 

conversion costs are investments in 

property, plant, and equipment 

necessary to adapt or change existing 

production facilities such that new 

product designs can be fabricated and 

assembled. Product conversion costs are 

investments in research, development, 

testing, marketing, certification, and 

other non-capitalized costs necessary to 

make product designs comply with 

amended standards. 

Using feedback from manufacturer 

interviews, DOE conducted both topdown and bottom-up analyses to 

calculate the capital and product 

conversion costs for GSFL and IRL 

manufacturers. DOE then adjusted these 

conversion costs if there were any 

discrepancies between the two methods 

to arrive at a final capital and product 

conversion cost estimate for each GSFL 

and IRL product class at each EL. 

To conduct the top-down analysis, 

DOE asked manufacturers during 

manufacturer interviews to estimate the 

total capital and product conversion 

costs they would need to incur to be 

able to produce each GSFL and IRL 

product class at specific ELs. DOE then 

summed these values provided by 

manufacturers to arrive at total topmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24134 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

down industry conversion costs for 

GSFLs and IRLs. 

To conduct the bottom-up analysis, 

DOE used manufacturer input from 

manufacturer interviews regarding the 

types and dollar amounts of discrete 

capital and product expenditures that 

would be necessary to convert specific 

production lines for GSFLs or IRLs to 

each EL. GSFL manufacturers identified 

upgrading and recalibrating production 

automation systems as the primary 

capital cost that would be necessary to 

meet higher efficacy levels for GSFLs. 

IRL manufacturers identified several 

potential capital costs that could be 

required to meet higher efficacy levels 

for IRLs. These include purchasing new 

burner coating machines, increasing the 

capacity of existing burner machines, 

purchasing reflector coating machines, 

and purchasing coiling machines, as 

well as other retooling costs. The two 

main types of product conversion costs 

for GSFLs and IRLs that manufacturers 

shared with DOE during manufacturer 

interviews were the engineering hours 

necessary to redesign lamps to meet 

higher efficacy standards and the testing 

and certification costs necessary to 

comply with higher efficacy standards. 

Once DOE had compiled these capital 

and product conversion costs, DOE then 

took average values (i.e., average 

number of hours or average dollar 

amounts) based on the range of 

responses given by manufacturers for 

each capital and product conversion 

cost at each ELs. 

The bottom-up conversion costs 

estimates DOE created were consistent 

with the manufacturer top-down 

estimates provided, so DOE used these 

cost estimates as the final values for 

each GSFL and IRL product class at 

each EL in the MIA. 

See chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD for 

a complete description of DOE’s 

assumptions for the capital and product 

conversion costs. 

b. Manufacturer Production Costs 

Manufacturing more efficacious 

GSFLs or IRLs is typically more 

expensive than manufacturing a 

baseline product due to the need for 

more costly materials and components. 

One of the primary drivers behind 

increased material costs is the need for 

enhanced reflectors and/or burner 

coatings for IRLs or rare earth oxides 

(REOs) for GSFLs, as well as the need 

for higher volumes of these materials. 

The higher manufacturer production 

costs (MPCs) for these more efficacious 

products can affect the revenue, gross 

margin, and lifetime of the product, 

which will then affect total volume of 

future shipments, and the cash flows of 

GSFL and IRL manufacturers. Typically, 

DOE develops MPCs for the covered 

products and uses the prices as an input 

to the LCC analysis and NIA. However, 

because GSFLs and IRLs are difficult to 

reverse-engineer, DOE derived end-user 

prices for the lamps covered in this 

rulemaking. DOE observed a range of 

end-user prices paid for GSFLs and IRLs 

depending on the distribution channel 

through which the lamps are purchased. 

DOE then developed three sets of 

discounts from the manufacturer bluebook prices representing low (state 

procurement), medium (electrical 

distributors and big box retailers), and 

high (Internet retailers) lamp prices for 

both GSFLs and IRLs. For more 

information about pricing, see section 

VI.E of this NOPR. 

To calculate the MSP, the price at 

which manufacturers sell lamps to their 

customer, DOE calculated the 

distribution chain markup for the GSFL 

and IRL industries. DOE examined the 

SEC 10-Ks of publicly traded big box 

retail stores to determine the average 

retail markup for the medium end-user 

price distribution chain. DOE found the 

typical retail markup for big box stores 

was 1.52. DOE divided the medium enduser price for all GSFLs and IRLs by this 

value to arrive at MSPs for all GSFLs 

and IRLs. DOE invites comment on its 

methodology of using a 1.52 distribution 

chain markup in combination with the 

medium end-user price to estimate the 

MSP of all GSFLs and IRLs. 

DOE also examined the SEC 10-Ks of 

all publicly traded GSFL and IRL 

manufacturers to estimate the average 

GSFL and IRL manufacturer markup. 

The manufacturer markup represents 

the markup lamp manufacturers apply 

to their MPCs to arrive at the MSPs. 

This is different from the distribution 

chain markup, which is the markup 

retail stores apply to the MSP to arrive 

at the end user price. Based on SEC 10- 

Ks, DOE found the typical manufacturer 

markup for GSFL and IRL 

manufacturers on a corporate level was 

1.58. During manufacturer interviews, 

DOE asked manufacturers if 1.58 was an 

appropriate markup to use for GSFLs 

and IRLs. Based on manufacturer 

feedback that the 1.58 manufacturer 

markup was too high for both GSFLs 

and IRLs and should be lowered, DOE 

revised the manufacturer markup for 

both GSFLs and IRLs to be 1.52. The 

1.52 figure is the same manufacturer 

markup used for these products in the 

2009 Lamps Rule. 

For a complete description of the enduser prices, see the product price 

determination in section VI.E of this 

NOPR. 

c. Shipment Scenarios 

INPV, the key GRIM output, depends 

on industry revenue, which depends on 

the quantity and prices of GSFLs and 

IRLs shipped in each year of the 

analysis period. Industry revenue 

calculations require forecasts of: (1) 

Total annual shipment volume of GSFLs 

and IRLs; (2) the distribution of 

shipments across product classes 

(because prices vary by product class); 

and, (3) the distribution of shipments 

across efficacy levels (because prices 

vary with lamp efficacy). 

In the base case shipment analysis, 

DOE first established a lumen capacity 

demand per square foot for commercial 

and residential spaces serviced by 

GSFLs and IRLs. While this lumen 

capacity per square foot demand is 

assumed to remain unchanged over the 

analysis period, the total lumen demand 

grows proportionally with the growth of 

new commercial and residential floor 

space, as projected by AEO 2013. DOE 

also expects the lighting demand for 

GSFLs and IRLs to be eroded by 

increased penetration of LEDs into the 

market. This LED penetration rate for 

the reference shipment scenario is based 

on the rate forecasted in DOE’s SolidState Lighting Program. (See section VI.I 

of this NOPR for further information.) 

Overall, while demand for lighting is 

expected to increase for the entire 

economy as the amount of floor space 

increases, the demand for GSFL and IRL 

specific lighting is projected to decline 

in the base case due to the increased 

penetration of alternative lighting 

sources such as LEDs. 

In the standards case for GSFLs, DOE 

used a consumer choice model the 

shipments analysis and NIA to analyze 

how consumers would shift between 

GSFL product classes in response to 

standards (e.g., consumers might forgo 

purchases of 4-foot MBP GSFLs in favor 

of 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO GSFLs in 

response to a higher 4-foot MBP GSFL 

standard). GSFL consumers were not, 

however, assumed to increase the 

purchase of LEDs in response to 

increased GSFL energy conservation 

standards. As discussed in section VI.I 

of this NOPR, the transition from GSFLs 

to LEDs is accounted for in the base case 

shipment analysis, and additional 

shifting to LEDs due to GSFL standards 

was not modeled in the standards case 

shipment analysis or in the NIA. 

In the standards case for IRLs, the 

change in the number of shipments from 

the base case is mainly due to the 

increase in IRL lifetime at TSL 1 

compared to the base case shipment 

lifetime. IRLs that meet the efficacy 

level specified at TSL 1 have a longer 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24135 

lifetime than the baseline IRLs. As a 

result, there are fewer shipments of IRLs 

at TSL 1 than in the base case over the 

analysis period, because the lamps at 

TSL1 last longer. The NIA also modeled 

an alternative IRL shipment scenario 

where the lifetime of IRLs at TSL 1 is 

shorter than the base case lifetime. DOE 

examined the impacts of a shortened 

lifetime scenario on manufacturers’ cash 

flow as a sensitivity analysis. The 

results of the sensitivity analysis are 

presented in appendix 13C of the NOPR 

TSD. Also, similar to GSFLs, the 

shipments analysis and the NIA for IRLs 

did not model standards induced shifts 

to alternative lighting technologies, such 

as LEDs. Therefore, the MIA did not 

examine the revenue from LEDs in the 

manufacturers’ cash flows as part of the 

IRL MIA. While the shipments analysis 

and the NIA recognize that consumers 

are shifting to alternative lighting 

technologies, which are accounted for in 

the base case shipments projection, the 

shipments analysis and the NIA did not 

model an accelerated shift to these 

alternative technologies specifically due 

to increased standards of IRLs. 

For a complete description of the 

shipments see the shipments analysis 

discussion in section VI.I of this NOPR. 

d. Markup Scenarios 

As discussed in the manufacturer 

production costs section above, the 

MPCs for each of the product classes of 

GSFLs and IRLs are the manufacturers’ 

factory costs for those units. These costs 

include materials, direct labor, 

depreciation, and overhead, which are 

collectively referred to as the cost of 

goods sold (COGS). The MSP is the 

price received by GSFL and IRL 

manufacturers from their customers, 

typically a distributor, regardless of the 

downstream distribution channel 

through which the lamps are ultimately 

sold. The MSP is not the cost the enduser pays for GSFLs and IRLs because 

there are typically multiple sales along 

the distribution chain and various 

markups applied to each sale. The MSP 

equals the MPC multiplied by the 

manufacturer markup. The 

manufacturer markup covers all the 

GSFL and IRL manufacturer’s nonproduction costs (i.e., selling, general 

and administrative expenses [SG&A], 

research and development [R&D], and 

interest, etc.) as well as profit. Total 

industry revenue for GSFL and IRL 

manufacturers equals the MSPs at each 

EL for each product class multiplied by 

the number of shipments at that EL. 

Modifying these manufacturer 

markups in the standards case yields a 

different set of impacts on GSFL and 

IRL manufacturers than in the base case. 

For the MIA, DOE modeled two 

standards case markup scenarios for 

GSFLs and IRLs to represent the 

uncertainty regarding the potential 

impacts on prices and profitability for 

GSFL and IRL manufacturers following 

the implementation of amended energy 

conservation standards. The two 

scenarios are: (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 on GSFL and IRL 

manufacturers. 

The flat, or preservation of gross 

margin, markup scenario assumes that 

the COGS for each product is marked up 

by a flat percentage to cover SG&A 

expenses, R&D expenses, interest 

expenses, and profit. This allows 

manufacturers to preserve the same 

gross margin percentage in the 

standards case as in the base case. This 

markup scenario represents the upper 

bound of the GSFL and IRL industries’ 

profitability in the standards case 

because GSFL and IRL manufacturers 

are able to fully pass through additional 

costs due to standards to their 

consumers. 

To derive the flat, or preservation of 

gross margin, markup percentages for 

GSFLs and IRLs, DOE examined the SEC 

10-Ks of all publicly traded GSFL and 

IRL manufacturers to estimate the 

industry average gross margin 

percentage. Manufacturers were then 

asked about the industry gross margin 

percentage derived from SEC 10-Ks 

during manufacturer interviews. GSFL 

and IRL manufacturers stated that this 

average industry gross margin was too 

large and needed to be reduced. In 

response to these comments, DOE used 

the manufacturer markups from the 

2009 Lamps Rule for GSFLs and IRLs, 

which was slightly less than the average 

industry gross margin derived from SEC 

10-Ks of GSFL and IRL manufacturers. 

DOE included an alternative markup 

scenario, the preservation of operating 

profit markup, because manufacturers 

stated they do not expect to be able to 

markup the full cost of production in 

the standards case, given the highly 

competitive GSFL and IRL lighting 

markets. The preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario assumes that 

manufacturers are able to maintain only 

the base case total operating profit in 

absolute dollars in the standards case, 

despite higher product costs and 

investment. The base case total 

operating profit is derived from marking 

up the COGS for each product by the 

flat markup described above. In the 

standards case for the preservation of 

operating profit markup scenario, DOE 

adjusted the GSFL and IRL 

manufacturer markups in the GRIM at 

each TSL to yield approximately the 

same earnings before interest and taxes 

in the standards case in the year after 

the compliance date of the amended 

GSFL and IRL standards as in the base 

case. Under this scenario, while 

manufacturers are not able to yield 

additional operating profit from higher 

production costs and the investments 

that are required to comply with 

amended GSFL and IRL energy 

conservation standards, they are able to 

maintain the same operating profit in 

the standards case that was earned in 

the base case. 

The preservation of operating profit 

markup scenario represents the lower 

bound of industry profitability in the 

standards case. This is because 

manufacturers are not able to fully pass 

through the additional costs 

necessitated by GSFL and IRL energy 

conservation standards, as they are able 

to do in the flat (preservation of gross 

margin) markup scenario. Therefore, 

manufacturers earn less revenue in the 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario than they do in the flat markup 

scenario. 

3. Discussion of Comments 

Interested parties commented on the 

assumptions and results of the 

preliminary analysis. Comments 

addressed several topics: the potential 

shift to other lighting technologies in 

response to GSFL and IRL standards, the 

overall cumulative regulatory burden 

facing lighting manufacturers, the 

potential decrease in competition due to 

IRL standards, and the potential 

required use of proprietary technologies 

to achieve higher efficacy levels for 

IRLs. DOE addresses these comments 

below. 

a. Potential Shift to Other Lighting 

Technologies 

NEMA commented that further 

investments in GSFL and IRL 

technologies due to energy conservation 

standards will divert resources away 

from LED technology development. 

NEMA states that continued 

development of LEDs could lead to 

much great energy savings potential 

than the lighting technologies included 

in this rulemaking. NEMA recommends 

that DOE include in the MIA for GSFLs 

and IRLs the impact that such diversion 

of resources will have on LED 

technology if the lighting industry is 

required by a potential GSFL and IRL 

standard to make additional 

investments in GSFL and IRL 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24136 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

technologies that are already 

experiencing diminishing returns on 

investment and use. (NEMA, No. 36 at 

p. 1) 

DOE recognizes the opportunity cost 

associated with any investment, and 

agrees that manufacturers would need to 

spend capital to meet any proposed 

GSFL and IRL standards that they 

would not have to spend in the base 

case. The allocation of company 

resources among different lighting 

technologies is a complex business 

decision that each individual 

manufacturer will ultimately have to 

make. As a result, manufacturers must 

determine the extent to which they will 

balance investment in the GSFL and IRL 

markets with investment in emerging 

technologies, such as LEDs. The 

companies will have to weigh tradeoffs 

between deferring investments and 

deploying additional capital. DOE 

includes the costs on manufacturers of 

meeting today’s proposed standards in 

its analysis. 

NEEP commented that the MIA 

should account for any potential growth 

in LED sales lighting manufacturers 

might experience if the GSFL and IRL 

markets are projected to shrink 

throughout the years of the analysis. 

Instead of only accounting for lost 

revenues associated with a decrease in 

GSFL and IRL sales, NEEP suggests DOE 

also factor in the benefits those same 

manufacturers are potential gaining in 

the growing LED markets. (NEEP, No. 33 

at p. 3) 

Based on the shipment analysis DOE 

does not believe GSFL and IRL markets 

will increasingly migrate from 

traditional GSFL and IRL technologies 

to alternate lighting technologies, such 

as LEDs, in direct response to GSFL and 

IRL energy conservation standards. 

While DOE recognizes that LEDs are 

continuing to capture more and more of 

the traditional lighting markets serviced 

by GSFLs and IRLs, DOE does not 

believe that GSFL and IRL standards 

will increase this shift to LEDs. 

Therefore, this market shift to LEDs is 

captured in the base case shipment 

scenario and is not a standards-induced 

market shift. DOE excludes the revenue 

from LEDs earned by manufacturers 

who produce GSFLs and IRLs in the 

GRIM since the revenue stream would 

be present in both the base case and the 

standards case, resulting in no net 

impact on the change in INPV. 

b. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

NEMA, along with some individual 

manufacturers, commented on the 

cumulative regulatory burden of this 

rulemaking given there are several DOE 

energy conservation standards that 

affect the major lighting manufacturers 

of this rulemaking. NEMA stated that 

DOE does not adequately address or 

quantify the cumulative regulatory 

burden. NEMA urges DOE to adopt a 

more transparent and open decisionmaking process to better address their 

continued concerns. (NEMA, No. 30 at 

pp. 338–340; NEMA, No. 36 at pp. 18– 

19) The cumulative regulatory burden is 

explained in greater detail in section 

VII.B.2.e of this NOPR, and a complete 

description of the cumulative regulatory 

burden is included in chapter 13 of the 

NOPR TSD. A complete description of 

the proposal selection process is 

provided in section VII.C of this NOPR. 

GE commented they are concerned 

about the speed of this amended GSFL 

and IRL energy conservation standard, 

given that the 2009 Lamps Rule was 

published in 2009 and required 

compliance in 2012. They believe that it 

is difficult for manufacturers to recover 

their previous investments made in new 

technologies in only five and a half 

years. This potential loss in investments 

has a severe and negative manufacturer 

impact when rulemakings covering the 

same products are so close together. 

(GE, No. 30 at p. 188) 

Philips similarly commented that they 

had invested millions of dollars in 

incandescent technologies to meet EISA 

2007’s general service lighting 

requirements, which could become 

obsolete due to amended IRL energy 

conservation standards. (Philips, No. 30 

at p. 187) EEI also made similar 

comments stating that manufacturers 

who made long-term investments to 

comply with the 2009 Lamps Rule 

might not have had time to recover their 

investments in five or six years. (EEI, 

No. 30 at p. 187) A member of Congress 

commented that the OSI facility in 

Kentucky recently underwent major 

retooling to bring the facility into 

compliance with EISA’s incandescent 

lighting requirements. Bringing that 

facility into compliance with even more 

stringent IRL regulations would require 

an increased capital outlay that is 

unavailable to the company at this time. 

This could result in a reduction of U.S. 

manufacturing jobs. (Barr, No. 25 at p. 

1–2) As part of the cumulative 

regulatory burden analysis in section 

VII.B.2.e of this NOPR, DOE examines 

the investments manufacturers have 

made to comply with previous 

rulemakings. 

Philips also commented on the 

cumulative regulatory burden, asking 

DOE to specify the criteria that 

determines if the proposed standards 

constitute a cumulative regulatory 

burden on manufacturers. (Philips, No. 

30 at pp. 339–340; 347) DOE examines 

the cumulative regulatory burden as one 

of the potential impacts of potential 

standard levels before ultimately 

selecting an appropriate proposed 

standard. This examination of the costs 

and benefits of potential proposed 

standards is addressed in section VII.C 

of this NOPR. 

c. Potential Decrease in Competition 

EEI commented they are concerned 

that there could be a reduction in 

competition as a result of more stringent 

GSFL and IRL energy conservation 

standards. EEI stated they are especially 

concerned about any amended 

standards for IRLs due to the fact that 

DOJ determined that the 2009 Lamps 

Rule would have anti-competitive 

impacts on the IRL industry. EEI 

contends that any increase in the 

efficacy of IRLs due to amended 

standards could potentially increase 

these anti-competitive impacts. (EEI, 

No. 30 at pp. 335–337) 

NEEA stated there seems to be an 

increase in the number of brand names 

available in the marketplace for IRLs. 

(NEEA, No. 30 at pp. 337–338) In the 

2009 Lamps Rule, DOJ had expressed 

concerns that the proposed TSL 4 for 

IRLs could adversely affect competition 

noting that only two of the three large 

manufacturers manufacture IRLs that 

would meet the new standard and one 

of these manufacturers uses proprietary 

technology to do so. However, DOE 

research showed that all three large 

manufacturers had products that met 

TSL 4 and access to alternative 

technology pathways to achieve this 

efficacy that did not require propriety 

technology. Further, based on market 

research, analysis of HIR burner 

production, and interviews with 

manufacturers and HIR burner 

suppliers, DOE determined that 

manufacturers would not face any longterm capacity constraints. Therefore, 

DOE concluded that the proposed level 

in the 2009 Lamps rule for IRLs would 

not result in lessening competition. 74 

FR 34080, 34160 (July 14, 2009). 

DOE examines the potential decrease 

in competition from amended energy 

conservation standards in section 

VII.B.5 of this NOPR. DOE also submits 

a copy of the NOPR to DOJ for review 

as part of the rulemaking process and 

considers input from DOJ in developing 

any final standards. 

4. Manufacturer Interviews 

DOE conducted additional interviews 

with manufacturers following the 

preliminary analysis in preparation for 

the NOPR analysis. In these interviews, 

DOE asked manufacturers to describe 

their major concerns with this GSFL and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24137 

IRL rulemaking. The following section 

describes the key issues identified by 

GSFL and IRL manufacturers during 

these interviews. 

a. Rare Earth Oxides in General Service 

Fluorescent Lamps 

Several manufacturers are concerned 

that increasing the efficacy of GSFLs in 

response to amended energy 

conservation standards will require the 

use of significantly more REOs in 

GSFLs. This could expose GSFL 

manufacturers to the risk of another 

significant increase in the price of REOs. 

Over the past several years the price of 

REOs used in GSFLs has been extremely 

volatile. In 2011, the price of REOs 

significantly increased but has slowly 

been coming down over the past couple 

of years. While the current price of 

many of these REOs has returned to 

much lower levels than the peak prices 

experienced between 2010 and 2012, 

GSFL manufacturers are concerned that 

the price of REOs could return to those 

peak prices in the future. GSFL 

manufacturers are also concerned an 

increase in the demand for REOs due to 

amended energy conservation standards 

could cause the price for these REOs to 

spike. 

Several GSFL manufacturers also 

noted that amended energy conservation 

standards for GSFLs could have adverse 

impacts on the domestic production of 

GSFLs. China is currently the dominant 

miner and producer of REOs worldwide 

and imposes quotas on the export of raw 

REOs. This drives up the costs for 

manufacturers of products using REOs 

that manufacture these products outside 

of China. As a result, manufacturers 

pointed out that amended GSFL 

standards could make it more attractive 

to manufacture GSFLs in China, rather 

than domestically, because the price of 

REOs would likely be much lower in 

China. See section VI.D.2.i of this NOPR 

for further discussion of the assessments 

of rare earth phosphor impacts from 

amended standards undertake in this 

NOPR analysis. 

b. Unknown Impacts of the 2009 Lamps 

Rule 

Several manufacturers expressed 

concern that amended energy 

conservation standards for GSFLs and 

IRLs would be premature given that the 

last round of DOE energy conservation 

standards for GSFLs and IRLs required 

compliance in July 2012. Manufacturers 

are still unsure how the standards from 

the 2009 Lamps Rule will ultimately 

affect their future sales and shipments 

as consumer preferences shift since 

there are a relatively large number of 

alternative lighting options available on 

the market. Manufacturers noted that 

they have developed new products to 

meet the 2009 Lamps Rule standards 

and are still waiting to see which 

consumers purchase which types of 

lamps. 

Furthermore, manufacturers stated 

they have already made significant 

capital investments in order to be able 

to produce the more efficacious GSFLs 

and IRLs required by the 2009 Lamps 

Rule standards. Manufacturers are 

concerned that any additional increase 

in the efficacy of those products due to 

amended energy conservation standards 

could potentially strand the substantial 

capital investments made to comply 

with the 2009 Lamps Rule, as 

manufacturers have not yet fully 

recouped these capital investments. 

Manufacturers stated that a five year 

time period between the compliance 

date of the 2009 Lamps Rule (July 2012) 

and the estimated compliance date of 

the current GSFL and IRL rulemaking 

(2017) is too short for most 

manufacturers to recoup their capital 

investments, since manufacturing 

machinery typically has a much longer 

useful lifetime than five years. See 

section VII.B.2 of this NOPR for an 

analysis of the investments 

manufacturers must make to comply 

with standards. 

c. Technology Shift 

Several manufacturers contended that 

regardless of amended energy 

conservation standards, a technological 

shift away from GSFLs and IRLs is 

already occurring. They pointed out that 

the market is already moving toward 

LEDs, especially in the commercial 

sector. Manufacturers are concerned 

that amended standards would force 

them to divert resources away from the 

R&D of more efficacious lighting 

products, such as LEDs, by forcing 

manufacturers to spend time and money 

on GSFLs and IRLs, which have 

diminishing market shares. This 

increase in the efficacy of GSFLs and 

IRLs would increase the end-user price 

of GSFLs and IRLs which could 

ultimately drive consumers to purchase 

other lighting technologies, like LEDs. 

This could result in a further stranding 

of any capital investments made for 

GSFLs and IRLs. See section VI.I of this 

NOPR for discussion on the LED market 

penetration shipment scenario. 

d. Impact on Residential Sector 

Several manufacturers expressed 

concern that amended energy 

conservation standards for GSFLs and 

IRLs would not achieve substantial 

energy savings in the residential sector. 

Residential consumers do not have long 

operating hours and manufacturers are 

concerned that they will give up longer 

life to get a cheaper lamp. Furthermore, 

manufacturers expressed concern that 

amended GSFL standards may be overly 

burdensome by forcing some residential 

consumers of GSFLs to switch out their 

entire lighting system (i.e., ballast and 

fixture) due to replacement lamps being 

regulated out of production for only 

minimal energy savings. DOE 

acknowledges that residential 

consumers could be differentially 

impacted by GSFL and IRL standards 

compared to commercial consumers. 

DOE analyzed residential and 

commercial consumers separately in the 

LCC analysis for GSFLs and IRLs. These 

results are presented in section VII.B.1.a 

of this NOPR. 

L. Emissions Analysis 

In the emissions analysis, DOE 

estimated the reduction in power sector 

emissions of SO2, NOX, CO2, and 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 FFC. 

DOE conducted the emissions 

analysis using emissions factors for CO2

and other gases derived from data in the 

EIA’s AEO 2013, supplemented by data 

from other sources. DOE developed 

separate emissions factors for power 

sector emissions and upstream 

emissions. EIA prepares the AEO using 

NEMS. Each annual version of NEMS 

incorporates the projected impacts of 

existing air quality regulations on 

emissions. AEO 2013 generally 

represents current legislation and 

environmental regulations, including 

recent government actions, for which 

implementing regulations were 

available as of December 31, 2012. The 

method that DOE used to derive 

emissions factors is described in chapter 

14 of the NOPR TSD. 

SO2 emissions from affected electric 

generating units (EGUs) are subject to 

nationwide and regional emissions capand-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 (D.C.). SO2 emissions from 28 

eastern states and D.C. 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24138 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

80Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. 

Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, 

D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, 

M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland. 2007: Changes in 

Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. 

In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science 

Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the 

Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. 

Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, 

M.Tignor and H.L. Miller, Editors. 2007. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and 

New York, NY, USA. p. 212. 

Protection Agency (EPA) by the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit but it remained in 

effect. 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). On July 6, 2011 EPA issued a 

replacement for CAIR, the Cross-State 

Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 76 FR 

48208 (August 8, 2011). On August 21, 

2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision 

to vacate CSAPR. See EME Homer City 

Generation, LP v. EPA, No. 11–1302, 

2012 WL 3570721 at *24 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 

21, 2012). The court ordered EPA to 

continue administering CAIR. The AEO 

2013 emissions factors used for today’s 

NOPR assumes that CAIR remains a 

binding regulation through 2040. 

The attainment of emissions caps is 

typically flexible among EGUs and is 

enforced through the use of emissions 

allowances and tradable permits. Under 

existing EPA regulations, any excess 

SO2 emissions allowances resulting 

from the lower electricity demand 

caused by the adoption of an efficacy 

standard could be used to permit 

offsetting increases in SO2 emissions by 

any regulated EGU. In past rulemakings, 

DOE recognized that there was 

uncertainty about the effects of 

efficiency standards on SO2 emissions 

covered by the existing cap-and-trade 

system, but it concluded that negligible 

reductions in power sector SO2

emissions would occur as a result of 

standards. 

Beginning in 2015, however, SO2

emissions will fall as a result of the 

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 

(MATS) for power plants, which were 

announced by EPA on December 21, 

2011. 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 2013 

assumes that, to continue operating, 

coal plants must have either flue gas 

desulfurization or dry sorbent injection 

systems installed by 2015. Both 

technologies, which are used to reduce 

acid gas emissions, also reduce SO2

emissions. Under the MATS, NEMS 

shows a reduction in SO2 emissions 

when electricity demand decreases (e.g., 

as a result of energy efficiency 

standards). 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 efficiency 

standards will reduce SO2 emissions in 

2015 and beyond. 

CAIR established a cap on NOX

emissions in 28 eastern states and the 

District of Columbia. 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 

NOPR for these states. 

The MATS limit mercury emissions 

from power plants, but they do not 

include emissions caps and, as such, 

DOE’s energy conservation standards 

would likely reduce Hg emissions. DOE 

estimated Hg emissions reduction using 

emissions factors based on AEO 2013, 

which incorporates the MATS. 

In accordance with DOE’s FFC 

Statement of Policy (76 FR 51282 (Aug. 

18, 2011)), the FFC analysis includes 

impacts on emissions of methane (CH4) 

and nitrous oxide (N2O), both of which 

are recognized as GHGs. For CH4 and 

N2O, DOE calculated emissions 

reductions in tons and also in terms of 

units of carbon dioxide equivalent 

(CO2eq). Gases are converted to CO2eq 

by multiplying the emissions reduction 

in tons by the gas’ global warming 

potential (GWP) over a 100-year time 

horizon. Based on the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change,80 DOE used GWP values of 25 

for CH4 and 298 for N2O. 

M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and 

Other Emissions Impacts 

As part of the development of this 

proposed rule, DOE considered the 

estimated monetary benefits from the 

reduced emissions of CO2 and NOX

expected to result from each of the TSLs 

considered. 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 product 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 today’s NOPR, 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 below, 

and a more detailed description of the 

methodologies used is provided in 

appendices to chapter 15 of the NOPR 

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 CO2. A domestic SCC value is 

meant to reflect the value of damages in 

the United States resulting from a unit 

change in CO2 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 costbenefit 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24139 

81See Average Fuel Economy Standards 

Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Model Year 2011, 

74 FR 14196 (March 30, 2009) (Final Rule); Final 

Environmental Impact Statement Corporate Average 

Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light 

Trucks, Model Years 2011–2015 at 3–90 (Oct. 2008) 

(Available at: www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy) (Last 

accessed December 2012). 

82See Average Fuel Economy Standards, 

Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 

2011–2015, 73 FR 24352 (May 2, 2008) (Proposed 

Rule); Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, 

Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 

2011–2015 at 3–58 (June 2008) (Available at: 

www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy) (Last accessed 

December 2012). 

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 CO2

emissions, the analyst faces a number of 

serious challenges. A recent 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 GHGs; (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 serious limits of both 

quantification and monetization, SCC 

estimates can be useful in estimating the 

social benefits of reducing CO2

emissions. Most Federal regulatory 

actions can be expected to have 

marginal impacts on global emissions. 

For such policies, the agency can 

estimate the benefits from reduced 

emissions in any future year by 

multiplying the change in emissions in 

that year by the SCC value appropriate 

for that year. The NPV of the benefits 

can then be calculated by multiplying 

the future benefits by an appropriate 

discount factor and summing across all 

affected years. This approach assumes 

that the marginal damages from 

increased emissions are constant for 

small departures from the baseline 

emissions path, an approximation that 

is reasonable for policies that have 

effects on emissions that are small 

relative to cumulative global CO2

emissions. For policies that have a large 

(non-marginal) impact on global 

cumulative emissions, there is a 

separate question of whether the SCC is 

an appropriate tool for calculating the 

benefits of reduced emissions. This 

concern is not applicable to this 

rulemaking, however. 

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. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in 

Past Regulatory Analyses 

Economic analyses for Federal 

regulations have used a wide range of 

values to estimate the benefits 

associated with reducing CO2 emissions. 

In the final model year 2011 CAFE rule, 

the U.S. Department of Transportation 

(DOT) used both a ‘‘domestic’’ SCC 

value of $2 per metric ton of CO2 and 

a ‘‘global’’ SCC value of $33 per metric 

ton of CO2 for 2007 emission reductions 

(in 2007$), increasing both values at 2.4 

percent per year. DOT also included a 

sensitivity analysis at $80 per metric ton 

of CO2.81 A 2008 regulation proposed by 

DOT assumed a domestic SCC value of 

$7 per metric ton of CO2 (in 2006$) for 

2011 emission reductions (with a range 

of $0 to $14 for sensitivity analysis), 

also increasing at 2.4 percent per year.82

A regulation for packaged terminal air 

conditioners and packaged terminal 

heat pumps finalized by DOE in October 

of 2008 used a domestic SCC range of 

$0 to $20 per metric ton CO2 for 2007 

emission reductions (in 2007$). 73 FR 

58772, 58814 (Oct. 7, 2008). In addition, 

EPA’s 2008 Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking on Regulating Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions Under the Clean Air Act 

identified what it described as ‘‘very 

preliminary’’ SCC estimates subject to 

revision. 73 FR 44354 (July 30, 2008). 

EPA’s global mean values were $68 and 

$40 per metric ton CO2 for discount 

rates of approximately 2 percent and 3 

percent, respectively (in 2006$ for 2007 

emissions). 

In 2009, an interagency process was 

initiated to offer a preliminary 

assessment of how best to quantify the 

benefits from reducing CO2 emissions. 

To ensure consistency in how benefits 

are evaluated across 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. 

The results of this preliminary effort 

were presented in several proposed and 

final rules. 

c. Current Approach and Key 

Assumptions 

Since 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. 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. 

In 2010, the interagency group 

selected four sets of SCC values for use 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24140 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

83Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Interagency 

Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United 

States Government, February 2010. 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/

inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-forRIA.pdf. 

84Technical 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-forregulator-impact-analysis.pdf. 

in regulatory analyses.83 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, although preference is 

given to consideration of the global 

benefits of reducing CO2 emissions. 

Table VI.15 presents the values in the 

2010 interagency group report, which is 

reproduced in appendix 15A of the 

NOPR TSD. 

TABLE VI.15—ANNUAL SCC VALUES FROM 2010 INTERAGENCY REPORT, 2010–2050 

[In 2007 dollars per metric ton CO2] 

Year 

Discount rate 

% 

5 3 2.5 3 

Average Average Average 95th 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 today’s 

notice were generated using the most 

recent versions of the three integrated 

assessment models that have been 

published in the peer-reviewed 

literature.84 Table VI.16 shows the 

updated sets of SCC estimates from the 

2013 interagency update in five-year 

increments from 2010 to 2050. 

Appendix 15B of the NOPR 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. 

TABLE VI.16—ANNUAL SCC VALUES FROM 2013 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2010–2050 

[In 2007 dollars per metric ton CO2] 

Year 

Discount rate 

% 

5 3 2.5 3 

Average Average Average 95th Percentile 

2010 ................................................................................................................. 11 32 51 89 

2015 ................................................................................................................. 11 37 57 109 

2020 ................................................................................................................. 12 43 64 128 

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 previously 

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 concerns 

and problems that should be 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24141 

85U.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, Washington, DC. 

86For more information on NEMS, refer to the 

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration documentation. A useful summary 

is National Energy Modeling System: An Overview 

2003, DOE/EIA–0581 (2003) (March, 2003). 

87OMB Circular A–4 (Sept. 17, 2003), p. 38. 

88Although delayed investment implies a savings 

in total cost, the savings may be less than the 

savings in capital cost because the delay may also 

cause increases in other costs. For example, if the 

delayed investment was the replacement of an 

existing facility with a larger, more efficient facility, 

the increased cost of operating the old facility 

during the period of delay might offset much of the 

savings from delayed investment. That the project 

was delayed is evidence that doing so decreased 

overall cost, but it does not indicate that the 

decrease was equal to the entire savings in capital 

cost. 

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 resulting from 

today’s rule, DOE used the values from 

the 2013 interagency report, adjusted to 

2012$ using the Gross Domestic Product 

price deflator. For each of the four SCC 

cases specified, the values used for 

emissions in 2015 were $11.8, $39.7, 

$61.2, and $117 per metric ton avoided 

(values expressed in 2012$). DOE 

derived values after 2050 using the 

relevant growth rates for the 2040–2050 

period in the interagency update. DOE 

invites comment on the methodology 

used to estimate the social cost of 

carbon. 

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. 

2. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

As noted previously, DOE has taken 

into account how new or amended 

energy conservation standards would 

reduce NOX emissions in those 22 states 

not affected by the CAIR. DOE estimated 

the monetized value of NOX emissions 

reductions resulting from each of the 

TSLs considered for today’s NOPR 

based on estimates found in the relevant 

scientific literature. Estimates of 

monetary value for reducing NOX from 

stationary sources range from $468 to 

$4,809 per ton in 2012$.85 DOE 

calculated monetary benefits using a 

medium value for NOX emissions of 

$2,639 per short ton (in 2012$) and real 

discount rates of 3 percent and 7 

percent. 

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 trial standard level. The utility 

impact analysis uses a variant of 

NEMS,86 which is a public domain, 

multi-sectored, partial equilibrium 

model of the U.S. energy sector. DOE 

uses a variant of this model, referred to 

as NEMS–BT, to account for selected 

utility impacts of new or amended 

energy conservation standards. DOE’s 

analysis consists of a comparison 

between model results for the most 

recent AEO Reference Case and for cases 

in which energy use is decremented to 

reflect the impact of potential standards. 

The energy savings inputs associated 

with each TSL come from the NIA. 

Chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD describes 

the utility impact analysis in further 

detail. 

NEEP urged DOE to quantify the 

economic benefits of electricity demand 

reductions for this rulemaking. (NEEP, 

No. 51 at p. 3) 

For the NOPR, DOE used NEMS–BT, 

along with EIA data on the capital cost 

of various power plant types, to estimate 

the reduction in national expenditures 

for electricity generating capacity due to 

potential GSFL–IRL energy efficiency 

standards. The method used and the 

results are described in chapter 16 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

DOE is evaluating whether parts of 

the cost reduction are a transfer and, 

thus, according to guidance provided by 

OMB to Federal agencies, should not be 

included in the estimates of the benefits 

and costs of a regulation.87 Transfer 

payments are monetary payments from 

one group to another that do not affect 

total resources available to society (i.e., 

exchanges that neither decrease nor 

increase total welfare). Benefits occur 

when savings to consumers result from 

real savings to producers, which 

increase societal benefits. Cost savings 

from reduced or delayed capital 

expenditure on power plants are a 

benefit, and not a transfer, to the extent 

that the reduced expenditure provides 

savings to both producers and 

consumers without affecting other 

groups. There would be a transfer to the 

extent that the delayed construction 

caused some other group (e.g., product 

suppliers or landowners who might 

have assets committed to the projects) to 

realize a lower return on those assets. 

DOE is evaluating these issues to 

determine the extent to which the cost 

savings from delayed capital 

expenditure on power plants are a 

benefit to society.88

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24142 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 in 

the NOPR, 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). 

ImSET is a special-purpose version of 

the ‘‘U.S. Benchmark National InputOutput’’ (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. For the NOPR, DOE 

used ImSET only to estimate short-term 

employment impacts. For more details 

on the employment impact analysis, see 

chapter 17 of the NOPR TSD. 

P. Other Comments 

DOE received several comments that 

address the overall merits of adopting 

amended standards for GSFLs and IRLs. 

NEMA stated that existing voluntary 

incentives are already shifting the 

market to higher-efficiency products 

and systems. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 17) 

Trends in the GSFL and IRL market are 

accounted for in DOE’s projection of the 

base case. The impacts estimated for 

potential standards are above movement 

toward higher efficiency in the base 

case. 

NEMA commented that standards are 

not justified for IRLs. Specifically, 

NEMA stated that the miniscule energy 

savings estimated for IRLs, combined 

with elimination of their market share 

by 2025, demonstrate why this class 

should not be further regulated and DOE 

should not adopt a new standard. 

(NEMA, No. 36 at pp. 2, 17) DOE’s 

analysis indicates that the market share 

of IRLs would decline under the 

proposed standards, but the product 

would not be eliminated. The reasons 

for DOE’s decision to propose standards 

for IRLs are explained in section VII.C 

of this notice. 

NEMA also stated that, if DOE were 

to proceed with a higher standard for T5 

SO lamps, the projected shipments go 

up (compared with the base case). It 

noted that, as the only competitor for T5 

SO is LED, increasing the demand for 

T5 SO takes market share away from 

LED, a technology that is on the rise for 

reasons of popularity, lifetime, and 

efficiency. It stated that decreasing 

demand for LED technology in favor of 

an obsoleting technology that relies on 

critical materials (rare earth phosphors) 

and mercury is not a sound decision. 

(NEMA, No. 36 at p. 17) As discussed 

in chapter 11 of the NOPR TSD, the 

model accounts for the progressive and 

large incursion of LEDs into the GSFL 

market. The model then apportions the 

remaining demand for GSFL lamps 

among the product classes. The 

projected increase in shipments of T5 

SO lamps relative to the base case is at 

the expense of 4-foot MBP lamps, not 

LEDs. 

VII. Analytical Results 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

At the NOPR stage, DOE develops 

trial standard levels (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 

efficacy levels that, in combination, 

yield the maximum NPV. TSL 3 is 

composed of the efficacy levels that 

yield the maximum energy savings 

without using any of the EL 2 levels. 

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 lamps currently available on 

the U.S. market; currently there are no 

products in the market at the baseline 

(EL 0) for 8-foot RDC HO lamps or T5 

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.b 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 VI 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

Representative product class 

TSL 1 

Current market 

min 

TSL 2 

Same 

phosphor 

level 

TSL 3 

Best non-EL 2 

TSL 4 

Max NPV 

TSL 5 

Max tech 

1. 4-foot medium bipin, CCT ≤4,500 K ................................ 0 0 1 2 2 

2. 8-foot single pin slimline, CCT ≤4,500 K ......................... 0 1 0 0 2 

3. 8-foot RDC high output, CCT ≤4,500 K .......................... 1 2 1 1 2 

4. 4-foot T5, Mini bipin standard output, CCT ≤4,500 K ..... 1 1 1 1 2 

5. 4-foot T5, Mini bipin high output, CCT ≤4,500 K ............ 1 1 1 1 1 

TABLE VII.2—COMPOSITION OF TSLS

FOR IRLS BY EFFICACY LEVEL

Representative product class TSL 1 

Standard spectrum; >2.5 

inch diameter; <125 V ...... 1 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

DOE analyzed the economic impacts 

on GSFL and IRL consumers by looking 

at the effects standards would have on 

the LCC and PBP. DOE also examined 

the impacts of potential standards on 

consumer subgroups. These analyses are 

discussed below. 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Consumers affected by new or 

amended standards usually experience 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24143 

higher purchase prices and lower 

operating costs. Generally, these 

impacts on individual consumers are 

best captured by changes in LCCs and 

by the payback period. DOE’s LCC and 

PBP analyses provide key outputs for 

each TSL, which are reported by 

product class in Table VII.3–Table 

VII.15. DOE designed the LCC analysis 

around lamp purchasing events and 

calculated the LCC savings relative to 

the baseline for each lamp replacement 

event separately in each lamp product 

class. Each table includes the average 

total LCC and the average LCC savings, 

as well as the fraction of product 

consumers for which the LCC will either 

decrease (net benefit), or increase (net 

cost) relative to the base-case forecast. 

When an EL results in ‘‘positive LCC 

savings,’’ the LCC of the lamp or lampand-ballast system is less than the LCC 

of the baseline lamp or lamp-and-ballast 

system, and the consumer benefits 

economically. When an EL results in 

‘‘negative LCC savings,’’ the LCC of the 

lamp or lamp-and-ballast system is 

higher than the LCC of the baseline 

lamp or lamp-and-ballast system, and 

the consumer is adversely affected 

economically. The last outputs in the 

tables are the mean PBPs for the 

consumer that is purchasing a design 

compliant with the TSL. Entries of 

‘‘NER’’ indicate standard levels that do 

not reduce operating costs, which 

prevents the consumer from recovering 

the increased purchase cost. The PBP 

cannot be calculated in those instances 

because the denominator of the PBP 

equation is 0. Because LCC savings and 

PBP are not relevant at the baseline 

level, results are ‘‘N/A’’ (not applicable) 

for the baselines. Chapter 8 of the NOPR 

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 also presents sensitivity 

results, such as LCC savings under the 

AEO 2013 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 NOPR TSD provides the LCC and 

PBP results for each product class in all 

relevant sectors. 

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

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net 

benefit 

Event I: 

Lamp 

Failure.

Baseline .... Baseline ..... 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF 

Inst.

17.19 116.96 134.33 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement.EL 1 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

90.0 

93.0 

95.4 

96.0 

32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF 

Inst.

26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF 

Inst.

32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF 

Inst.

28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF 

Inst.

33.38 

29.79 

26.73 

23.99 

116.96 

98.00 

116.96 

105.12 

138.62 

127.98 

143.88 

129.29 

¥4.29 

6.36 

¥9.55 

5.04 

100 

0.1 

100 

0 

0 

99.9 

0 

100 

NER 

3.2 

NER 

2.8 

Event II: 

Ballast 

Failure.

Baseline .... Baseline ..... 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF 

Inst.

59.99 115.47 158.74 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp & 

Ballast 

Replacement.

EL 1 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

90.0 

93.0 

95.4 

96.0 

32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF 

Inst.

26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF 

Inst.

32.5 W T8 & 0.77 BF 

Inst.

28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF 

Inst.

76.18 

72.59 

69.53 

66.79 

103.28 

96.70 

101.06 

101.96 

150.84 

152.58 

153.88 

152.03 

7.90 

6.17 

4.87 

6.72 

0 

0.1 

0.1 

0 

100 

99.9 

99.9 

100 

0.4 

3.3 

3.2 

2.4 

Event III: 

New 

Construction and 

Renovation.

Baseline .... Baseline ..... 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF 

Inst.

62.78 115.47 160.44 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

New Lamp 

& Ballast 

Purchase.

EL 1 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

90.0 

93.0 

95.4 

96.0 

32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF 

Inst.

26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF 

Inst.

32.5 W T8 & 0.77 BF 

Inst.

28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF 

Inst.

78.97 

75.39 

72.33 

69.58 

103.28 

96.70 

101.06 

101.96 

152.53 

154.27 

155.57 

153.72 

7.90 

6.17 

4.87 

6.72 

0 

0.1 

0.1 

0 

100 

99.9 

99.9 

100 

0.4 

3.3 

3.2 

2.4 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24144 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net 

benefit 

Event I: 

Lamp 

Failure.

Baseline .... Baseline ..... 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF 

Prog.

17.19 178.88 196.22 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement.EL 1 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

90.0 

93.0 

95.4 

96.0 

32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF 

Prog.

26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF 

Prog.

32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF 

Prog.

28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF 

Prog.

31.26 

29.79 

26.73 

23.99 

178.88 

150.18 

178.88 

160.96 

202.33 

180.13 

205.77 

185.10 

¥6.11 

16.09 

¥9.55 

11.12 

100.0 

0.0 

100.0 

0.0 

0.0 

100.0 

0.0 

100.0 

NER 

3.3 

NER 

2.8 

Event II: 

Ballast 

Failure.

Baseline .... Baseline ..... 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF 

Prog.

61.19 178.88 234.11 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp & 

Ballast 

Replacement.

EL 1 ............

EL 1 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

90.0 

90.0 

93.0 

95.4 

95.4 

96.0 

32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF 

Prog.

32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF 

Prog.

26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF 

Prog.

32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF 

Prog.

32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF 

Prog.

28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF 

Prog.

75.27 

75.27 

73.80 

70.74 

70.74 

67.99 

178.88 

150.40 

150.18 

178.88 

150.40 

160.96 

240.22 

211.74 

218.02 

243.66 

215.18 

222.99 

¥6.11 

22.37 

16.09 

¥9.55 

18.93 

11.12 

100.0 

0.0 

0.0 

100.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

100.0 

100.0 

0.0 

100.0 

100.0 

NER 

0.3 

3.3 

NER 

2.5 

2.8 

Event III: 

New 

Construction and 

Renovation.

Baseline .... Baseline ..... 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF 

Prog.

63.98 178.88 236.52 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

New Lamp 

& Ballast 

Purchase.

EL 1 ............

EL 1 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

90.0 

90.0 

93.0 

95.4 

95.4 

96.0 

32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF 

Prog.

32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF 

Prog.

26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF 

Prog.

32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF 

Prog.

32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF 

Prog.

28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF 

Prog.

78.06 

78.06 

76.59 

73.53 

73.53 

70.79 

178.88 

150.40 

150.18 

178.88 

150.40 

160.96 

242.63 

214.15 

220.43 

246.06 

217.59 

225.40 

¥6.11 

22.37 

16.09 

¥9.55 

18.93 

11.12 

100.0 

0.0 

0.0 

100.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

100.0 

100.0 

0.0 

100.0 

100.0 

NER 

0.3 

3.3 

NER 

2.5 

2.8 

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

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

Savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net Cost Net Benefit 

Event I: 

Lamp Failure.

Baseline ....... Baseline ..... 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 

BF Inst.

27.95 225.79 254.11 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement.EL 1 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

90.0 

93.0 

95.4 

96.0 

32.5 W T8 & 0.87 

BF Inst.

26.6 W T8 & 0.87 

BF Inst.

32.5 W T8 & 0.87 

BF Inst.

28.4 W T8 & 0.87 

BF Inst.

55.06 

53.17 

47.05 

41.56 

225.79 

188.99 

225.79 

202.80 

261.52 

242.52 

273.20 

244.72 

¥7.41 

11.58 

¥19.10 

9.39 

100.0 

0.2 

100.0 

0.0 

0.0 

99.8 

0.0 

100.0 

NER 

3.3 

NER 

2.9 

Event II: Ballast Failure.Baseline ....... Baseline ..... 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 

BF Inst.

86.30 223.94 287.56 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24145 

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—Continued 

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

Savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net Cost Net Benefit 

Lamp & Ballast Replacement.EL 1 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

90.0 

93.0 

95.4 

96.0 

32.5 W T8 & 0.78 

BF Inst.

26.6 W T8 & 0.87 

BF Inst.

32.5 W T8 & 0.74 

BF Inst.

28.4 W T8 & 0.87 

BF Inst.

113.40 

111.51 

105.39 

99.90 

202.45 

187.37 

195.81 

201.09 

273.49 

276.22 

278.53 

278.32 

14.07 

11.35 

9.03 

9.24 

0.0 

0.3 

0.2 

0.0 

100.0 

99.7 

99.8 

100.0 

0.5 

3.3 

3.3 

2.9 

Event III: 

New Construction 

and Renovation.

Baseline ....... Baseline ..... 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 

BF Inst.

89.09 223.94 289.26 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

New Lamp & 

Ballast 

Purchase.

EL 1 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

90.0 

93.0 

95.4 

96.0 

32.5 W T8 & 0.78 

BF Inst.

26.6 W T8 & 0.87 

BF Inst.

32.5 W T8 & 0.74 

BF Inst.

28.4 W T8 & 0.87 

BF Inst.

116.20 

114.31 

108.19 

102.70 

202.45 

187.37 

195.81 

201.09 

275.18 

277.91 

280.23 

280.02 

14.07 

11.35 

9.03 

9.24 

0.0 

0.3 

0.2 

0.0 

100.0 

99.7 

99.8 

100.0 

0.5 

3.3 

3.3 

2.9 

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

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net 

benefit 

Event I: 

Lamp Failure.

Baseline ....... Baseline ..... 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.89 

BF Prog.

27.95 354.89 383.16 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement.EL 1 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

90.0 

93.0 

95.4 

96.0 

32.5 W T8 & 0.89 

BF Prog.

26.6 W T8 & 0.89 

BF Prog.

32.5 W T8 & 0.89 

BF Prog.

28.4 W T8 & 0.89 

BF Prog.

51.55 

53.17 

47.05 

41.56 

354.89 

297.59 

354.89 

319.10 

393.58 

351.07 

402.25 

360.97 

¥10.42 

32.08 

¥19.10 

22.19 

100.0 

0.0 

100.0 

0.0 

0.0 

100.0 

0.0 

100.0 

NER 

3.3 

NER 

2.8 

Event II: Ballast Failure.Baseline ....... Baseline ..... 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.89 

BF Prog.

88.14 354.89 434.98 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp & Ballast Replacement.EL 1 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

90.0 

93.0 

95.4 

96.0 

32.5 W T8 & 0.87 

BF Prog.

26.6 W T8 & 0.89 

BF Prog.

32.5 W T8 & 0.87 

BF Prog.

28.4 W T8 & 0.87 

BF Prog.

111.73 

113.36 

107.24 

101.75 

339.09 

297.59 

339.09 

304.62 

429.60 

402.90 

438.28 

398.32 

5.38 

32.08 

¥3.29 

36.66 

0.4 

0.0 

81.9 

0.0 

99.6 

100.0 

18.1 

100.0 

1.0 

3.3 

9.0 

2.0 

Event III: 

New Construction 

and Renovation.

Baseline ....... Baseline ..... 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.89 

BF Prog.

90.94 354.89 437.39 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

New Lamp & 

Ballast 

Purchase.

EL 1 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

90.0 

93.0 

95.4 

96.0 

32.5 W T8 & 0.87 

BF Prog.

26.6 W T8 & 0.89 

BF Prog.

32.5 W T8 & 0.87 

BF Prog.

28.4 W T8 & 0.87 

BF Prog.

114.53 

116.15 

110.03 

104.54 

339.09 

297.59 

339.09 

304.62 

432.01 

405.30 

440.68 

400.73 

5.38 

32.08 

¥3.29 

36.66 

0.4 

0.0 

81.9 

0.0 

99.6 

100.0 

18.1 

100.0 

1.0 

3.3 

9.0 

2.0 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24146 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net 

benefit 

Event I: 

Lamp Failure.

Baseline ....... Baseline ..... 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 

BF Inst.

10.48 46.85 57.34 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement.EL 1 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

90.0 

93.0 

95.4 

96.0 

32.5 W T8 & 0.87 

BF Inst.

26.6 W T8 & 0.87 

BF Inst.

32.5 W T8 & 0.87 

BF Inst.

28.4 W T8 & 0.87 

BF Inst.

11.58 

23.09 

20.03 

17.29 

46.85 

39.29 

46.85 

42.13 

58.43 

62.38 

66.88 

59.41 

¥1.09 

¥5.05 

¥9.55 

¥2.08 

100 

94.8 

100 

89.8 

0 

5.2 

0 

10.2 

NER 

17.6 

NER 

15.2 

Event II: Ballast Failure.Baseline ....... Baseline ..... 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 

BF Inst.

52.71 46.85 99.56 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp & Ballast Replacement.EL 1 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

90.0 

93.0 

95.4 

96.0 

32.5 W T8 & 0.83 

BF Inst.

26.6 W T8 & 0.87 

BF Inst.

32.5 W T8 & 0.83 

BF Inst.

28.4 W T8 & 0.83 

BF Inst.

53.80 

65.32 

62.26 

59.51 

44.48 

39.29 

44.48 

39.99 

98.28 

104.61 

106.73 

99.50 

1.28 

¥5.05 

¥7.17 

0.06 

1.1 

94.8 

100 

49 

98.9 

5.2 

0 

51 

4.9 

17.6 

42.5 

10.5 

Event III: 

New Construction 

and Renovation.

Baseline ....... Baseline ..... 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 

BF Inst.

55.51 46.85 102.36 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

New Lamp & 

Ballast 

Purchase.

EL 1 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

90.0 

93.0 

95.4 

96.0 

32.5 W T8 & 0.83 

BF Inst.

26.6 W T8 & 0.87 

BF Inst.

32.5 W T8 & 0.83 

BF Inst.

28.4 W T8 & 0.83 

BF Inst.

56.60 

68.11 

65.05 

62.31 

44.48 

39.29 

44.48 

39.99 

101.08 

107.40 

109.53 

102.30 

1.28 

¥5.05 

¥7.17 

0.06 

1.1 

94.8 

100 

49 

98.9 

5.2 

0 

51 

4.9 

17.6 

42.5 

10.5 

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

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net 

benefit 

Event I: 

Lamp 

Failure.

Baseline .... Baseline ... 83.6 53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 18.58 181.10 199.85 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement.EL 1 .........

EL 1 .........

EL 1 .........

92.9 

102.0 

102.1 

53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 

49 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ..

47 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ..

26.60 

32.52 

35.43 

181.10 

165.38 

158.83 

207.87 

191.12 

190.02 

¥8.02 

8.73 

9.83 

100.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

100.0 

100.0 

NER 

3.9 

3.3 

Event II: 

Ballast 

Failure.

Baseline .... Baseline ... 83.6 53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 72.69 181.10 233.62 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp & 

Ballast 

Replacement.

EL 1 .........

EL 1 .........

EL 1 .........

92.9 

102.0 

102.1 

53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 

49 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ..

47 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ..

80.72 

86.64 

89.55 

181.10 

165.38 

158.83 

241.65 

224.89 

223.79 

¥8.02 

8.73 

9.83 

100.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

100.0 

100.0 

NER 

3.9 

3.3 

Event III: 

New Construction 

and Renovation.

Baseline .... Baseline ... 83.6 53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 75.49 181.10 235.37 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

New Lamp 

& Ballast 

Purchase.

EL 1 .........

EL 1 .........

EL 1 .........

92.9 

102.0 

102.1 

53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 

49 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ..

47 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ..

83.51 

89.43 

92.35 

181.10 

165.38 

158.83 

243.39 

226.64 

225.54 

¥8.02 

8.73 

9.83 

100.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

100.0 

100.0 

NER 

3.9 

3.3 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24147 

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

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net 

benefit 

Event I: 

Lamp Failure.

Baseline ....... Baseline ..... 94.6 27.8 W T5 & 1 BF 

Prog.

15.30 152.84 168.31 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement.EL 1 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

104.3 

109.7 

111.5 

116.0 

27.8 W T5 & 1 BF 

Prog.

27.8 W T5 & 1 BF 

Prog.

26 W T5 & 1 BF 

Prog.

25 W T5 & 1 BF 

Prog.

19.17 

21.52 

24.67 

27.41 

152.84 

152.84 

143.23 

137.88 

172.18 

174.54 

168.07 

162.64 

¥3.87 

¥6.22 

0.25 

5.68 

100.0 

100.0 

57.9 

0.2 

0.0 

0.0 

42.1 

99.8 

NER 

NER 

5.7 

4.8 

Event II: Ballast Failure.Baseline ....... Baseline ..... 94.6 27.8 W T5 & 1 BF 

Prog.

68.19 152.84 205.74 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp & Ballast Replacement.EL 1 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

104.3 

109.7 

111.5 

116.0 

27.8 W T5 & 0.85 

BF Prog.

27.8 W T5 & 0.85 

BF Prog.

26 W T5 & 0.85 

BF Prog.

25 W T5 & 0.85 

BF Prog.

72.06 

74.41 

77.56 

80.30 

134.13 

134.13 

125.79 

121.15 

190.90 

193.25 

188.05 

183.32 

14.84 

12.49 

17.69 

22.42 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

1.2 

2.0 

2.0 

2.2 

Event III: 

New Construction 

and Renovation.

Baseline ....... Baseline ..... 94.6 27.8 W T5 & 1 BF 

Prog.

70.99 152.84 207.72 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

New Lamp & 

Ballast 

Purchase.

EL 1 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

104.3 

109.7 

111.5 

116.0 

27.8 W T5 & 0.85 

BF Prog.

27.8 W T5 & 0.85 

BF Prog.

26 W T5 & 0.85 

BF Prog.

25 W T5 & 0.85 

BF Prog.

74.86 

77.21 

80.35 

83.10 

134.13 

134.13 

125.79 

121.15 

192.88 

195.23 

190.03 

185.30 

14.84 

12.49 

17.69 

22.42 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

1.2 

2.0 

2.0 

2.2 

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

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net 

benefit 

Event I: 

Lamp 

Failure.

Baseline .... Baseline ..... 96.5 60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF 

Inst.

26.72 219.51 246.59 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement.EL 1 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

98.2 

99.0 

105.6 

108.0 

60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF 

Inst.

60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF 

Inst.

54 W T8 & 0.87 BF 

Inst.

50 W T8 & 0.87 BF 

Inst.

29.40 

34.52 

43.51 

50.87 

219.51 

219.51 

208.16 

193.01 

249.27 

254.39 

252.02 

244.23 

¥2.68 

¥7.80 

¥5.43 

2.36 

100.0 

100.0 

96.1 

44.6 

0.0 

0.0 

3.9 

55.4 

NER 

NER 

7.1 

4.3 

Event II: 

Ballast 

Failure.

Baseline .... Baseline ..... 96.5 60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF 

Inst.

102.46 216.15 288.57 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp & 

Ballast 

Replacement.

EL 1 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

98.2 

99.0 

105.6 

108.0 

60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF 

Inst.

60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF 

Inst.

54 W T8 & 0.77 BF 

Inst.

50 W T8 & 0.87 BF 

Inst.

105.14 

110.25 

119.24 

126.60 

193.01 

193.01 

183.01 

189.96 

268.11 

273.23 

272.22 

286.53 

20.46 

15.34 

16.35 

2.05 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

47.6 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

52.4 

0.6 

1.6 

2.4 

4.4 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24148 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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—Continued 

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net 

benefit 

Event III: 

New 

Construction and 

Renovation.

Baseline .... Baseline ..... 96.5 60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF 

Inst.

105.25 216.15 290.24 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

New Lamp 

& Ballast 

Purchase.

EL 1 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

98.2 

99.0 

105.6 

108.0 

60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF 

Inst.

60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF 

Inst.

54 W T8 & 0.77 BF 

Inst.

50 W T8 & 0.87 BF 

Inst.

107.93 

113.05 

122.04 

129.40 

193.01 

193.01 

183.01 

189.96 

269.78 

274.90 

273.89 

288.20 

20.46 

15.34 

16.35 

2.05 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

47.6 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

52.4 

0.6 

1.6 

2.4 

4.4 

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

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net 

benefit 

Event I: 

Lamp 

Failure.

Baseline ........ Baseline ..... 92.0 84 W T8 & 0.81 BF 

Inst.

24.45 171.55 196.38 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement.EL 1 ............

EL 2 ............

95.2 

97.6 

84 W T8 & 0.81 BF 

Inst.

84 W T8 & 0.81 BF 

Inst.

34.01 

41.22 

171.55 

171.55 

205.94 

213.15 

¥9.56 

¥16.77 

100.0 

100.0 

0.0 

0.0 

NER 

NER 

Event II: 

Ballast 

Failure.

Baseline ........ Baseline ..... 92.0 84 W T8 & 0.81 BF 

Inst.

100.34 171.55 233.59 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp & Ballast Replacement.EL 1 ............

EL 2 ............

95.2 

97.6 

84 W T8 & 0.81 BF 

Inst.

84 W T8 & 0.81 BF 

Inst.

109.90 

117.11 

171.55 

171.55 

243.15 

250.36 

¥9.56 

¥16.77 

100.0 

100.0 

0.0 

0.0 

NER 

NER 

Event III: 

New 

Construction 

and 

Renovation.

Baseline ........ Baseline ..... 92.0 84 W T8 & 0.81 BF 

Inst.

103.14 171.55 234.96 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

New Lamp & 

Ballast Purchase.

EL 1 ............

EL 2 ............

95.2 

97.6 

84 W T8 & 0.81 BF 

Inst.

84 W T8 & 0.81 BF 

Inst.

112.70 

119.91 

171.55 

171.55 

244.52 

251.73 

¥9.56 

¥16.77 

100.0 

100.0 

0.0 

0.0 

NER 

NER 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24149 

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

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Lamp option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

onsumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net 

benefit 

Event I: 

Lamp Failure; or 

Event III: 

New Construction 

and Renovation.

Baseline ....... Baseline ..... 17.8 60W, 1500hrs, Improved Halogen.10.52 9.06 19.58 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement 

or New 

Lamp Purchase.

EL 1 ............ 18.5 55W, 2500hrs, HIR 13.07 8.30 16.14 3.44 0.0 100.0 3.2 

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

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Lamp option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

avings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

onsumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net 

benefit 

Event I: 

Lamp Failure; or 

Event III: 

New Construction 

and Renovation.

Baseline ....... Baseline ..... 17.8 60W, 1500hrs, Improved Halogen.9.40 10.36 19.75 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement 

or New 

Lamp Purchase.

EL 1 ............ 18.5 55W, 2500hrs, HIR 11.94 9.49 17.10 2.65 0.0 100.0 5.4 

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

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Lamp option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net 

benefit 

Event I: Lamp 

Failure; or 

Event III: 

New Construction and 

Renovation.

Baseline .......... Baseline ..... 17.8 60W, 1500hrs, 

Improved 

Halogen.

10.52 9.06 19.58 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement or New 

Lamp Purchase.

EL 1 ............ 18.5 55W, 4200hrs, 

Improved 

HIR.

14.94 8.30 13.64 5.94 0 100 5.6 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24150 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Lamp option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net 

benefit 

Event I: Lamp 

Failure; or 

Event III: 

New Construction and 

Renovation.

Baseline .......... Baseline ..... 17.8 60W, 1500hrs, 

Improved 

Halogen.

9.40 10.36 19.75 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement or New 

Lamp Purchase.

EL 1 ............ 18.5 55W, 4200hrs, 

Improved 

HIR.

13.81 9.49 15.26 4.49 0 100 9.4 

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 9.6 percent (versus 5.1 

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 NOPR TSD further 

details of the consumer subgroup 

analysis. 

General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

Table VII.16 through Table VII.24 

below 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. 

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

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net 

benefit 

Event I: 

Lamp Failure.

Baseline ....... Baseline ..... 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 

BF Inst.

17.19 102.28 119.60 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement.EL 1 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

90.0 

93.0 

95.4 

96.0 

32.5 W T8 & 0.88 

BF Inst.

26.6 W T8 & 0.88 

BF Inst.

32.5 W T8 & 0.88 

BF Inst.

28.4 W T8 & 0.88 

BF Inst.

31.03 

29.79 

26.73 

23.99 

102.28 

85.69 

102.28 

91.92 

124.21 

115.63 

129.15 

116.05 

¥4.61 

3.97 

¥9.55 

3.56 

100 

4.2 

100 

0 

0 

95.8 

0 

100 

NER 

3.2 

NER 

2.8 

Event II: Ballast Failure.Baseline ....... Baseline ..... 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 

BF Inst.

59.99 100.97 147.99 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp & Ballast Replacement.EL 1 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

90.0 

93.0 

95.4 

96.0 

32.5 W T8 & 0.78 

BF Inst.

26.6 W T8 & 0.88 

BF Inst.

32.5 W T8 & 0.77 

BF Inst.

28.4 W T8 & 0.87 

BF Inst.

73.83 

72.59 

69.53 

66.79 

90.31 

84.55 

88.37 

89.15 

141.93 

144.18 

144.93 

142.97 

6.05 

3.81 

3.06 

5.02 

0 

6.6 

3.6 

0 

100 

93.4 

96.4 

100 

0.4 

3.3 

3.2 

2.4 

Event III: 

New Construction 

and Renovation.

Baseline ....... Baseline ..... 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 

BF Inst.

62.78 100.97 149.93 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24151 

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—Continued 

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net 

benefit 

New Lamp & 

Ballast 

Purchase.

EL 1 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

EL 2 ............

90.0 

93.0 

95.4 

96.0 

32.5 W T8 & 0.78 

BF Inst.

26.6 W T8 & 0.88 

BF Inst.

32.5 W T8 & 0.77 

BF Inst.

28.4 W T8 & 0.87 

BF Inst.

76.62 

75.39 

72.33 

69.58 

90.31 

84.55 

88.37 

89.15 

143.87 

146.12 

146.87 

144.91 

6.05 

3.81 

3.06 

5.02 

0 

6.6 

3.6 

0 

100 

93.4 

96.4 

100 

0.4 

3.3 

3.2 

2.4 

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

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net 

benefit 

Event I: Lamp 

Failure.

Baseline ........ Baseline ..... 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 

0.88 BF Prog.

17.19 146.45 163.74 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement.EL 1 ............ 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 

0.88 BF Prog.

27.94 146.45 169.05 ¥5.31 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ............ 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 

0.88 BF Prog.

29.79 122.95 152.85 10.89 0.0 100.0 3.3 

EL 2 ............ 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 

0.88 BF Prog.

26.73 146.45 173.29 ¥9.55 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ............ 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.88 BF Prog.

23.99 131.77 155.87 7.87 0.0 100.0 2.8 

Event II: Ballast Failure.Baseline ........ Baseline ..... 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 

0.88 BF Prog.

61.19 146.45 203.56 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp & Ballast Replacement.EL 1 ............ 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 

0.88 BF Prog.

71.94 146.45 208.87 ¥5.31 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 1 ............ 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 

0.72 BF Prog.

71.94 123.13 185.56 18.01 0.0 100.0 0.3 

EL 2 ............ 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 

0.88 BF Prog.

73.80 122.95 192.68 10.89 0.0 100.0 3.3 

EL 2 ............ 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 

0.88 BF Prog.

70.74 146.45 213.11 ¥9.55 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ............ 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 

0.72 BF Prog.

70.74 123.13 189.80 13.77 0.0 100.0 2.5 

EL 2 ............ 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.88 BF Prog.

67.99 131.77 195.69 7.87 0.0 100.0 2.8 

Event III: New 

Construction 

and Renovation.

Baseline ........ Baseline ..... 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 

0.88 BF Prog.

63.98 146.45 206.09 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

New Lamp & 

Ballast Purchase.

EL 1 ............ 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 

0.88 BF Prog.

74.73 146.45 211.40 ¥5.31 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 1 ............ 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 

0.72 BF Prog.

74.73 123.13 188.09 18.01 0.0 100.0 0.3 

EL 2 ............ 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 

0.88 BF Prog.

76.59 122.95 195.21 10.89 0.0 100.0 3.3 

EL 2 ............ 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 

0.88 BF Prog.

73.53 146.45 215.64 ¥9.55 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ............ 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 

0.72 BF Prog.

73.53 123.13 192.33 13.77 0.0 100.0 2.5 

EL 2 ............ 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.88 BF Prog.

70.79 131.77 198.22 7.87 0.0 100.0 2.8 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24152 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net 

benefit 

Event I: Lamp 

Failure.

Baseline ........ Baseline ..... 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Inst.

27.95 197.44 225.67 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement.EL 1 ............ 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Inst.

51.18 197.44 233.62 ¥7.95 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ............ 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Inst.

53.17 165.26 218.70 6.96 8.8 91.2 3.3 

EL 3 ............ 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Inst.

47.05 197.44 244.76 ¥19.10 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ............ 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Inst.

41.56 177.33 219.17 6.50 0.1 99.9 2.9 

Event II: Ballast Failure.Baseline ........ Baseline ..... 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Inst.

86.30 195.81 264.52 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp & Ballast Replacement.EL 1 ............ 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 

0.78 BF Inst.

109.52 177.03 253.68 10.84 0.0 100.0 0.5 

EL 2 ............ 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Inst.

111.51 163.84 257.76 6.76 9.4 90.6 3.3 

EL 2 ............ 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 

0.74 BF Inst.

105.39 171.22 259.02 5.50 7.9 92.1 3.3 

EL 2 ............ 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Inst.

99.90 175.84 258.15 6.37 0.2 99.8 2.9 

Event III: New 

Construction 

and Renovation.

Baseline ........ Baseline ..... 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Inst.

89.09 195.81 266.46 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

New Lamp & 

Ballast Purchase.

EL 1 ............ 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 

0.78 BF Inst.

112.32 177.03 255.62 10.84 0.0 100.0 0.5 

EL 2 ............ 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Inst.

114.31 163.84 259.70 6.76 9.4 90.6 3.3 

EL 2 ............ 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 

0.74 BF Inst.

108.19 171.22 260.96 5.50 7.9 92.1 3.3 

EL 2 ............ 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Inst.

102.70 175.84 260.09 6.37 0.2 99.8 2.9 

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

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net 

benefit 

Event I: Lamp 

Failure.

Baseline ........ Baseline ..... 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 

0.89 BF Prog.

27.95 290.55 318.71 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement.EL 1 ............ 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 

0.89 BF Prog.

46.06 290.55 327.82 ¥9.11 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ............ 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 

0.89 BF Prog.

53.17 243.64 297.02 21.70 0.0 100.0 3.3 

EL 2 ............ 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 

0.89 BF Prog.

47.05 290.55 337.81 ¥19.10 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ............ 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.89 BF Prog.

41.56 261.25 303.02 15.70 0.0 100.0 2.8 

Event II: Ballast Failure.Baseline ........ Baseline ..... 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 

0.89 BF Prog.

88.14 290.55 373.19 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp & Ballast Replacement.EL 1 ............ 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Prog.

106.25 277.61 369.36 3.83 4.6 95.4 1.0 

EL 2 ............ 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 

0.89 BF Prog.

113.36 243.64 351.49 21.70 0.0 100.0 3.3 

EL 2 ............ 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Prog.

107.24 277.61 379.35 ¥6.16 96.0 4.0 9.0 

EL 2 ............ 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Prog.

101.75 249.39 345.64 27.55 0.0 100.0 2.0 

Event III: New 

Construction 

and Renovation.

Baseline ........ Baseline ..... 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 

0.89 BF Prog.

90.94 290.55 375.72 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24153 

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— 

Continued 

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net 

benefit 

New Lamp & 

Ballast Purchase.

EL 1 ............ 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Prog.

109.04 277.61 371.89 3.83 4.6 95.4 1.0 

EL 2 ............ 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 

0.89 BF Prog.

116.15 243.64 354.02 21.70 0.0 100.0 3.3 

EL 2 ............ 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Prog.

110.03 277.61 381.88 ¥6.16 96.0 4.0 9.0 

EL 2 ............ 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Prog.

104.54 249.39 348.17 27.55 0.0 100.0 2.0 

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

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net 

benefit 

Event I: 

Lamp 

Failure.

Baseline .... Baseline ..... 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF 

Inst.

10.49 46.83 57.32 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement.EL 1 ............ 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF 

Inst.

11.59 46.83 58.42 ¥1.09 100 0 NER 

EL 2 ............ 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF 

Inst.

23.11 39.27 62.38 ¥5.06 94.9 5.1 17.6 

EL 2 ............ 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF 

Inst.

20.05 46.83 66.88 ¥9.56 100 0 NER 

EL 2 ............ 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF 

Inst.

17.30 42.11 59.41 ¥2.09 90.3 9.7 15.2 

Event II: 

Ballast 

Failure.

Baseline .... Baseline ..... 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF 

Inst.

52.73 46.83 99.56 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp & 

Ballast 

Replacement.

EL 1 ............ 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.83 BF 

Inst.

53.82 44.45 98.28 1.28 1.1 98.9 4.9 

EL 2 ............ 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF 

Inst.

65.35 39.27 104.62 ¥5.06 94.9 5.1 17.6 

EL 2 ............ 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.83 BF 

Inst.

62.29 44.45 106.74 ¥7.18 100 0 42.5 

EL 2 ............ 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.83 BF 

Inst.

59.54 39.97 99.51 0.05 49.9 50.1 10.5 

Event III: 

New 

Construction and 

Renovation.

Baseline .... Baseline ..... 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF 

Inst.

55.53 46.83 102.35 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

New Lamp 

& Ballast 

Purchase.

EL 1 ............ 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.83 BF 

Inst.

56.62 44.45 101.07 1.28 1.1 98.9 4.9 

EL 2 ............ 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF 

Inst.

68.14 39.27 107.41 ¥5.06 94.9 5.1 17.6 

EL 2 ............ 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.83 BF 

Inst.

65.08 44.45 109.54 ¥7.18 100 0 42.5 

EL 2 ............ 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.83 BF 

Inst.

62.33 39.97 102.30 0.05 49.9 50.1 10.5 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24154 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VII.21—LCC AND PBP SUBGROUP RESULTS FOR INSTITUTIONS SERVING LOW INCOME POPULATIONS FOR A TWOLAMP 4-FOOT 54 W T5 MINIATURE BIPIN HIGH OUTPUT SYSTEM OPERATING IN THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net 

benefit 

Event I: Lamp 

Failure.

Baseline ........ Baseline ..... 83.6 53.8 W T5 & 1 

BF Prog.

18.57 219.84 238.55 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement.EL 1 ............ 92.9 53.8 W T5 & 1 

BF Prog.

26.59 219.84 246.57 ¥8.02 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 1 ............ 102.0 49 W T5 & 1 BF 

Prog.

32.51 200.77 227.96 10.60 0.0 100.0 3.2 

EL 1 ............ 102.1 47 W T5 & 1 BF 

Prog.

35.42 192.81 224.90 13.65 0.0 100.0 2.7 

Event II: Ballast Failure.Baseline ........ Baseline ..... 83.6 53.8 W T5 & 1 

BF Prog.

72.68 219.84 276.70 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp & Ballast Replacement.EL 1 ............ 92.9 53.8 W T5 & 1 

BF Prog.

80.70 219.84 284.72 ¥8.02 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 1 ............ 102.0 49 W T5 & 1 BF 

Prog.

86.62 200.77 266.11 10.60 0.0 100.0 3.2 

EL 1 ............ 102.1 47 W T5 & 1 BF 

Prog.

89.53 192.81 263.05 13.65 0.0 100.0 2.7 

Event III: New 

Construction 

and Renovation.

Baseline ........ Baseline ..... 83.6 53.8 W T5 & 1 

BF Prog.

75.47 219.84 278.68 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

New Lamp & 

Ballast Purchase.

EL 1 ............ 92.9 53.8 W T5 & 1 

BF Prog.

83.49 219.84 286.69 ¥8.02 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 1 ............ 102.0 49 W T5 & 1 BF 

Prog.

89.41 200.77 268.08 10.60 0.0 100.0 3.2 

EL 1 ............ 102.1 47 W T5 & 1 BF 

Prog.

92.32 192.81 265.03 13.65 0.0 100.0 2.7 

TABLE VII.22—LCC AND PBP SUBGROUP RESULTS FOR INSTITUTIONS SERVING LOW INCOME POPULATIONS FOR A TWOLAMP 4-FOOT 28 W T5 MINIATURE BIPIN STANDARD OUTPUT SYSTEM OPERATING IN THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net 

benefit 

Event I: Lamp 

Failure.

Baseline ........ Baseline ..... 94.6 27.8 W T5 & 1 

BF Prog.

15.30 130.31 145.74 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement.EL 1 ............ 104.3 27.8 W T5 & 1 

BF Prog.

19.17 130.31 149.61 ¥3.87 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ............ 109.7 27.8 W T5 & 1 

BF Prog.

21.52 130.31 151.96 ¥6.22 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ............ 111.5 26 W T5 & 1 BF 

Prog.

24.67 122.12 146.91 ¥1.17 75.3 24.7 5.7 

EL 2 ............ 116.0 25 W T5 & 1 BF 

Prog.

27.41 117.56 142.99 2.75 11.4 88.6 4.8 

Event II: Ballast Failure.Baseline ........ Baseline ..... 94.6 27.8 W T5 & 1 

BF Prog.

68.19 130.31 187.13 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp & Ballast Replacement.EL 1 ............ 104.3 27.8 W T5 & 

0.85 BF Prog.

72.06 114.36 175.05 12.08 0.0 100.0 1.2 

EL 2 ............ 109.7 27.8 W T5 & 

0.85 BF Prog.

74.41 114.36 177.40 9.73 0.0 100.0 2.0 

EL 2 ............ 111.5 26 W T5 & 0.85 

BF Prog.

77.56 107.25 173.43 13.70 0.0 100.0 2.0 

EL 2 ............ 116.0 25 W T5 & 0.85 

BF Prog.

80.30 103.29 170.11 17.02 0.0 100.0 2.2 

Event III: New 

Construction 

and Renovation.

Baseline ........ Baseline ..... 94.6 27.8 W T5 & 1 

BF Prog.

70.99 130.31 189.32 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

New Lamp & 

Ballast Purchase.

EL 1 ............ 104.3 27.8 W T5 & 

0.85 BF Prog.

74.86 114.36 177.23 12.08 0.0 100.0 1.2 

EL 2 ............ 109.7 27.8 W T5 & 

0.85 BF Prog.

77.21 114.36 179.59 9.73 0.0 100.0 2.0 

EL 2 ............ 111.5 26 W T5 & 0.85 

BF Prog.

80.35 107.25 175.62 13.70 0.0 100.0 2.0 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24155 

TABLE VII.22—LCC AND PBP SUBGROUP RESULTS FOR INSTITUTIONS SERVING LOW INCOME POPULATIONS FOR A TWOLAMP 4-FOOT 28 W T5 MINIATURE BIPIN STANDARD OUTPUT SYSTEM OPERATING IN THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR— 

Continued 

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net 

benefit 

EL 2 ............ 116.0 25 W T5 & 0.85 

BF Prog.

83.10 103.29 172.30 17.02 0.0 100.0 2.2 

TABLE VII.23—LCC AND PBP SUBGROUP RESULTS FOR INSTITUTIONS SERVING LOW INCOME POPULATIONS FOR A TWOLAMP 8-FOOT 59 W T8 SINGLE PIN SLIMLINE SYSTEM OPERATING IN THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net 

benefit 

Event I: Lamp 

Failure.

Baseline ........ Baseline ..... 96.5 60.1 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Inst.

26.72 192.30 219.30 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement.EL 1 ............ 98.2 60.1 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Inst.

29.40 192.30 221.98 ¥2.68 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ............ 99.0 60.1 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Inst.

34.52 192.30 227.10 ¥7.80 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ............ 105.6 54 W T8 & 0.87 

BF Inst.

43.51 182.36 226.14 ¥6.84 99.6 0.4 7.1 

EL 2 ............ 108.0 50 W T8 & 0.87 

BF Inst.

50.87 169.08 220.23 ¥0.92 67.7 32.3 4.3 

Event II: Ballast Failure.Baseline ........ Baseline ..... 96.5 60.1 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Inst.

102.46 189.36 268.51 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp & Ballast Replacement.EL 1 ............ 98.2 60.1 W T8 & 

0.77 BF Inst.

105.14 169.09 250.92 17.59 0.0 100.0 0.6 

EL 2 ............ 99.0 60.1 W T8 & 

0.77 BF Inst.

110.25 169.09 256.04 12.47 0.0 100.0 1.6 

EL 2 ............ 105.6 54 W T8 & 0.77 

BF Inst.

119.24 160.33 256.27 12.24 0.0 100.0 2.4 

EL 2 ............ 108.0 50 W T8 & 0.87 

BF Inst.

126.60 166.42 269.71 ¥1.20 68.7 31.3 4.4 

Event III: New 

Construction 

and Renovation.

Baseline ........ Baseline ..... 96.5 60.1 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Inst.

105.25 189.36 270.44 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

New Lamp & 

Ballast Purchase.

EL 1 ............ 98.2 60.1 W T8 & 

0.77 BF Inst.

107.93 169.09 252.84 17.59 0.0 100.0 0.6 

EL 2 ............ 99.0 60.1 W T8 & 

0.77 BF Inst.

113.05 169.09 257.96 12.47 0.0 100.0 1.6 

EL 2 ............ 105.6 54 W T8 & 0.77 

BF Inst.

122.04 160.33 258.19 12.24 0.0 100.0 2.4 

EL 2 ............ 108.0 50 W T8 & 0.87 

BF Inst.

129.40 166.42 271.64 ¥1.20 68.7 31.3 4.4 

TABLE VII.24—LCC AND PBP SUBGROUP RESULTS FOR INSTITUTIONS SERVING LOW INCOME POPULATIONS FOR A TWOLAMP 8-FOOT 86 W T8 RECESSED DOUBLE CONTACT HO SYSTEM OPERATING IN THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net 

benefit 

Event I: Lamp 

Failure.

Baseline ........ Baseline ..... 92.0 84 W T8 & 0.81 

BF Inst.

24.45 214.21 238.99 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement.EL 1 ............ 95.2 84 W T8 & 0.81 

BF Inst.

34.00 214.21 248.54 ¥9.56 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ............ 97.6 84 W T8 & 0.81 

BF Inst.

41.21 214.21 255.75 ¥16.76 100.0 0.0 NER 

Event II: Ballast Failure.Baseline ........ Baseline ..... 92.0 84 W T8 & 0.81 

BF Inst.

100.33 214.21 280.62 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24156 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VII.24—LCC AND PBP SUBGROUP RESULTS FOR INSTITUTIONS SERVING LOW INCOME POPULATIONS FOR A TWOLAMP 8-FOOT 86 W T8 RECESSED DOUBLE CONTACT HO SYSTEM OPERATING IN THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR—Continued 

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net 

benefit 

Lamp & Ballast Replacement.EL 1 ............ 95.2 84 W T8 & 0.81 

BF Inst.

109.89 214.21 290.18 ¥9.56 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ............ 97.6 84 W T8 & 0.81 

BF Inst.

117.09 214.21 297.38 ¥16.76 100.0 0.0 NER 

Event III: New 

Construction 

and Renovation.

Baseline ........ Baseline ..... 92.0 84 W T8 & 0.81 

BF Inst.

103.13 214.21 282.16 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

New Lamp & 

Ballast Purchase.

EL 1 ............ 95.2 84 W T8 & 0.81 

BF Inst.

112.68 214.21 291.71 ¥9.56 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ............ 97.6 84 W T8 & 0.81 

BF Inst.

119.89 214.21 298.92 -16.76 100.0 0.0 NER 

Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

Table VII.25 through Table VII.28 

below show the LCC impacts and 

payback periods for the identified 

subgroups for IRLs. 

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

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Lamp option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net 

benefit 

Event I: 

Lamp Failure; or 

Event III: 

New Construction 

and Renovation.

Baseline ....... Baseline ..... 17.8 60W, 1500hrs, Improved Halogen.10.52 8.68 19.21 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement 

or New 

Lamp Purchase.

EL 1 ............ 18.5 55W, 2500hrs, HIR 13.07 7.96 15.80 3.41 0.0 100.0 3.2 

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

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Lamp option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net 

benefit 

Event I: 

Lamp Failure; or 

Event III: 

New Construction 

and Renovation.

Baseline ....... Baseline ..... 17.8 60W, 1500hrs, Improved Halogen.9.40 10.21 19.62 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24157 

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—Continued 

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Lamp option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net 

benefit 

Lamp Replacement 

or New 

Lamp Purchase.

EL 1 ............ 18.5 55W, 2500hrs, HIR 11.95 9.36 16.98 2.64 0.0 100.0 5.5 

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

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Lamp option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net 

benefit 

Event I: 

Lamp Failure; or 

Event III: 

New Construction 

and Renovation.

Baseline ....... Baseline ..... 17.8 60W, 1500hrs, Improved Halogen.10.52 8.68 19.21 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement 

or New 

Lamp Purchase.

EL 1 ............ 18.5 55W, 4200hrs, Improved HIR.14.94 7.96 13.30 5.91 0.0 100.0 5.6 

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

Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Lamp option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2012$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2012$ 

LCC 

2012$ 

LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net 

benefit 

Event I: 

Lamp Failure; or 

Event III: 

New Construction 

and Renovation.

Baseline ....... Baseline ..... 17.8 60W, 1500hrs, Improved Halogen.9.40 10.21 19.62 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement 

or New 

Lamp Purchase.

EL 1 ............ 18.5 55W, 4200hrs, Improved HIR.13.82 9.36 15.13 4.48 0 100 9.5 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24158 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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

Lamp description Sector Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

2-Lamp 4-foot Medium Bipin 

Instant Start.

Commercial ... Event I: Lamp Failure.Lamp Replacement.EL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.88 BF Inst.

2.8 

Event II: Ballast 

Failure.

Lamp & Ballast Replacement.EL 1 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 

0.78 BF Inst.

0.4 

EL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Inst.

2.4 

Event III: New Construction and 

Renovation.

New Lamp & 

Ballast Purchase.

EL 1 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 

0.78 BF Inst.

0.4 

EL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Inst.

2.4 

2-Lamp 4-foot Medium Bipin 

Programmed Start.

Commercial ... Event I: Lamp Failure.Lamp Replacement.EL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.88 BF 

Prog.

2.8 

Event II: Ballast 

Failure.

Lamp & Ballast Replacement.EL 1 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 

0.72 BF 

Prog.

0.3 

EL 2 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 

0.72 BF 

Prog.

2.5 

EL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.88 BF 

Prog.

2.8 

Event III: New Construction and 

Renovation.

New Lamp & 

Ballast Purchase.

EL 1 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 

0.72 BF 

Prog.

0.3 

EL 2 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 

0.72 BF 

Prog.

2.5 

EL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.88 BF 

Prog.

2.8 

4-Lamp 4-foot Medium Bipin 

Instant Start.

Commercial ... Event I: Lamp Failure.Lamp Replacement.EL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Inst.

2.9 

Event II: Ballast 

Failure.

Lamp & Ballast Replacement.EL 1 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 

0.78 BF Inst.

0.5 

EL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Inst.

2.9 

Event III: New Construction and 

Renovation.

New Lamp & 

Ballast Purchase.

EL 1 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 

0.78 BF Inst.

0.5 

EL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Inst.

2.9 

4-Lamp 4-foot Medium Bipin 

Programmed Start.

Commercial ... Event I: Lamp Failure.Lamp Replacement.EL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.89 BF 

Prog.

2.8 

Event II: Ballast 

Failure.

Lamp & Ballast Replacement.EL 1 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 

0.87 BF 

Prog.

1.0 

EL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.87 BF 

Prog.

2.0 

Event III: New Construction and 

Renovation.

New Lamp & 

Ballast Purchase.

EL 1 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 

0.87 BF 

Prog.

1.0 

EL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.87 BF 

Prog.

2.0 

T5 Miniature Bipin Standard 

Output.

Commercial ... Event II: Ballast 

Failure.

Lamp & Ballast Replacement.EL 1 104.3 27.8 W T5 & 

0.85 BF 

Prog.

1.2 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24159 

TABLE VII.29—GSFL EFFICACY LEVELS WITH REBUTTABLE PAYBACK PERIOD LESS THAN THREE YEARS—Continued 

Lamp description Sector Event Response Efficacy 

level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

EL 2 109.7 27.8 W T5 & 

0.85 BF 

Prog.

2.0 

EL 2 111.5 26 W T5 & 

0.85 BF 

Prog.

2.0 

EL 2 116.0 25 W T5 & 

0.85 BF 

Prog.

2.2 

Event III: New Construction and 

Renovation.

New Lamp & 

Ballast Purchase.

EL 1 104.3 27.8 W T5 & 

0.85 BF 

Prog.

1.2 

EL 2 109.7 27.8 W T5 & 

0.85 BF 

Prog.

2.0 

EL 2 111.5 26 W T5 & 

0.85 BF 

Prog.

2.0 

EL 2 116.0 25 W T5 & 

0.85 BF 

Prog.

2.2 

T8 Single Pin Slimline ........... Commercial ... Event II: Ballast 

Failure.

Lamp & Ballast Replacement.EL 1 98.2 60.1 W T8 & 

0.77 BF 

Prog.

0.6 

EL 2 99.0 60.1 W T8 & 

0.77 BF 

Prog.

1.6 

EL 2 105.6 54 W T8 & 

0.77 BF 

Prog.

2.4 

Event III: New Construction and 

Renovation.

New Lamp & 

Ballast Purchase.

EL 1 98.2 60.1 W T8 & 

0.77 BF 

Prog.

0.6 

EL 2 99.0 60.1 W T8 & 

0.77 BF 

Prog.

1.6 

EL 2 105.6 54 W T8 & 

0.77 BF 

Prog.

2.4 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

DOE performed MIAs to estimate the 

impact of amended energy conservation 

standards on manufacturers of GSFLs 

and IRLs. The section below describes 

the expected impacts on GSFL and IRL 

manufacturers at each TSL. Chapter 13 

of the NOPR TSD explains the MIA in 

further detail. 

a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results 

The tables below depict the financial 

impacts (represented by changes in 

INPV) of 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 breaks out the 

impacts on GSFL and IRL manufacturers 

separately. To evaluate the range of cash 

flow impacts on the GSFL and IRL 

industries, DOE modeled two markup 

scenarios that correspond to the range of 

anticipated market responses to 

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 (2013) 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 

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 amended energy 

conservation standards. 

Cash-Flow Analysis Results by TSL for 

General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

To assess the upper (less severe) end 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24160 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

To assess the lower (more severe) end 

of the range of potential impacts on the 

GSFL manufacturers, DOE modeled the 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario. This scenario represents the 

lower end of the range of potential 

impacts on manufacturers because no 

additional operating profit is earned on 

the higher production costs, eroding 

profit margins as a percentage of total 

revenue. 

Table VII.30 and Table VII.31 present 

the projected results for GSFLs under 

the flat and preservation of operating 

profit 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. 

TABLE VII.30—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL SERVICE FLUORESCENT LAMPS—FLAT MARKUP

SCENARIO

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV .................................................... (2012$ millions) ......... 1,542.5 1,584.4 1,580.3 1,663.1 1,901.1 1,939.7 

Change in INPV ................................... (2012$ millions) ......... .................. 41.8 37.8 120.5 358.5 397.1 

(%) ............................. .................. 2.7% 2.5% 7.8% 23.2% 25.7% 

Product Conversion Costs ................... (2012$ millions) ......... .................. 0.9 2.0 5.3 7.5 9.1 

Capital Conversion Costs .................... (2012$ millions) ......... .................. 1.0 11.0 3.0 5.5 29.5 

Total Conversion Costs ....................... (2012$ millions) ......... .................. 1.9 13.0 8.3 13.0 38.6 

TABLE VII.31—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL SERVICE FLUORESCENT LAMPS—PRESERVATION OF

OPERATING PROFIT MARKUP SCENARIO

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV .................................................... (2012$ millions) ......... 1,542.5 1,541.7 1,533.4 1,531.0 1,519.6 1,502.6 

Change in INPV ................................... (2012$ millions) ......... .................. (0.9) (9.2) (11.5) (22.9) (39.9) 

(%) ............................. .................. ¥0.1% ¥0.6% ¥0.7% ¥1.5% ¥2.6% 

Product Conversion Costs ................... (2012$ millions) ......... .................. 0.9 2.0 5.3 7.5 9.1 

Capital Conversion Costs .................... (2012$ millions) ......... .................. 1.0 11.0 3.0 5.5 29.5 

Total Conversion Costs ....................... (2012$ millions) ......... .................. 1.9 13.0 8.3 13.0 38.6 

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 the 

max tech efficacy level. At TSL 1, DOE 

estimates impacts on INPV range from 

$41.8 million to ¥$0.9 million, or a 

change in INPV of 2.7 percent to ¥0.1 

percent. At TSL 1, industry free cash 

flow (operating cash flow minus capital 

expenditures) is estimated to decrease 

by approximately 0.5 percent to $156.9 

million, compared to the base case value 

of $157.7 million in 2016, the year 

leading up to proposed energy 

conservation standards. 

Percentage impacts on INPV are 

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 (2017), 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 88 percent of GSFL 

shipments in 2017. Meanwhile, in 2017, 

33 percent of 8-foot RDC HO shipments, 

45 percent of 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO, and 

37 percent of 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO 

shipments would meet the efficacy 

levels at TSL 1. Because these products 

comprise a very small percentage of 

total GSFL shipments in 2017, 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 analyzed 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 

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 5 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 operating profit as would 

be earned in the base case, but 

manufacturers do not earn additional 

profit from their investments. The 5 

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 small 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 the max tech 

efficacy levels. At TSL 2, DOE estimates 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24161 

impacts on INPV to range from $37.8 

million to ¥$9.2 million, or a change in 

INPV of 2.5 percent to ¥0.6 percent. At 

this proposed level, industry free cash 

flow is estimated to decrease by 

approximately 4 percent to $152.1 

million, compared to the base case value 

of $157.7 million in 2016. 

Percentage impacts on INPV are 

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 meets or exceeds the efficacy 

levels prescribed at TSL 2. DOE projects 

that in 2017, 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 86 percent of GSFL 

shipments in 2017. Meanwhile, in 2017, 

57 percent of 8-foot SP slimline lamps 

shipments, 10 percent of 8-foot RDC HO 

shipments, 45 percent of 4-foot T5 

MiniBP SO, and 37 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 $11.0 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 5 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 $13.0 

million in conversion costs. Under the 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario, the 5 percent MPC increase is 

slightly outweighed by a lower average 

markup of 1.51 (compared to the flat 

markup of 1.52) and $13.0 million in 

conversion costs, resulting in slightly 

negative impacts at TSL 2. 

TSL 3 sets the efficacy level at 

baseline for one product class (8-foot SP 

slimline) and EL 1 for four product 

classes (4-foot MBP, 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 the 

max tech efficacy level. At TSL 3, DOE 

estimates impacts on INPV to range 

from $120.5 million to ¥$11.5 million, 

or a change in INPV of 7.8 percent to 

¥0.7 percent. At this proposed level, 

industry free cash flow is estimated to 

decrease by approximately 2 percent to 

$154.7 million, compared to the base 

case value of $157.7 million in 2016. 

While more significant than the 

impacts at TSL 2, the impacts on INPV 

at TSL 3 are still relatively minor 

compared to the total industry value. 

Percentage impacts on INPV are slightly 

positive to slightly negative at TSL 3. 

DOE does not anticipate that 

manufacturers would lose a significant 

portion of their INPV 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 2016, 56 percent of the 4-foot 

MBP, 100 percent of 8-foot SP slimline, 

33 percent of 8-foot RDC HO shipments, 

45 percent of 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO, and 

37 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 proposed at 

this TSL. TSL 3 is the first TSL that 

increases the efficacy requirement for 4- 

foot MBP, 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 any significant 

capital investments. At TSL 3, DOE 

expects product conversion costs to 

increase from TSL 2 to $5.3 million. 

DOE, however, estimates that capital 

conversion costs will decrease from TSL 

2 to $3.0 million at TSL 3 since no 

amended efficacy standards would be 

set at TSL 3 for 8-foot SP slimline 

products and the 8-foot RDC HO 

product class has a lower EL at TSL 3 

than at TSL 2. 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 $8.3 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 1.51 (compared to the flat 

markup scenario markup of 1.52) and 

$8.3 million in conversion costs, 

resulting in negative impacts at TSL 3. 

TSL 4 sets the efficacy level at 

baseline for one product class (8-foot SP 

slimline), EL 1 for three product classes 

(8-foot RDC HO, 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO, 

and 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO), and EL 2 for 

one product class (4-foot MBP). EL 1 for 

the 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO product class 

and EL 2 for the 4-foot MBP product 

class represent the max tech efficacy 

levels. At TSL 4, DOE estimates impacts 

on INPV to range from $358.5 million to 

¥$22.9 million, or a change in INPV of 

23.2 percent to ¥1.5 percent. At this 

proposed level, industry free cash flow 

is estimated to decrease by 

approximately 3 percent to $152.9 

million, compared to the base case value 

of $157.7 million in the year leading up 

to energy conservation standards. 

Percentage impacts on INPV are 

moderately positive to slightly negative 

at TSL 4. DOE projects that in 2017, 21 

percent of 4-foot MBP, 100 percent of 8- 

foot SP slimline, 33 percent of 8-foot 

RDC HO shipments, 45 percent of 4-foot 

T5 MiniBP SO, and 37 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 

$5.3 million at TSL 3 to $7.5 million at 

TSL 4. DOE expects capital conversion 

costs to increase from $3.0 million at 

TSL 3 to $5.5 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. 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 slightly positive 

because of manufacturers’ ability to pass 

the higher production costs to 

consumers outweighs the $13.0 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 1.51 (compared to the flat 

markup scenario markup of 1.52) and 

$13.0 million in conversion costs, 

resulting in negative impacts at TSL 4. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24162 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 five 

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 $397.1 

million to ¥$39.9 million, or a change 

in INPV of 25.7 percent to ¥2.6 percent. 

At this proposed level, industry free 

cash flow is estimated to decrease by 

approximately 10 percent to $143.4 

million, compared to the base case value 

of $157.7 million in 2016. 

Percentage impacts on INPV are 

significantly positive to slightly negative 

at TSL 5. DOE projects that in 2017, 21 

percent of the 4-foot MBP, 25 percent of 

8-foot SP slimline, 10 percent of 8-foot 

RDC HO shipments, 14 percent of 4-foot 

T5 MiniBP SO, and 37 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, 8-foot RDC HO, and 4- 

foot T5 MiniBP HO product classes 

moving to max tech ELs at TSL 5. DOE 

estimates that capital conversion costs 

will be $29.5 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 $9.1 million in 

product conversion costs for lamp 

redesigns and testing. However, these 

larger total conversion costs at TSL 5, 

$38.6 million remain relatively small 

compared to the almost $2 billion total 

GSFL industry value at TSL 5. 

At TSL 5, under the flat markup 

scenario, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC increases by 57 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 $38.6 

million in conversion costs. Under the 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario, the 57 percent MPC increase is 

slightly outweighed by a lower average 

markup of 1.51 (compared to the flat 

markup scenario markup of 1.52) and 

$38.6 million in conversion costs, 

resulting in negative impacts at TSL 5. 

Cash Flow Analysis Results by TSL for 

Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

DOE incorporated the same markup 

scenarios to represent the upper and 

lower bounds of industry impacts for 

IRLs as was done for GSFLs: the flat, or 

preservation of gross margin, markup 

scenario and the preservation of 

operating profit markup scenario. DOE, 

however, analyzed one TSL for IRLs in 

addition to the baseline levels. DOE also 

analyzed an alternative shipment 

scenario for IRLs, the shortened lifetime 

scenario, in addition to the reference 

case. DOE acknowledges that to meet 

the proposed IRL energy conservation 

standards, 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 13C of the 

NOPR TSD. 

Table VII.32 and Table VII.33 present 

the projected results for IRLs under the 

flat and preservation of operating profit 

scenarios. DOE examined results for one 

representative product class for IRLs. 

TABLE VII.32—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMPS—FLAT MARKUP SCENARIO

Units Base case 

Trial standard 

level 

1 

INPV ............................................................................. (2012$ millions) ............................................................ 176.0 128.6 

Change in INPV ............................................................ (2012$ millions) ............................................................ ........................ (47.5) 

(%) ................................................................................ ........................ ¥27.0% 

Product Conversion Costs ............................................ (2012$ millions) ............................................................ ........................ 6.1 

Capital Conversion Costs ............................................. (2012$ millions) ............................................................ ........................ 65.4 

Total Conversion Costs ................................................ (2012$ millions) ............................................................ ........................ 71.5 

TABLE VII.33—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMPS—PRESERVATION OF

OPERATING PROFIT MARKUP SCENARIO

Units Base case 

Trial standard 

level 

1 

INPV ............................................................................. (2012$ millions) ............................................................ 176.0 124.2 

Change in INPV ............................................................ (2012$ millions) ............................................................ ........................ (51.8) 

(%) ................................................................................ ........................ ¥29.5% 

Product Conversion Costs ............................................ (2012$ millions) ............................................................ ........................ 6.1 

Capital Conversion Costs ............................................. (2012$ millions) ............................................................ ........................ 65.4 

Total Conversion Costs ................................................ (2012$ millions) ............................................................ ........................ 71.5 

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 ¥$47.5 million 

to ¥$51.8 million, or a change in INPV 

of ¥27.0 percent to ¥29.5 percent. At 

TSL 1, industry free cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by approximately 

131 percent to ¥7.5 million, compared 

to the base case value of $23.8 million 

in 2016. 

INPV impacts are negative at TSL 1 

regardless of the markup scenario 

chosen. DOE estimates that in 2017, 41 

percent of IRL shipments would meet 

the efficacy requirements proposed at 

TSL 1. The majority of shipments would 

need to be converted to meet the 

standards proposed 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 $65.4 

million for the industry. DOE estimates 

that IRL manufacturers will also incur 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24163 

$6.1 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 13 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 does not outweigh $71.5 

million in conversion costs. Under the 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario, the 13 percent MPC increase is 

outweighed by a lower average markup 

of 1.50 (compared to the flat markup 

scenario markup of 1.52) and $71.5 

million in conversion costs, resulting in 

negative impacts at TSL 1. The 

significant capital and product 

conversion costs that IRL manufacturers 

must make at TSL 1 cause INPV to be 

negative regardless of the markup 

chosen. 

DOE also analyzed a shortened 

lifetime sensitivity scenario where 

manufacturers shorten the lifetime of 

IRLs to mitigate the costs of complying 

with the proposed standard. By 

shortening the lifetime of IRLs 

manufacturers reduce the capital 

conversion costs they must make to 

comply with the proposed standard. 

DOE presents the INPV results of this 

analysis in appendix 13C of this NOPR 

TSD. DOE requests comment on the $6.1 

product conversion costs and $65.4 

capital conversion costs necessary for 

manufacturers to comply with the 

proposed standards. 

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 2013 to 2046. 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 industrywide labor expenditures and domestic 

employment levels. Labor expenditures 

involved with the manufacture 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 

manufacturing production costs 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 cover only workers up to 

the line-supervisor level directly 

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.34 and Table VII.35 below 

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 

amended energy conservation 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 amended energy 

conservation 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 2017, the sections below 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 the NOPR 

TSD. DOE seeks comment on the 

potential domestic employment impacts 

to GSFL and IRL manufacturers at the 

proposed efficacy levels. 

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 1,800 domestic 

production workers involved in 

manufacturing GSFLs in 2017. The table 

below shows the range of the impacts of 

potential amended energy conservation 

standards on U.S. production workers in 

the GSFL industry. 

TABLE VII.34—POTENTIAL CHANGES IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DOMESTIC GENERAL SERVICE FLUORESCENT LAMP

PRODUCTION WORKERS IN 2017 

Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

Total Number of Domestic Production Workers 

in 2017 (without changes in production locations) ................................................................. 1,848 1,848 1,847 1,844 1,814 1,817 

Potential Changes in Domestic Production 

Workers in 2017 * ............................................. .................... 0 (1) (4)–(1,848) (34)–(1,848) (31)–(1,848) 

* 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24164 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 86 

percent of GSFL shipments in 2017. 

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 

amended energy conservation 

standards, there would be 

approximately 300 domestic production 

workers involved in manufacturing IRLs 

in 2017. The table below shows the 

range of the impacts of potential 

amended energy conservation standards 

on U.S. production workers in the IRL 

industry. 

TABLE VII.35—POTENTIAL CHANGES IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DOMESTIC INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMP

PRODUCTION WORKERS IN 2017 

Base case 

Trial standard 

level 

1 

Total Number of Domestic Production Workers in 2017 (without changes in production locations) ..................... 308 335 

Potential Changes in Domestic Production Workers in 2017 * ............................................................................... ........................ 27–(308) 

* 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 perunit, 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 

proposed 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 

costs associated with increasing the 

efficacy of IRLs could cause some IRL 

manufacturers to exit the market. 

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 

that moving the industry to max tech 

efficacy levels could triple the amount 

of REOs demanded by GSFL 

manufacturers. Tripling the demand for 

REOs that are already difficult to come 

by 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 about the capacity of their IR 

coating machines and that the 

companies that manufacture those 

machines might not be able to respond 

to the demand for IR coating machines 

necessary to manufacture higher 

efficacious IRLs. DOE, however, 

received a comment from ADLT, a 

company that manufactures IR coating 

machines, that they estimate the current 

global capacity of IR coatings for IRLs to 

be over 50 million units annually. ADLT 

claims this IR coating capacity is 

supported by three different coating 

processes and provided by at least five 

different companies. ADLT stated they 

are in a position to increase their IR 

coating capacity by 20 million units 

annually using existing equipment 

within a two-year time period. ADLT 

believes that additional coating capacity 

can be generated from one or more of at 

least five IR coating facilities owned and 

operated by other companies 

worldwide. Given a three-year period 

between the ruling and its effective date, 

ADLT believes there is ample time 

available for various companies to react 

to the potential increase in IR coating 

demand. Given that DOE estimated 

approximately 65 million IRLs may be 

sold in 2017 in the preliminary analysis, 

ADLT believes that IR coating capacity 

in excess of 70 million units in total can 

readily be made available. (ADLT, No. 

31 at p. 3) While this exceeds DOE’s 

NOPR IRL shipment estimate of 

approximately 32 million units to be 

sold in 2017, ADLT did not provide a 

source for their claim that the current IR 

coating capacity is 50 million units 

annually or for the potential to increase 

this IR coating capacity to 70 million 

units annually in 2017. Therefore, it is 

unclear if this additional IR coating 

capacity or current IR coating capacity 

is sufficient to meet the potential U.S. 

demand for IRLs at the higher EL. 

d. Impacts on Sub-Groups 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24165 

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 a 

cumulative regulatory burden analysis 

as part of its rulemakings pertaining to 

lighting efficacy. 

During previous stages of this 

rulemaking, DOE identified a number of 

requirements, in addition to amended 

energy conservation standards for 

GSFLs and IRLs, that manufacturers will 

face for products they manufacture three 

years prior to and three years after the 

compliance date of the amended 

standards. The following section briefly 

addresses comments DOE received with 

respect to cumulative regulatory burden 

and summarizes other key related 

concerns that manufacturers raised 

during interviews. 

Several manufacturers expressed 

concern that GSFLs and IRLs face 

several regulations and that they have 

not had time to fully assess the effects 

of the 2009 Lamps Rule, compliance 

with which was required in 2012. 

Several manufacturers also expressed 

concern about the overall volume of 

DOE’s energy conservation standards 

with which they must comply. Most 

GSFL and IRL manufacturers also make 

a full range of lighting products and 

share engineering and other resources 

with these other internal manufacturing 

divisions for different products 

(including certification testing for 

regulatory compliance). Manufacturers 

cited current DOE rulemakings for high 

intensity discharge (HID) lamps, metal 

halide fixtures, LEDs, and CFLs. Some 

manufacturers also raised concerns 

about other existing regulations separate 

from DOE’s energy conservation 

standards that manufacturers of GSFLs 

and IRLs must meet. These include: the 

Restriction of Hazardous Substances 

(RoHS) Directive, California Title 20, 

FTC labeling requirements, Interstate 

Mercury Education and Reduction 

Clearinghouse (IMERC) labeling 

requirements, the Minamata Convention 

on Mercury, and disclosure of 

procurement methods of conflict 

minerals mandated by the Wall Street 

Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 

among others. DOE seeks comment on 

GSFL manufacturers potentially 

increasing the amount of mercury in 

GSFLs in order to comply with the 

proposed GSFL standards. 

DOE discusses these and other 

requirements in chapter 13 of the NOPR 

TSD, which lists the estimated 

compliance costs of those requirements 

when available. In considering the 

cumulative regulatory burden, DOE 

evaluates the timing of regulations that 

impact the same product because the 

coincident requirements could strain 

financial resources in the same profit 

center and consequently impact 

capacity. DOE also identified several 

ongoing rulemakings that could 

potentially impact other business units 

of GSFL and IRL manufacturers in 

general, but the impacts of those 

ongoing rulemakings remain speculative 

and are therefore not included in the 

analysis for today’s proposed rule. DOE 

did not receive any data on other 

regulatory costs that affect the industry 

modeled in the cash-flow analysis. To 

the extent DOE receives specific costs 

associated with other regulations 

affecting those profit centers (GSFL and 

IRL) modeled in the GRIM, DOE can 

incorporate that information into its 

cash-flow analysis. The cash-flow 

scenarios analyzed for today’s proposed 

rule include the impacts of the 2009 

Lamps Rule, as the levels established in 

that rule have become the baseline for 

the proposed standards and the lamp 

prices estimated in the engineering 

analysis reflect the investments that 

manufacturers made to comply with the 

2009 Lamps Rule. DOE seeks comment 

on the compliance costs of any other 

regulations GSFL or IRL manufacturers 

must make, especially if compliance 

with those regulations is required three 

years before or after the estimated 

compliance date of these proposed 

standards (2017). 

3. Shipments Analysis and 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; and 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.36 

and Table VII.37 present the estimated 

cumulative shipments in the base case 

and the relative change under each TSL. 

TABLE VII.36—EFFECT OF STANDARD CASES ON CUMULATIVE SHIPMENTS OF GSFL IN 2017–2046 

Lamp type 

Base case TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

Cumulative 

shipments 

millions 

Change in 

shipments 

relative to 

base case 

(percent) 

Change in 

shipments 

relative to 

base case 

(percent) 

Change in 

shipments 

relative to 

base case 

(percent) 

Change in 

shipments 

relative to 

base case 

(percent) 

Change in 

shipments 

relative to 

base case 

(percent) 

4-foot MBP ................................... 5,700 0.0 0.34 ¥2.7 ¥24 ¥18 

8-foot SP slimline ......................... 110 0.0 ¥13 8.6 71 24 

8-foot RDC HO ............................ 21 0.0 ¥8.5 0.0 0.0 ¥8.5 

4-foot T5, MiniBP SO ................... 410 0.0 0.83 28 250 210 

4-foot T5, MiniBP HO .................. 660 0.0 0.27 ¥0.01 ¥0.12 0.17 

2-foot U-shaped ........................... 230 0.0 0.0 ¥0.0 ¥0.0 ¥0.0 

Total GSFL* .......................... 7,100 0.0 0.13 ¥0.39 ¥3.4 ¥2.4 

* May not sum due to rounding. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24166 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

89Section 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. 

As shown in the preceding Table, 

depending on TSL, the consumer choice 

model projects significant shifts across 

product classes, in particular, it projects 

significant shifts to 4-foot T5 standard 

output lamps in the TSL 4 and TSL 5 

standards cases. DOE requests comment 

on the reasonableness of its assumption 

that first cost is a significant driver of 

consumers’ choice of product class, 

which results in the shipments analysis 

projecting a rapid shift from 4-foot MBP 

T8s to standard output T5s in the TSL 

5 standards case. The TSL5 standards 

case substantially increases first cost for 

4-foot MBP T8s. 

Noting that DOE projects a sharp 

decrease in total GSFL shipments both 

with and without standards during the 

rulemaking period because of the 

projected sharp incursion of LEDs into 

the GSFL market, DOE also seeks 

comment on the reasonableness of the 

shipments model projection for TSL 5. 

Specifically, DOE seeks comment on 

whether standard output T5 lamps 

could increase from 3 to 4 percent of the 

standard output GSFL market presently, 

to approximately 13 percent of the same 

market by 2020, and to approximately 

30 percent of the much attenuated 

standard output GSFL market by 2046. 

TABLE VII.37—EFFECT OF STANDARD CASES ON CUMULATIVE SHIPMENTS OF IRL IN 2017–2046 

Lamp Type 

Base case TSL 1 

Cumulative 

shipments 

millions 

Change in 

shipments 

relative to 

base case 

(percent) 

Standard spectrum; >2.5 inch diameter; <125 V ................................................................................................ 230 ¥20 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

For each TSL, DOE projected energy 

savings for GSFLs and IRLs purchased 

in the 30-year period that begins in the 

year of anticipated compliance with 

amended standards (2017–2046). The 

savings are measured over the entire 

lifetime of product purchased in the 30- 

year period. DOE quantified the energy 

savings attributable to each TSL as the 

difference in energy consumption 

between each standards case and the 

base case, accounting for the effects of 

the standards on product switching and 

shipments. Table VII.38 presents the 

estimated energy savings for each 

considered GSFL TSL, and Table VII.39 

presents the estimated energy savings 

for each IRL TSL. The approach for 

estimating shipments and NES is further 

described in sections V.I and V.J and is 

detailed in chapter 11 and 12 of the TSD 

of the NOPR TSD. 

TABLE VII.38—CUMULATIVE ENERGY SAVINGS FOR GSFL TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR UNITS SOLD IN 2017–2046 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

Quads 

Primary Energy ................................................................................................................................

(Power Sector Consumption) ........................................................................................................... 0.20 0.20 0.86 2.9 3.3 

FFC Energy ...................................................................................................................................... 0.21 0.21 0.89 3.0 3.5 

TABLE VII.39—CUMULATIVE ENERGY

SAVINGS FOR IRL TRIAL STANDARD

LEVELS FOR UNITS SOLD IN 2017– 

2046 

Trial 

standard 

level 

1 

Quads 

Primary Energy (Power Sector 

Consumption) ........................ 0.012 

FFC Energy .............................. 0.013 

Circular A–4 requires agencies to 

present analytical results, including 

separate schedules of the monetized 

benefits and costs that show the type 

and timing of benefits and costs. 

Circular A–4 also directs agencies to 

consider the variability of key elements 

underlying the estimates of benefits and 

costs. For this rulemaking, DOE 

undertook a sensitivity analysis using 

nine, rather than 30, years of product 

shipments. The choice of a nine-year 

period is a proxy for the timeline in 

EPCA for the review of certain energy 

conservation standards and potential 

revision of and compliance with such 

revised standards.89 The review 

timeframe established in EPCA is 

generally not synchronized with the 

product lifetime, product manufacturing 

cycles, or other factors specific to GSFLs 

and IRLs. Thus, this information is 

presented for informational purposes 

only and is not indicative of any change 

in DOE’s analytical methodology. The 

NES results based on nine years of 

shipments are presented in Table VII.40 

and Table VII.41. The impacts are 

counted over the lifetime of GSFL and 

IRL purchased in 2017–2025. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24167 

90OMB Circular A–4, section E (Sept. 17, 2003). 

Available at: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_

a004_a-4. 

TABLE VII.40—CUMULATIVE ENERGY SAVINGS FOR GSFL TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR UNITS SOLD IN 2017–2025 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

Quads 

Primary Energy (Power Sector Consumption) ................................................................................ 0.10 0.10 0.42 1.3 1.5 

FFC Energy ...................................................................................................................................... 0.10 0.10 0.44 1.4 1.5 

TABLE VII.41—CUMULATIVE ENERGY

SAVINGS FOR IRL TRIAL STANDARD

LEVELS FOR UNITS SOLD IN 2017 

–2025 

Trial 

standard 

level 

1 

Quads 

Primary Energy (Power Sector 

Consumption) ........................ 0.008 

FFC Energy .............................. 0.008 

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. 

In accordance with OMB’s guidelines 

on regulatory analysis,90 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 United States Treasury notes), 

which has averaged about 3 percent for 

the past 30 years. 

Table VII.42 shows the consumer NPV 

results for each TSL considered for 

GSFLs, and Table VII.43 shows the 

consumer NPV results for each TSL 

considered for IRL. In each case, the 

impacts cover the lifetime of product 

purchased in 2017–2046. 

TABLE VII.42—NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR GSFL TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR UNITS SOLD IN

2017–2046 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

Billion 2012$ 

7% discount rate .................................................................................................................... ¥0.39 ¥0.48 0.23 3.2 3.1 

3% discount rate .................................................................................................................... ¥0.49 ¥0.63 1.0 8.1 8.1 

TABLE VII.43—NET PRESENT VALUE

OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR IRL 

TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR UNITS

SOLD IN 2017–2046 

TSL 1 

Billion 2012$ 

7% discount rate ............... 0.18 

TABLE VII.43—NET PRESENT VALUE

OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR IRL 

TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR UNITS

SOLD IN 2017–2046—Continued 

TSL 1 

Billion 2012$ 

3% discount rate ............... 0.28 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24168 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

The NPV results based on the aforementioned nine-year shipments period 

are presented in Table VII.44 and Table 

VII.45. The impacts are counted over the 

lifetime of product purchased in 2017– 

2025. 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.44—NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR GSFL TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR UNITS SOLD IN

2017–2025 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

Billion 2012$ 

7% discount rate .................................................................................................................... ¥0.26 ¥0.33 0.04 1.1 1.1 

3% discount rate .................................................................................................................... ¥0.29 ¥0.39 0.37 2.5 2.7 

TABLE VII.45—NET PRESENT VALUE

OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR IRL 

TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR UNITS

SOLD IN 2017–2025 

TSL 1 

Billion 2012$ 

7% discount rate ............... 0.13 

3% discount rate ............... 0.18 

c. Impact of Product Class Switching 

As discussed at the beginning of 

section VII.B.3, consumer switching 

between product classes yields an 

increase in shipments for some GSFL 

product classes, with corresponding 

reductions in shipments in other 

product classes (see Table VII.36). 

Therefore, a portion of the energy 

savings for some of the TSLs is due to 

consumers’ switching between product 

classes to more energy efficient products 

with lower operating costs. Similarly, 

the increase in product costs for some 

of the TSLs is substantially impacted by 

product-class switching. For the 

standard level proposed for GSFL’s in 

this rulemaking, increases in the typical 

cost of 4-foot MBP GSFLs relative to 8- 

foot SP slimline or 4-foot MiniBP T5s is 

expected to drive some consumers to 

shift toward the latter two product 

classes, yielding a reduction in energy 

consumption relative to the base case, 

with a lower increase in purchase costs 

than would be obtained without the 

product-class switching. Conversely, as 

is true for TSL1, potential standard level 

that increases the typical purchase 

prices of the latter two product classes 

above would reduce migration to these 

product classes, yielding a net reduction 

in the energy savings relative to the base 

case, with a greater increment in 

product costs. This is true for example 

with TSL1 where the efficiency 

requirements are increased for product 

classes which are already relatively 

efficient (e.g., 4 foot T5 miniBP) while 

not increased for product classes which 

are relatively inefficient (e.g., 4 foot 

MBP). In this case, there is no product 

class switching as consumers are 

forecasted to continue purchasing the 

less costly and less efficient technology 

(4 foot MBP). 

Because of these assumed shifts in 

shipments between product classes, the 

NES and monetized cost and benefit 

values computed for a single product 

class, considered in isolation, may yield 

negative energy savings and associated 

benefits as well as negative associated 

costs . For the proposed standard level, 

the increased shipments of MiniBP T5 

lamps and 8-foot SP slimline lamps will 

lead to negative energy savings and 

costs for both of those product classes, 

when viewed in isolation, simply 

because significantly more lamps from 

those product classes are purchased and 

operated in the standards case than in 

the base case. Those negative values, 

however, do not represent an actual 

reduction in consumer benefit for the 

service being delivered to the consumer 

since the negative values for the 

particular product classes are more than 

offset by the large positive contributions 

to the aggregate energy savings and 

monetized benefits across all product 

classes partially due to the 

corresponding reduction in shipments 

of 4-ft MBP T8s. DOE requests comment 

on the consumer choice model that 

projects shifts in shipments between 

product classes and whether there are 

other factors (e.g. utility, costs to replace 

light fixtures, design incompatibility) 

that may preclude or limit that shifting 

that may not be considered in DOE’s 

analysis. For informational purposes, 

chapter 12 of the TSD presents NES and 

NPV values computed for each product 

class individually. 

d. 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 rises again. As mentioned 

in section V.I, rare earth oxides, used in 

GSFL phosphors to improve lamp 

efficiency, 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 NOPR 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 NOPR 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 

increases in the future. To assess the 

effect of a significant xenon price 

increase on the impact of an energy 

conservation standard for IRL, 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 TSD for 

the NOPR. 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 NOPR TSD). 

e. 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24169 

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 proposed 

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 NOPR 

TSD presents detailed results. 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance 

DOE believes that the standards it is 

proposing today 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 this 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 this 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. 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 this TSD 

for further details on the selection of 

more efficacious substitutes for the 

baseline and development of proposed 

efficacy levels. 

DOE requests comment on its 

assumption that there will be no 

lessening of utility or performance such 

that the performance characteristics, 

including physical constraints, 

diameter, lumen package, color quality, 

lifetime, and ability to dim, would be 

adversely affected for the GSFL efficacy 

levels. Similarly, DOE also requests 

comment on its assumption that there 

will be no lessening of utility or 

performance such that the performance 

characteristics, including lumen 

package, lifetime, shape, diameter, and 

light quality, would be adversely 

affected for the IRL efficacy levels. 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

DOE considers any lessening of 

competition that is likely to result from 

amended standards. The Attorney 

General determines the impact, if any, 

of any lessening of competition likely to 

result from a proposed standard, and 

transmits such determination to the 

Secretary, together with an analysis of 

the nature and extent of such impact. 

To assist the Attorney General in 

making such determination, DOE will 

provide DOJ with copies of the NOPR 

and the TSD for review. DOE will 

consider DOJ’s comments on the 

proposed rule in preparing the final 

rule, and DOE will publish and respond 

to DOJ’s comments in that document. 

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 

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, chapter 16 in the 

NOPR TSD presents the estimated 

reduction in generating 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.46 and Table 

VII.47 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 NOPR 

TSD. 

TABLE VII.46—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATED FOR GSFL TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

Power Sector Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) .................................................................................... 9.9 9.7 42 140 160 

SO2 (thousand tons) .......................................................................................... 15 15 64 220 250 

NOX (thousand tons) ......................................................................................... 5.5 5.5 23 78 89 

Hg (tons) ............................................................................................................ 0.019 0.019 0.082 0.28 0.32 

N2O (thousand tons) .......................................................................................... 0.16 0.16 0.69 2.4 2.7 

CH4 (thousand tons) .......................................................................................... 1.1 1.0 4.5 15 18 

Upstream Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) .................................................................................... 0.52 0.51 2.2 7.6 8.6 

SO2 (thousand tons) .......................................................................................... 0.11 0.11 0.48 1.6 1.9

NOX (thousand tons) ......................................................................................... 7.2 7.0 31 100 120 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24170 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VII.46—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATED FOR GSFL TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS—Continued 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

Hg (tons) ............................................................................................................ 0.00028 0.00028 0.0012 0.0041 0.0047 

N2O (thousand tons) .......................................................................................... 0.0053 0.0052 0.023 0.077 0.088 

CH4 (thousand tons) .......................................................................................... 43 42 180 630 720 

Total Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) .................................................................................... 10 10 44 150 170 

SO2 (thousand tons) .......................................................................................... 15 15 65 220 250 

NOX (thousand tons) ......................................................................................... 13 12 54 180 210 

Hg (tons) ............................................................................................................ 0.020 0.019 0.083 0.28 0.32 

N2O (thousand tons) .......................................................................................... 0.17 0.16 0.71 2.5 2.8 

N2O (thousand tons CO2eq)* ............................................................................. 49 48 210 730 830 

CH4 (thousand tons) .......................................................................................... 44 43 190 640 730 

CH4 (million tons CO2eq)* ................................................................................. 1,100 1,100 4,700 16,000 18,000 

* CO2eq is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same GWP. 

TABLE VII.47—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATED FOR

IRL TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

Trial standard level 

1 

Power Sector Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ............ 0.66 

SO2 (thousand tons) ................... 0.69 

NOX (thousand tons) .................. 0.35 

Hg (tons) ..................................... 0.0012 

N2O (thousand tons) ................... 0.0095 

CH4 (thousand tons) ................... 0.066 

Upstream Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ............ 0.032 

SO2 (thousand tons) ................... 0.0069 

NOX (thousand tons) .................. 0.45 

Hg (tons) ..................................... 0.00002 

N2O (thousand tons) ................... 0.00033 

CH4 (thousand tons) ................... 2.7 

Total Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ............ 0.70 

SO2 (thousand tons) ................... 0.69 

TABLE VII.47—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATED FOR

IRL TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS—Continued 

Trial standard level 

1 

NOX (thousand tons) .................. 0.79 

Hg (tons) ..................................... 0.0012 

N2O (thousand tons) ................... 0.0099 

N2O (thousand tons CO2eq)* ..... 2.9 

CH4 (thousand tons) ................... 2.7 

CH4 (million tons CO2eq)* .......... 68 

* 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 2012$) 

represented by $11.8/metric ton (the 

average value from a distribution that 

uses a 5 percent discount rate), $39.7/ 

metric ton (the average value from a 

distribution that uses a 3 percent 

discount rate), $61.2/metric ton (the 

average value from a distribution that 

uses a 2.5 percent discount rate), and 

$117/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 

damages as the projected magnitude of 

climate change increases. 

Table VII.48 and Table VII.49 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 NOPR 

TSD. 

TABLE VII.48—ESTIMATES OF GLOBAL PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION UNDER GSFL TRIAL STANDARD

LEVELS

TSL 

SCC Case* 

5% discount rate, 

average* 

3% discount rate, 

average* 

2.5% discount 

rate, 

average* 

3% discount rate, 

95th percentile* 

Billion 2012$ 

Power Sector Emissions 

1 ............................................................................................... 77 330 520 1,000 

2 ............................................................................................... 76 330 520 1,000 

3 ............................................................................................... 330 1,400 2,200 4,300 

4 ............................................................................................... 1,100 4,700 7,300 14,000 

5 ............................................................................................... 1,200 5,300 8,400 16,000 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24171 

TABLE VII.48—ESTIMATES OF GLOBAL PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION UNDER GSFL TRIAL STANDARD

LEVELS—Continued 

TSL 

SCC Case* 

5% discount rate, 

average* 

3% discount rate, 

average* 

2.5% discount 

rate, 

average* 

3% discount rate, 

95th percentile* 

Upstream Emissions 

1 ............................................................................................... 4.0 17 27 54 

2 ............................................................................................... 4.0 17 27 53 

3 ............................................................................................... 17 74 120 230 

4 ............................................................................................... 57 250 390 760 

5 ............................................................................................... 65 280 450 870 

Total Emissions 

1 ............................................................................................... 81 350 550 1,100 

2 ............................................................................................... 80 350 540 1,100 

3 ............................................................................................... 340 1,500 2,300 4,500 

4 ............................................................................................... 1,100 4,900 7,700 15,000 

5 ............................................................................................... 1,300 5,600 8,900 17,000 

* For each of the four cases, the corresponding SCC value for emissions in 2015 is $11.8, $39.7, $61.2, and $117 per metric ton (2012$). 

TABLE VII.49—ESTIMATES OF GLOBAL PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION UNDER IRL TRIAL STANDARD

LEVELS

TSL 

SCC Case* 

5% discount rate, 

average* 

3% discount rate, 

average* 

2.5% discount 

rate, average* 

3% discount rate, 

95th percentile* 

Billion 2012$ 

Power Sector Emissions 

1 ............................................................................................... 5.8 24 37 72 

Upstream Emissions 

1 ............................................................................................... 0.28 1.2 1.8 3.5 

Total Emissions 

1 ............................................................................................... 6.1 25 39 75 

* For each of the four cases, the corresponding SCC value for emissions in 2015 is $11.8, $39.7, $61.2, and $117 per metric ton (2012$). 

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 proposed rule the 

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.50 and Table VII.51 present the 

cumulative present values for each TSL 

calculated using 7 percent and 3 percent 

discount rates. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24172 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VII.50—ESTIMATES OF

PRESENT VALUE OF NOX EMISSIONS

REDUCTION UNDER GSFL TRIAL

STANDARD LEVELS

TSL 3% discount 

rate 

7% discount 

rate 

Million 2012$ 

Power Sector Emissions 

1 ................ 9.6 5.8 

2 ................ 9.5 5.8 

3 ................ 40 24 

4 ................ 130 77 

5 ................ 150 89 

Upstream Emissions 

1 ................ 12 6.9 

2 ................ 12 6.9 

3 ................ 50 29 

4 ................ 170 93 

5 ................ 190 110 

Total Emissions 

1 ................ 21 13 

2 ................ 21 13 

3 ................ 90 53 

4 ................ 290 170 

5 ................ 340 200 

TABLE VII.51—ESTIMATES OF

PRESENT VALUE OF NOX EMISSIONS

REDUCTION UNDER IRL TRIAL

STANDARD LEVELS

TSL 

3% 

discount 

rate 

7% 

discount 

rate 

Million 2012$ 

Power Sector Emissions 

1 ............................ 0.71 0.52 

Upstream Emissions 

1 ............................ 0.87 0.61 

Total Emissions 

1 ............................ 1.6 1.1 

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.52 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 above. 

TABLE VII.52—NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER SAVINGS COMBINED WITH PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS

FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS UNDER GSFL TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

TSL 

Consumer NPV at 3% discount rate added with: 

SCC Case 

$11.8/metric ton 

CO2* 

SCC Case 

$39.7/metric ton 

CO2* 

SCC Case 

$61.2/metric ton 

CO2* 

SCC Case $117/ 

metric ton CO2* 

Billion 2012$ 

1 ....................................................................................................... ¥0.39 ¥0.12 0.08 0.60 

2 ....................................................................................................... ¥0.53 ¥0.27 ¥0.07 0.44 

3 ....................................................................................................... 1.5 2.6 3.4 5.7 

4 ....................................................................................................... 9.5 13 16 23 

5 ....................................................................................................... 9.7 14 17 26 

Consumer NPV at 7% discount rate added with: 

TSL SCC Case 

$11.8/metric ton 

CO2* 

SCC Case 

$39.7/metric ton 

CO2* 

SCC Case 

$61.2/metric ton 

CO2* 

SCC Case $117/ 

metric ton CO2* 

Billion 2012$ 

1 ....................................................................................................... ¥0.30 ¥0.03 0.17 0.70 

2 ....................................................................................................... ¥0.38 ¥0.12 0.08 0.59 

3 ....................................................................................................... 0.63 1.8 2.6 4.8 

4 ....................................................................................................... 4.5 8.3 11 18 

5 ....................................................................................................... 4.6 9.0 12 21 

* These label values represent the global SCC in 2015, in 2012$. For NOX emissions, each case uses the medium value, which corresponds 

to $2,639 per ton. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24173 

TABLE VII.53—NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER SAVINGS COMBINED WITH PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS

FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS UNDER IRL TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

TSL 

Consumer NPV at 3% discount rate added with: 

SCC Case 

$11.8/metric ton 

CO2* 

SCC Case 

$39.7/metric ton 

CO2* 

SCC Case 

$61.2/metric ton 

CO2* 

SCC Case 

$117/metric ton 

CO2* 

Billion 2012$ 

1 ....................................................................................................... 0.29 0.31 0.32 0.36 

Consumer NPV at 7% discount rate added with: 

TSL SCC Case 

$11.8/metric ton 

CO2* 

SCC Case 

$39.7/metric ton 

CO2* 

SCC Case 

$61.2/metric ton 

CO2* 

SCC Case 

$117/metric ton 

CO2* 

Billion 2012$ 

1 ....................................................................................................... 0.19 0.20 0.22 0.25 

* These label values represent the global SCC in 2015, in 2012$. For NOX emissions, each case uses the medium value, which corresponds 

to $2,639 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 2017–2046. 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. 

8. Other Factors 

The Secretary, in determining 

whether a standard is economically 

justified, may consider any other factors 

that the Secretary deems to be relevant. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) No other 

factors were considered in this analysis. 

C. Proposed Standards 

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 met 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 efficiency 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.54 and Table VII.55 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 VI.D. 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 VI.H), 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 VI.O. 

As discussed in previous DOE 

standards rulemakings and the February 

2011 NODA (76 FR 9696, Feb. 22, 2011), 

DOE also notes that 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 

economics literature attempts to explain 

why consumers appear to undervalue 

energy efficiency improvements. This 

undervaluation suggests that regulation 

promoting energy efficiency can 

produce significant net private gains (as 

well as producing social gains by, for 

example, reducing pollution). There is 

evidence that consumers undervalue 

future energy savings as a result of (1) 

a lack of information, (2) a lack of 

sufficient savings to warrant 

accelerating or altering purchases (e.g., 

an inefficient ventilation fan in a new 

building or the delayed replacement of 

a water pump), (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 (e.g., renter 

versus owner; builder vs. purchaser). 

Other literature indicates that with lessthan-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 higherthan-expected rate between current 

consumption and uncertain future 

energy cost savings. Some studies 

suggest that this seeming 

undervaluation may be explained in 

certain circumstances by differences 

between tested and actual energy 

savings, or by uncertainty and 

irreversibility of energy investments. 

There may also be ‘‘hidden’’ welfare 

losses to consumers if newer energy 

efficient products are imperfect 

substitutes for the less efficient products 

they replace, in terms of performance or 

other attributes that consumers value. In 

the abstract, it may be difficult to say 

how a welfare gain from correcting 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24174 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

91A good review of the literature related to this 

issue can be found in Gillingham, K., R. Newell, K. 

Palmer. (2009). ‘‘Energy Efficiency Economics and 

Policy,’’ Annual Review of Resource Economics, 1: 

597–619; and Tietenberg, T. (2009). ‘‘Energy 

Efficiency Policy: Pipe Dream or Pipeline to the 

Future?’’ Review of Environmental Economics and 

Policy. Vol. 3, No. 2: 304–320. 

92A draft paper, ‘‘Notes on the Economics of 

Household Energy Consumption and Technology 

Choice,’’ proposes a broad theoretical framework on 

which an empirical model might be based and is 

posted on the DOE Web site along with this notice 

at www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_

standards. 

potential under-investment in energy 

conservation compares in magnitude to 

the potential welfare losses associated 

with no longer purchasing a machine or 

switching to an imperfect substitute, 

both of which still exist in this 

framework. 

The mix of evidence in the empirical 

economics literature suggests that if 

feasible, analysis of regulations 

mandating energy-efficiency 

improvements should explore the 

potential for both welfare gains and 

losses and move toward a fuller 

economic framework where all relevant 

changes can be quantified.91 While DOE 

is not prepared at present to provide a 

fuller quantifiable framework for this 

discussion, DOE seeks comments on 

how to assess these possibilities.92 In 

particular, DOE requests comment on 

whether there are features or attributes 

of the more energy efficient GSFLs and 

IRLs that manufacturers would produce 

to meet the standards in this proposed 

rule that might affect the welfare, 

positively or negatively, of consumers 

who purchase these lamps. 

1. Benefits and Burdens of Trial 

Standard Levels Considered for General 

Service Fluorescent Lamps 

Table VII.54 and Table VII.55 

summarize the quantitative impacts 

estimated for each TSL for GSFL. 

TABLE VII.54—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR GSFL: NATIONAL IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

National FFC Energy Savings quads 

0.21 0.21 0.89 3.0 3.5 

NPV of Consumer Benefits 2012$ billion 

3% discount rate .......................................................... ¥0.49 ¥0.63 1.0 8.1 8.1 

7% discount rate .......................................................... ¥0.39 ¥0.48 0.23 3.2 3.1 

Cumulative Emissions Reduction (Total FFC Emissions) 

CO2 (million metric tons) .............................................. 10 10 44 150 170 

SO2 (thousand tons) .................................................... 15 15 65 220 250 

NOX (thousand tons) ................................................... 13 12 54 180 210 

Hg (tons) ...................................................................... 0.020 0.019 0.083 0.28 0.32 

N2O (thousand tons) .................................................... 0.17 0.16 0.71 2.5 2.8 

N2O (thousand tons CO2eq) * ...................................... 49 48 210 730 830 

CH4 (thousand tons) .................................................... 44 43 190 640 730 

CH4 (million tons CO2eq) * ........................................... 1,100 1,100 4,700 16,000 18,000 

Value of Emissions Reduction (Total FFC Emissions) 

CO2 2012$ million ** .................................................... 82 to 1,100 80 to 1,100 340 to 4,500 1,100 to 15,000 1,300 to 17,000 

NOX—3% discount rate, 2012$ million ....................... 21 21 90 290 340 

NOX—7% discount rate, 2012$ million ....................... 13 13 53 170 200 

* 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.55—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 (2012$ million)† ...................................... 41.8—(0.9) 37.8—(9.2) 120.5—(11.5) 358.5—(22.9) 397.1—(39.9) 

Change in Industry NPV (%)† ........................................................ 2.7—(0.1) 2.5—(0.6) 7.8—(0.7) 23.2—(1.5) 25.7—(2.6) 

Consumer Mean LCC Savings 2012$ 

4-foot MBP ≤4,500 K ..................................................................... 0.00 0.00 0.54 3.14 3.14 

4-foot T5 MiniBP SO ≤4,500 K ...................................................... 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.76 

4-foot T5 MiniBP HO ≤4,500 K ...................................................... 2.28 2.28 2.28 2.28 2.28 

8-foot SP Slimline ≤4,500 K .......................................................... 0.00 6.88 0.00 0.00 2.08 

8-foot RDC HO ≤4,500 K ............................................................... ¥9.56 ¥16.76 ¥9.56 ¥9.56 ¥16.76 

Weighted Average* ........................................................................ ¥0.68 ¥1.00 ¥0.22 1.77 1.43 

Consumer Mean PBP years** 

4-foot MBP ≤4,500 K ..................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.6 3.6 3.6 

4-foot T5 MiniBP SO ≤4,500 K ...................................................... 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 4.3 

4-foot T5 MiniBP HO ≤4,500 K ...................................................... 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

8-foot SP Slimline ≤4,500 K .......................................................... 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 4.5 

8-foot RDC HO ≤4,500 K ............................................................... NER NER NER NER NER 

Weighted Average* ........................................................................ 0.1 0.1 0.6 3.2 3.7 

Weighted Average Customers with Net Cost (%)* ........................ 9.5 11.5 59.5 29.4 34.5 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24175 

93 DOE used a two-step calculation process to 

convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 

annualized values. First, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2013, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the 

time-series of costs and benefits using discount 

rates of 3 and 7 percent for all costs and benefits 

except for the value of CO2 reductions. For the 

latter, DOE used a range of discount rates. From the 

present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual 

payment over a 30-year period (2017 through 2046) 

that yields the same present value. The fixed annual 

payment is the annualized value. Although DOE 

calculated annualized values, this does not imply 

that the time-series of cost and benefits from which 

the annualized values were determined is a steady 

stream of payments. 

TABLE VII.55—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR GSFL: MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS—Continued 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

Weighted Average Customers with Net Benefit (%)* .................... 1.1 2.6 36.0 60.4 65.5 

Weighted Average Customers with No Impact (%)* ..................... 89.4 85.8 4.5 10.2 0.0 

* Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2017. 

** Does not include weighting for ‘‘NER’’ scenarios. Entries of ‘‘NER’’ indicate standard levels that do not reduce operating costs, which prevents the consumer from recovering the increased purchase cost. †Values in parentheses are negative values. 

First, DOE considered TSL 5, the most 

efficient level (max tech), which would 

save an estimated total of 3.5 quads of 

energy, an amount DOE considers 

significant. TSL 5 has an estimated NPV 

of consumer benefit of $3.1 billion using 

a 7 percent discount rate, and $8.1 

billion using a 3 percent discount rate. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 5 are 170 million metric tons of 

CO2, 210 thousand tons of NOX, 250 

thousand tons of SO2, 0.32 tons of Hg, 

730 thousand tons of CH4, and 2.8 

thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions at TSL 5 ranges from $1,300 

million to $17,000 million. 

At TSL 5, the weighted average LCC 

savings is $3.14 for the 4-foot MBP 

lamps, $2.76 for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP 

SO lamps, $2.28 for the 4-foot T5 

MiniBP HO lamps, $2.08 for the 8-foot 

SP slimline lamps, and ¥$16.76 for the 

8-foot RDC HO lamps. 

At TSL 5, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $39.9 

million to an increase of $397.1 million. 

If the decrease is realized, TSL 5 could 

result in a net loss of up to 2.6 percent 

in INPV to manufacturers of covered 

GSFLs. Also at TSL 5, DOE estimates 

industry will need to invest 

approximately $38.6 million in 

conversion costs. 

After considering the analysis and 

weighing the benefits and the burdens, 

DOE has tentatively concluded that, at 

TSL 5 for GSFL, the benefits of energy 

savings, positive NPV of total consumer 

benefits, positive impacts on consumers 

(as indicated by positive average LCC 

savings, favorable PBPs, 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, and increase in LCCs 

experienced by certain consumers at 

TSL 5. The Secretary has concluded that 

TSL 5 would save a significant amount 

of energy and is technologically feasible 

and economically justified. 

Based on the above considerations, 

DOE today proposes to adopt the energy 

conservation standards for GSFL at TSL 

5. Table VII.56 presents the proposed 

energy conservation standards for GSFL. 

TABLE VII.56—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR GSFL 

Lamp type CCT 

K 

Proposed level 

lm/W 

4-Foot Medium Bipin ....................................................................................................................................... ≤4,500 92.4 

>4,500 90.6 

2-Foot U-Shaped ............................................................................................................................................. ≤4,500 86.9 

>4,500 84.3 

8-Foot Slimline ................................................................................................................................................. ≤4,500 99.0 

>4,500 94.1 

8-Foot High Output .......................................................................................................................................... ≤4,500 97.6 

>4,500 95.6 

4-Foot Miniature Bipin Standard Output .......................................................................................................... ≤4,500 97.1 

>4,500 91.3 

4-Foot Miniature Bipin High Output ................................................................................................................. ≤4,500 82.7 

>4,500 78.6 

2. Summary of Benefits and Costs 

(Annualized) of the Proposed Standards 

for General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

The benefits and costs of today’s 

proposed standards, for product sold in 

2017–2046, 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 

proposed 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.93

Estimates of annualized benefits and 

costs of the proposed standards for 

GSFL are shown in Table VII.57. 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 

average SCC series that uses a 3-percent 

discount rate, the cost of the standards 

proposed in today’s rule is $873 million 

per year in increased product costs; 

while the estimated benefits are $1,180 

million per year in reduced product 

operating costs, $314 million per year in 

CO2 reductions, and $19.3 million per 

year in reduced NOX emissions. In this 

case, the net benefit would amount to 

$642 million per year. Using a 3-percent 

discount rate for all benefits and costs 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24176 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

and the average SCC series, the 

estimated cost of the standards 

proposed in today’s rule is $751 million 

per year in increased product costs; 

while the estimated benefits are $1,200 

million per year in reduced operating 

costs, $314 million per year in CO2

reductions, and $18.9 million per year 

in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, 

the net benefit would amount to 

approximately $783 million per year. 

TABLE VII.57—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR GSFL (TSL 5) 

Discount rate Primary estimate * Low net benefits 

estimate * 

High net benefits 

estimate * 

.................................. Million 2012$/year 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ............................................... 7% ........................... 1,180 ........................ 1,160 ........................ 1,220 

3% ........................... 1,200 ........................ 1,170 ........................ 1,250 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($11.8/t case) ** ....... 5% ........................... 98 ............................. 98 ............................. 98 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($39.7/t case) ** ....... 3% ........................... 314 ........................... 314 ........................... 314 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($61.2/t case) ** ....... 2.5% ........................ 456 .......................... 456 ........................... 456 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($117/t case) ** ........ 3% ........................... 968 ........................... 968 ........................... 968 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,639/ton) ** ..... 7% ........................... 19.3 .......................... 19.3 .......................... 19.3 

3% ........................... 18.9 .......................... 18.9 .......................... 18.9 

Total Benefits † ............................................................. 7% plus CO2 range 1,300 to 2,160 ......... 1,280 to 2,140 ......... 1,340 to 2,210 

7% ........................... 1,520 ........................ 1,490 ........................ 1,560 

3% plus CO2 range 1,320 to 2,180 ......... 1,290 to 2,160 ......... 1,370 to 2,230 

3% ........................... 1,530 ........................ 1,510 ........................ 1,580 

Costs 

Incremental Product Costs ........................................... 7% ........................... 873 .......................... 910 ........................... 873 

3% ........................... 751 ........................... 785 ........................... 751 

Net Benefits 

Total † ........................................................................... 7% plus CO2 range 426 to 1,291 ............ 367 to 1,232 ............ 469 to 1,330 

7% ........................... 642 ........................... 583 ........................... 685 

3% plus CO2 range 567 to 1,432 ............ 505 to 1,370 ............ 615 to 1,480 

3% ........................... 783 ........................... 722 ........................... 831 

* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with GSFLs shipped in 2017–2046. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2046 from the products purchased in 2017–2046. 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 central energy prices from AEO2013 and a decreasing incremental product cost, due to price learning. The Low Benefits Estimate assumes 

the low estimate of energy prices from AEO2013 and constant real product prices. The High Benefits Estimate assumes the high energy price 

estimates from AEO2013 and decreasing incremental product costs, due to price learning. 

** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2012$, 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. 

† Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount 

rate. 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.58 and Table VII.59 

summarize the quantitative impacts 

estimated for the potential IRL 

standards. 

TABLE VII.58—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR IRL: NATIONAL IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 

National FFC Energy Savings Quads 

0.013 

NPV of Consumers Benefits 2012$ Billion 

3% discount rate ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 0.28 

7% discount rate ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 0.18 

Cumulative Emissions Reduction (Total FFC Emissions) 

CO2 (million metric tons) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

SO2 (thousand tons) .................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.69 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24177 

TABLE VII.58—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR IRL: NATIONAL IMPACTS—Continued 

Category TSL 1 

NOX (thousand tons) ................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.79 

Hg (tons) .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.0012 

N2O (thousand tons) .................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0099 

N2O (thousand tons CO2eq) * ................................................................................................................................................................... 2.9 

CH4 (thousand tons) .................................................................................................................................................................................. 2.7 

CH4 (thousand tons CO2eq) * .................................................................................................................................................................... 68 

Value of Emissions Reduction (Total FFC Emissions) 

CO2 2012$ million ** .................................................................................................................................................................................. 6.1 to 75 

NOX—3% discount rate 2012$ million ...................................................................................................................................................... 1.6 

NOX—7% discount rate 2012$ million ...................................................................................................................................................... 1.1 

* 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.59—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR IRL: MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 

Manufacturer Impacts 

Change in Industry NPV 2012$ million ** .................................................................................................................................... (47.5) – (51.8) 

Change in Industry NPV % ** ...................................................................................................................................................... (27.0) – (29.5) 

Consumer Mean LCC Savings * 2012$ 

Standard spectrum; >2.5 inch diameter; <125 V ........................................................................................................................ 2.95 

Consumer Mean PBP * years 

Standard spectrum; >2.5 inch diameter; <125 V ........................................................................................................................ 5.4 

Consumers with Net Cost % ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.0 

Consumers with Net Benefit % ................................................................................................................................................... 100.0 

Consumers with No Impact % ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.0 

* Weighted by shares of each equipment class in total projected shipments in 2017. 

** Values in parentheses are negative values. 

DOE considered TSL 1, which would 

save an estimated total of 0.013 quads 

of energy, an amount DOE considers 

significant. TSL 1 has an estimated NPV 

of consumer benefit of $0.18 billion 

using a 7 percent discount rate, and 

$0.28 billion using a 3 percent discount 

rate. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 1 are 0.70 million metric tons of 

CO2, 0.79 thousand tons of NOX, 0.69 

thousand tons of SO2, 0.0012 tons of Hg, 

2.7 thousand tons of CH4, and 0.0099 

thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions at TSL 1 ranges from $6.1 

million to $75 million. 

At TSL 1, the weighted average LCC 

savings for the standard spectrum, > 2.5 

inch diameter, < 125 V product class is 

$2.95. The LCC savings were positive 

for both representative lamp units in 

each sector. 

At TSL 1, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $51.8 

million to decrease of $47.5 million. If 

the larger decrease is realized, TSL 1 

could result in a net loss of up to 29.5 

percent in INPV to manufacturers of 

covered IRLs. Also at TSL 1, DOE 

estimates industry would need to invest 

approximately $71.5 million in 

conversion costs. 

After considering the analysis and 

weighing the benefits and the burdens, 

DOE concludes 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. 

Consequently, DOE has concluded that 

TSL 1 is economically justified. 

Based on the above considerations, 

DOE today proposes to adopt the energy 

conservation standards for IRL at TSL 1. 

Table VII.60 presents the proposed 

energy conservation standards for IRL. 

TABLE VII.60—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR IRL 

Lamp type Diameter 

inches 

Voltage 

V 

Proposed level 

lm/W 

Standard Spectrum ..........................................................................................................

40 W¥205 W .................................................................................................................. >2.5 ≥125 

<125 

7.1P0.27

6.2P0.27

≤2.5 ≥125 

<125 

6.0P0.27

5.2P0.27

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24178 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

94This represents a reduction in product costs 

compared to the base case, because the more 

efficacious products have substantially longer lifetimes than the products that would be 

eliminated by the proposed standard. 

TABLE VII.60—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR IRL—Continued 

Lamp type Diameter 

inches 

Voltage 

V 

Proposed level 

lm/W 

Modified Spectrum ...........................................................................................................

40 W¥205 W .................................................................................................................. >2.5 ≥125 

<125 

6.0P0.27

5.2P0.27

≤2.5 ≥125 

<125 

5.1P0.27

4.4P0.27

4. Summary of Benefits and Costs 

(Annualized) of the Proposed Standards 

for Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

The benefits and costs of today’s 

proposed standards for IRL, for product 

sold in 2017–2046, 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 proposed 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. 

Estimates of annualized benefits and 

costs of the proposed standards for IRL 

are shown in Table VII.61. 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 

average SCC series that uses a 3-percent 

discount rate, the annualized 

incremental equipment cost of the 

standards proposed in today’s rule is 

negative $10.4 million per year,94 and 

the annualized benefits of the standards 

proposed in today’s rule are $7.2 

million per year in reduced product 

operating costs, $1.4 million per year in 

CO2 reductions, and $0.11 million per 

year in reduced NOX emissions. In this 

case, the net benefit would amount to 

$19 million per year. Using a 3-percent 

discount rate for all benefits and costs 

and the average SCC series, the 

estimated annualized incremental 

equipment cost of the standards 

proposed in today’s rule is negative $9.7 

million per year,94 and the annualized 

benefits of the standards proposed in 

today’s rule are $5.9 million per year in 

reduced operating costs, $1.4 million 

per year in CO2 reductions, and $0.09 

million per year in reduced NOX

emissions. In this case, the net benefit 

would amount to approximately $17 

million per year. 

TABLE VII.61—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR IRL (TSL 1) 

Discount rate Primary estimate* 

Low net 

benefits 

estimate* 

High net 

benefits 

estimate* 

....................................... Million 2012$/year 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ....................................... 7% ................................ 7.2 ................................. 7.1 ................................. 10 

3% ................................ 5.9 ................................. 5.8 ................................. 5.8 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($11.8/t case)** 5% ................................ 0.5 ................................. 0.5 ................................. 0.5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($39.7/t case)** 3% ................................ 1.4 ................................. 1.4 ................................. 1.4 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($61.2/t case)** 2.5% ............................. 2.0 ................................. 2.0 ................................. 2.0 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($117/t case)* 3% ................................ 4.2 ................................. 4.2 ................................. 4.2 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,639/

ton)**.

7% ................................ 0.11 ............................... 0.11 ............................... 0.16 

3% ................................ 0.09 ............................... 0.09 ............................... 0.09 

Total Benefits † .................................................... 7% plus CO2 range ...... 7.8 to 12 ....................... 7.7 to 11 ....................... 7.8 to 12 

7% ................................ 8.7 ................................. 8.6 ................................. 8.7 

3% plus CO2 range ...... 6.4 to 10 ....................... 6.4 to 10 ....................... 6.4 to 10 

3% ................................ 7.4 ................................. 7.3 ................................. 7.3 

Costs 

Incremental Product Costs ‡ ............................... 7% ................................ ¥10.4 ........................... ¥10.5 ........................... ¥10.4 

3% ................................ ¥9.7 ............................. ¥9.8 ............................. ¥9.7 

Net Benefits 

Total † ................................................................... 7% plus CO2 range ...... 18 to 22 ........................ 18 to 22 ........................ 18 to 22 

7% ................................ 19 .................................. 19 .................................. 19 

3% plus CO2 range ...... 16 to 20 ........................ 16 to 20 ........................ 16 to 20 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24179 

TABLE VII.61—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR IRL (TSL 1)—Continued 

Discount rate Primary estimate* 

Low net 

benefits 

estimate* 

High net 

benefits 

estimate* 

3% ................................ 17 .................................. 17 .................................. 17 

* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with IRLs shipped in 2017–2046. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2046 from the products purchased in 2017–2046. 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 central energy prices from AEO2013 and a decreasing incremental product cost, due to price learning. The Low Benefits Estimate assumes 

the low estimate of energy prices from AEO2013 and constant real product prices. The High Benefits Estimate assumes the high energy price 

estimates from AEO2013 and decreasing incremental product costs, due to price learning. 

** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2012$, 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. 

† Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount rate. 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. 

‡ This reduction in product costs occurs because the more efficacious products have substantially longer lifetimes than the products that would 

be eliminated by the proposed standard. 

VIII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 

Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), 

requires each agency 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. The problems that today’s 

standards address are as follows: 

(1) There is a lack of consumer 

information and/or information 

processing capability about energy 

efficiency opportunities in the lighting 

market. 

(2) There is asymmetric information 

(one party to a transaction has more and 

better information than the other) and/ 

or high transactions costs (costs of 

gathering information and effecting 

exchanges of goods and services). 

(3) There are external benefits 

resulting from improved energy 

efficiency of GSFLs and IRLs that are 

not captured by the users of such 

equipment. These benefits include 

externalities related to environmental 

protection and energy security that are 

not reflected in energy prices, such as 

reduced emissions of GHGs. 

In addition, DOE has determined that 

today’s regulatory action is an 

‘‘economically significant regulatory 

action’’ under section 3(f)(1) of 

Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, 

section 6(a)(3) of the Executive Order 

requires that DOE prepare a regulatory 

impact analysis (RIA) on today’s rule 

and that the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB 

review this rule. DOE presented to OIRA 

for review the draft rule and other 

documents prepared for this 

rulemaking, including the RIA, and has 

included these documents in the 

rulemaking record. The assessments 

prepared pursuant to Executive Order 

12866 can be found in the technical 

support document for this rulemaking. 

DOE has also reviewed this regulation 

pursuant to Executive Order 13563, 

issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281, 

Jan. 21, 2011). EO 13563 is 

supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms 

the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. 

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 has 

emphasized that such techniques may 

include identifying changing future 

compliance costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes. In this NOPR, DOE 

has taken particular note of the potential 

for future volatility in the price of rare 

earth oxides used in the manufacture of 

GSFLs as it affects the future costs and 

benefits of the proposed standard. DOE 

plans to pursue a retrospective review of 

rare earth prices as input for any future 

updates to GSFL standards. For the 

reasons stated in the preamble, DOE 

believes that today’s NOPR is consistent 

with these with the principles laid out 

in Executive Order 13563, including the 

requirement that, to the extent 

permitted by law, benefits justify costs 

and that net benefits are maximized. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law 

must be proposed for public comment, 

unless the agency certifies that the rule, 

if promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. As 

required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24180 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Counsel’s Web site (http://energy.gov/

gc/office-general-counsel). 

As a result of this review, DOE has 

prepared an IRFA for GSFLs and IRLs, 

a copy of which DOE will transmit to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). As 

presented and discussed below, the 

IFRA describes potential impacts on 

GSFL and IRL manufacturers and 

discusses alternatives that could 

minimize these impacts. 

A statement of the objectives of, and 

reasons and legal basis for, the proposed 

rule are set forth elsewhere in the 

preamble and not repeated here. 

1. Description and Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

a. Methodology for Estimating the 

Number of Small Entities 

For manufacturers of GSFLs and IRLs, 

the SBA has set a size threshold, which 

defines those entities classified as 

‘‘small businesses’’ for the purposes of 

the statute. DOE used the SBA’s small 

business size standards to determine 

whether any small entities would be 

subject to the requirements of the rule. 

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 available at: http://

www.sba.gov/content/table-smallbusiness-size-standards. GSFL and IRL 

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 and IRLs 

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 or IRLs 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 or IRLs. 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 today’s proposal. Based 

on these efforts, DOE estimated that 

there are 21 small businesses that either 

manufacture or sell covered GSFLs in 

the United States. 

For IRLs, DOE initially identified a 

total of 37 potential companies that sell 

IRLs in the United States. After 

reviewing publicly available 

information on these potential IRL 

manufacturers, DOE determined that 22 

were either large manufacturers, 

manufacturers that were completely 

foreign owned and operated, or did not 

sell IRLs covered by this rulemaking. 

DOE then contacted the remaining 15 

IRL companies to determine whether 

they met SBA’s definition of a small 

business and whether they 

manufactured or sold IRLs that would 

be affected by today’s proposal. Based 

on these efforts, DOE estimated that 

there are 15 small businesses that either 

manufacture or sell covered IRLs 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 contacted all 15 identified IRL 

small businesses to invite them to take 

part in a small business MIA interview. 

Of the IRL manufacturers DOE 

contacted, five responded to DOE’s 

email and phone communications and 

10 did not. DOE was able to reach and 

discuss potential standards with two of 

the five IRL small business 

manufacturers. The remaining three 

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. General Service Fluorescent Lamp 

and Incandescent Reflector Lamp 

Industry Structures 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 

manufacturers that are completely 

foreign owned and operated. No small 

business has more than a three percent 

market share in the GSFL industry. 

Similarly in the IRL market, the same 

three major GSFL manufacturers supply 

approximately 80 percent of the IRL 

market. Again, none of these three major 

IRL manufacturers is a small business. 

DOE estimates that the remaining 20 

percent of the IRL market is served by 

either small businesses or 

manufacturers that are completely 

foreign owned and operated. No small 

business has more than three percent of 

the IRL market individually. Small 

businesses that sell covered GSFLs and 

IRLs 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 and IRLs, small businesses 

differ from large manufacturers in 

several ways that directly affect the 

extent to which a company would be 

impacted by any potential energy 

conservation standards. The main 

differences between small and large 

entities for this rulemaking are that 

small manufacturers of GSFLs and IRLs 

have lower sales volumes and are 

frequently not the original 

manufacturers of GSFLs and IRLs. 

Therefore, these small businesses would 

not have any capital conversion costs to 

comply with amended standards, since 

the machinery used to produce GSFLs 

and IRLs is owned and operated by 

overseas manufacturers. The small 

businesses would most likely 

experience higher per-unit costs for the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24181 

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 and IRL 

businesses operate in the same lighting 

markets as large manufacturers and do 

not operate in niche GSFL and IRL 

markets. Much of the same equipment 

would need to be purchased by both 

large manufacturers and small 

businesses to produce GSFLs and IRLs 

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 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 and IRL businesses will 

be affected differently by the proposed 

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 IRL and GSFL businesses 

typically outsource the manufacturing 

of the lamps they sell to original 

equipment manufacturers abroad. This, 

in addition to the small volume of sales 

typical of small businesses, results in 

small GSFL and IRL businesses having 

different types and amounts of 

conversion costs compared to large 

manufacturers. 

As a result of this rulemaking, small 

businesses will incur product 

conversion costs because products that 

no longer meet the proposed efficacy 

levels of amended energy conservation 

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 lamps. The 

capital conversion costs incurred by 

original equipment 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 lamps; 

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 proposed GSFL efficacy levels 

of today’s NOPR. DOE estimates that 

approximately 20 percent of the covered 

products offered by small GSFL 

manufacturers meet the proposed 

efficacy levels at TSL 5. As a result, an 

average of approximately 80 percent of 

products would need to be redesigned 

to meet proposed efficacy levels, 

resulting in small GSFL businesses 

incurring more than $1.6 million on 

average in product conversion costs or 

nearly seven 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 80 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. 

TABLE VIII.1—ESTIMATED GSFL PRODUCT CONVERSION COSTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF ANNUAL GSFL R&D EXPENSE

Product 

conversion cost 

as a percentage 

of annual R&D 

expense 

(percent) 

Total 

conversion cost 

as a percentage 

of annual revenue 

(percent) 

Typical Large Manufacturer ..................................................................................................................... 1 0 

Typical Small Manufacturer ..................................................................................................................... 692 31 

In the IRL market, DOE identified 15 

small IRL businesses with covered 

products affected by this rulemaking. 

DOE estimates that a typical small IRL 

business will not incur any direct 

capital conversion costs at TSL 1, the 

proposed standard in today’s NOPR, 

since most IRL small businesses do not 

own and operate the machinery used to 

manufacture IRLs. The small businesses 

would most likely experience higher 

per-unit costs for the products if the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24182 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

conversion costs experienced by the 

overseas manufacturers are passed 

through to the small businesses, 

potentially reducing those small 

business’ manufacturer markups. Small 

IRL businesses are expected to incur 

product capital conversion costs of 

approximately $836 thousand per 

manufacturer. As Table VIII.2 below 

illustrates, small businesses would have 

significant product conversion costs 

amounting to nearly nine times the 

annual amount spent on IRL R&D. Small 

IRL businesses have much smaller 

annual R&D budgets as well as smaller 

annual revenue streams, so incurring 

the product conversion costs necessary 

to meet the efficacy standards at TSL 1 

could be problematic for those small 

businesses that have a large majority of 

their IRLs at the baseline efficacy level. 

Total conversion cost for a typical small 

business could amount to nearly a third 

that small business’ annual IRL revenue. 

TABLE VIII.2—ESTIMATED IRL PRODUCT CONVERSION COSTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF ANNUAL IRL R&D EXPENSE

Product 

conversion cost 

as a percentage 

of annual R&D 

expense 

(percent) 

Total 

conversion cost 

as a percentage 

of annual 

revenue 

(percent) 

Typical Large Manufacturer ..................................................................................................................... 387 28 

Typical Small Manufacturer ..................................................................................................................... 852 29 

While some small businesses would 

have some products meet the IRL 

efficacy levels proposed in today’s 

NOPR, there are a few small businesses 

that may not be able to meet the IRL 

efficacy levels proposed in today’s 

NOPR. Not meeting TSL 1 for IRL 

products may also be a strategic 

decision for some small businesses 

since IRL products make up about five 

percent of a typical small IRL business’ 

revenue. Therefore, some small lighting 

businesses may choose to not sell IRLs 

covered by this rulemaking and exit the 

market. 

Small businesses in both the IRL and 

GSFL industries expressed concern that 

possible manufacturing downtime, 

discontinuation of product lines, and 

high direct and indirect conversion 

costs resulting from amended GSFL and 

IRL energy conservation standards 

could have a significant impact on their 

revenue and could affect domestic 

employment decisions. Domestic 

employment impacts would be 

especially prevalent in the GSFL market 

where 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 

amended GSFL and IRL standards. 

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 rule being considered 

today. 

4. Significant Alternatives to the 

Proposed Rule 

The discussion above analyzes 

impacts on small businesses that would 

result from the GSFL TSL and IRL TSL 

DOE is proposing in today’s notice. 

Though TSLs lower than the proposed 

TSLs are expected to reduce the impacts 

on small entities, DOE is required by 

EPCA to establish standards that 

achieve the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency that are technically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

result in a significant conservation of 

energy. Therefore, DOE rejected the 

lower TSLs. 

The NOPR TSD includes a regulatory 

impact analysis in chapter 18. For 

GSFLs and IRLs, this report discusses 

the following policy alternatives in 

addition to the other TSLs being 

considered: (1) Consumer rebates, (2) 

consumer tax credits, and (3) 

manufacturer tax credits. DOE does not 

intend to consider these alternatives 

further because they either are not 

feasible to implement or are not 

expected to result in energy savings as 

large as those that would be achieved by 

the standard levels under consideration. 

DOE continues to seek input from 

businesses that would be affected by 

this rulemaking and will consider 

comments received in the development 

of any final rule. 

5. Significant Issues Raised by Public 

Comments 

NEMA commented during the 

framework comment period there is an 

added burden of significantly more 

testing and reporting of a lot of small 

sales volume lamps which would result 

from the proposed increase in 

regulations. This increased burden 

would be much harder on small 

business manufacturers, especially if 

those small business manufacturers 

have to pay testing costs to a National 

Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation 

Program (NVLAP) source facility. 

(NEMA, No. 10 at p. 75) NEMA also 

commented during the framework 

comment period that there is a 

substantial cumulative effect of 

numerous concurrent lighting 

regulations being carried out in addition 

to this rulemaking and small business 

manufacturers are even harder hit 

because of this cumulative regulatory 

burden. NEMA believes that small 

business manufacturers should not have 

to bear an unfair burden as a result of 

overly aggressive policies. (NEMA, No. 

10 at pp. 74–75) DOE agrees that there 

is potential for small manufacturers to 

be disproportionately burdened by 

additional regulations as a result of 

additional testing and reporting costs 

and from the potential of a cumulative 

regulatory burden, DOE outlines its 

conclusions on the potential impacts of 

amended standards on small businesses 

in the above section of today’s NOPR. 

DOE’s MIA suggests that most GSFL 

small businesses will generally be able 

to maintain profitability at the TSL 

proposed in today’s rulemaking. It is 

possible, however, that small IRL 

manufacturers could incur significant 

conversion costs as a result of this 

proposed rule, and those high costs 

could endanger their IRL business. 

However, based on the fact that IRL 

sales typically only account for a small 

but non-trivial overall portion of a small 

lighting business’ sales, DOE does not 

believe that any small business will go 

out of business due to the IRL standard 

proposed in today’s NOPR. DOE’s MIA 

is based on its interviews of both small 

and large manufacturers, and 

consideration of the small business 

impacts explicitly enters into DOE’s 

choice of the TSLs proposed in today’s 

NOPR. 

DOE did not receive any public 

comments suggesting that small 

businesses would not be able to achieve 

the efficiency levels at TSL 5 for GSFLs 

and at TSL 1 for IRLs. DOE seeks 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24183 

comment on the feasibility of small 

business to achieve the efficacy levels 

for GSFLs and IRLs proposed in today’s 

NOPR. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Manufacturers of GSFLs and IRLs 

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 and IRLs, 

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 and IRLs. 76 FR 12422 

(March 7, 2011). The collection-ofinformation 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 20 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 

proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule. DOE’s CX 

determination for this proposed 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 

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 today’s proposed 

rule. States can petition DOE for 

exemption from such preemption to the 

extent, and based on criteria, set forth in 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) 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, this 

proposed 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. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

proposed regulatory action likely to 

result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by state, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of state, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. On March 18, 

1997, DOE published a statement of 

policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE’s policy 

statement is also available at http://

energy.gov/gc/downloads/unfundedmandates-reform-actintergovernmental-consultation. 

Although today’s proposed rule does 

not contain a Federal intergovernmental 

mandate, it may require expenditures of 

$100 million or more on the private 

sector. Specifically, the proposed rule 

will likely result in a final rule that 

could require expenditures of $100 

million or more. Such expenditures may 

include: (1) Investment in research and 

development and in capital 

expenditures by GSFL and IRL 

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-efficiency GSFL and 

IRL, starting at the compliance date for 

the applicable standard. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24184 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 proposed 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 

the NOPR and the ‘‘Regulatory Impact 

Analysis’’ section of the TSD for this 

proposed rule 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 proposed 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), 

today’s proposed rule would establish 

energy conservation standards for 

GSFLs and IRLs 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 TSD for today’s proposed 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 

(Mar. 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 

today’s NOPR under the OMB and DOE 

guidelines and has concluded that it is 

consistent with applicable policies in 

those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

proposed significant energy action. A 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that: 

(1) Is a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866, or any 

successor order; and (2) is likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

today’s regulatory action, which sets 

forth energy conservation standards for 

GSFLs and IRLs, is not a significant 

energy action because the proposed 

standards are not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, nor has it 

been designated as such by the 

Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, 

DOE has not prepared a Statement of 

Energy Effects on the proposed 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. 

IX. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting 

The time, date, and location of the 

public meeting are listed in the DATES

and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning 

of this notice. If you plan to attend the 

public meeting, please notify Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. As 

explained in the ADDRESSES section, 

foreign nationals visiting DOE 

Headquarters are subject to advance 

security screening procedures. 

In addition, you can attend the public 

meeting via webinar. Webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to webinar 

participants will be published on DOE’s 

Web site at: www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/

rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/24. Participants 

are responsible for ensuring their 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24185 

systems are compatible with the 

webinar software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

Any person who has plans to present 

a prepared general statement may 

request that copies of his or her 

statement be made available at the 

public meeting. Such persons may 

submit requests, along with an advance 

electronic copy of their statement in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format, to the appropriate address 

shown in the ADDRESSES section at the 

beginning of this notice. The request 

and advance copy of statements must be 

received at least one week before the 

public meeting and may be emailed, 

hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE 

prefers to receive requests and advance 

copies via email. Please include a 

telephone number to enable DOE staff to 

make follow-up contact, if needed. 

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the public meeting and may 

also use a professional facilitator to aid 

discussion. The meeting will not be a 

judicial or evidentiary-type public 

hearing, but DOE will conduct it in 

accordance with section 336 of EPCA 

(42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will 

be present to record the proceedings and 

prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the 

right to schedule the order of 

presentations and to establish the 

procedures governing the conduct of the 

public meeting. After the public 

meeting, interested parties may submit 

further comments on the proceedings as 

well as on any aspect of the rulemaking 

until the end of the comment period. 

The public meeting will be conducted 

in an informal, conference style. DOE 

will present summaries of comments 

received before the public meeting, 

allow time for prepared general 

statements by participants, and 

encourage all interested parties to share 

their views on issues affecting this 

rulemaking. Each participant will be 

allowed to make a general statement 

(within time limits determined by DOE), 

before the discussion of specific topics. 

DOE will allow, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly and 

comment on statements made by others. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

public meeting will accept additional 

comments or questions from those 

attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

public meeting. 

A transcript of the public meeting will 

be included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the Docket 

section at the beginning of this notice. 

In addition, any person may buy a copy 

of the transcript from the transcribing 

reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule before or after the public meeting, 

but no later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this proposed rule. Interested parties 

may submit comments, data, and other 

information using any of the methods 

described in the ADDRESSES section at 

the beginning of this notice. 

Submitting comments via 

regulations.gov. The regulations.gov 

Web page will require you to provide 

your name and contact information. 

Your contact information will be 

viewable to DOE Building Technologies 

staff only. Your contact information will 

not be publicly viewable except for your 

first and last names, organization name 

(if any), and submitter representative 

name (if any). If your comment is not 

processed properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment itself or in any 

documents attached to your comment. 

Any information that you do not want 

to be publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Otherwise, persons viewing comments 

will see only first and last names, 

organization names, correspondence 

containing comments, and any 

documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit to regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)). Comments submitted through 

regulations.gov cannot be claimed as 

CBI. Comments received through the 

Web site will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section below. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through regulations.gov before posting. 

Normally, comments will be posted 

within a few days of being submitted. 

However, if large volumes of comments 

are being processed simultaneously, 

your comment may not be viewable for 

up to several weeks. Please keep the 

comment tracking number that 

regulations.gov provides after you have 

successfully uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery/courier, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand 

delivery, or mail also will be posted to 

regulations.gov. If you do not want your 

personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. If you 

submit via mail or hand delivery/

courier, please provide all items on a 

CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to 

submit printed copies. No facsimiles 

(faxes) will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, that are written in English, and 

that are free of any defects or viruses. 

Documents should not contain special 

characters or any form of encryption 

and, if possible, they should carry the 

electronic signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit via email, postal mail, or 

hand delivery/courier two well-marked 

copies: one copy of the document 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24186 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

marked confidential including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

non-confidential with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. 

Submit these documents via email or on 

a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own 

determination about the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) when 

such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the 

passage of time; and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

1. DOE requests comment on the 

overall methodology, assumptions, and 

results of the GSFL and IRL engineering 

analyses. (See section VI.D for further 

details.) 

2. In the engineering analysis, DOE 

selects a baseline lamp as a reference 

point against which to measure changes 

resulting from energy conservation 

standards. DOE requests comments on 

the baseline lamps selected in this 

analysis for GSFLs. (See section VI.D.2.c 

for further details.) 

3. For GSFLs, the baseline and more 

efficacious substitutes selected 

represent the most common lifetimes for 

each product class. DOE requests 

comment on the rated lifetimes of the 

GSFL baselines and more efficacious 

substitutes. (See section VI.D.2.d for 

further details.) 

4. Because fluorescent lamps operate 

on a ballast in practice, DOE analyzed 

lamp-and-ballast systems in the 

engineering analysis, to more accurately 

capture real-world energy use and light 

output. DOE requests comments on its 

methodology for developing lamp-andballast systems as well as the results of 

these GSFL systems. (See section 

VI.D.2.e for further details.) 

5. For GSFLs, DOE requests comment 

on the max tech levels identified in this 

analysis and more information on the 

accuracy of catalog and certification 

data which were used to identify these 

levels. (See section VI.D.2.f for further 

details.) 

6. DOE develops ELs based on three 

factors: (1) The design options 

associated with the specific lamps 

studied; (2) the ability of lamps across 

wattages to comply with the standard 

level of a given product class; and (3) 

the max tech EL. DOE requests 

comments on the methodology used to 

develop ELs for GSFLs as well as on the 

resulting ELs. (See section VI.D.2.g for 

further details.) 

7. DOE develops scaling factors to 

scale the levels developed directly for 

the representative product classes and 

determine levels for product classes not 

analyzed directly. DOE requests 

comments on the scaling factors 

developed to scale GSFL product classes 

from the less than or equal to 4,500 K 

CCT lamps to the greater than 4,500 K 

CCT lamps. DOE also requests 

comments on the scaling factor 

developed to scale from the 4-foot MBP 

product class to the 2-foot U-shaped 

product class. (See section VI.D.2.h for 

further details.) 

8. In the engineering analysis, DOE 

selects a baseline lamp as a reference 

point against which to measure changes 

resulting from energy conservation 

standards. DOE requests comments on 

the baseline lamps selected in this 

analysis for IRLs. (See section VI.D.3.c 

for further details.) 

9. In the engineering analysis for IRLs, 

DOE observed lifetime changes for 

different technologies. DOE requests 

comment on the rated lifetimes of the 

baseline and more efficacious 

substitutes. (See section VI.D.3.d for 

further details). 

10. DOE requests comment on the 

max tech levels identified in this 

analysis and information on high 

efficacy IRLs including prototype lamps. 

(See section VI.D.3.e for further details.) 

11. DOE has not found evidence that 

more efficacious small diameter, 

modified spectrum, or 130 V IRLs are 

not technologically feasible or 

practicable to manufacture, and 

therefore is proposing to increase 

efficacy levels for these lamp types. 

DOE requests comment on any 

technological barriers in manufacturing 

more efficacious small diameter, 

modified spectrum, or 130 V rated 

lamps for commercial production. (See 

section VI.D.3.i for further details.) 

12. Because GSFLs and IRLs are 

difficult to reverse-engineer (i.e., not 

easily disassembled), DOE directly 

estimated end-user prices for lamps by 

establishing discounts from 

manufacturer suggested price lists. DOE 

requests feedback on the pricing 

methodology used in this analysis. (See 

section VI.E for further details.) 

13. 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 

requests comment on its methodology of 

determining average weighted 

electricity prices in the LCC. (See 

section VI.G.6 for further details.) 

14. DOE determined LCC savings and 

PBP results for different scenarios where 

consumers need to purchase a lamp (i.e., 

lamp failure, ballast failure, and new 

construction and renovation for GSFLs 

and lamp failure and new construction 

and renovation for IRLs). DOE requests 

comments on these lamp purchasing 

events developed for this analysis. (See 

section VI.G.9 for further details.) 

15. DOE conducts the LCC and PBP 

analyses over the lifetime of the 

product. DOE considered the impact of 

group relamping practices on GSFL 

lifetime in the commercial and 

industrial sectors. DOE requests 

comment on its spot and group 

relamping assumptions, particularly the 

percent of rated life at which group 

relamping occurs. DOE also requests 

comment on its general approach to 

determining lamp lifetime for this 

analysis. (See section VI.G.10.a for 

further details.) 

16. DOE requests comment on its LCC 

analysis period assumptions. In 

particular, DOE requests comment on 

basing the analysis period on the 

baseline lamp life divided by the annual 

operating hours of that lamp for the IRL 

and the commercial and industrial 

sector GSFL analyses. DOE also requests 

comment on basing the analysis period 

on the useful life of the baseline lamp 

for a specific event for residential 

GSFLs. (See section VI.G.12 for further 

details.) 

17. For this rulemaking, DOE 

analyzed the effects of this proposal 

assuming that the GSFLs and IRLs 

would be available to purchase for 30 

years and undertook a sensitivity 

analysis using 9 years rather than 30 

years of product shipments. The choice 

of a 30-year period of shipments is 

consistent with the DOE analysis for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24187 

other products and commercial 

equipment. The choice of a 9-year 

period is a proxy for the timeline in 

EPCA for the review of certain energy 

conservation standards and potential 

revision of and compliance with such 

revised standards. DOE is seeking input, 

information and data on whether there 

are ways to further refine the analytic 

timeline. (See section VI.I for further 

details.) 

18. DOE assumes in its shipments and 

national impacts analyses that reduced 

wattage 4-foot MBP lamps can be 

coupled to dimming ballasts, but it 

assumes 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. DOE welcomes input 

on the reasonableness and 

appropriateness of these assumptions. 

(See section VI.I for further details.) 

19. DOE assumes in its reference 

shipments and national impacts 

analyses that the future real price of rare 

earth oxides used in the manufacture of 

GSFLs will remain near current levels 

on average. DOE further assumes in an 

alternative-scenario analysis that the 

future price of rare earth oxides may 

increase owing to market forces outside 

of this proposed rulemaking, but DOE 

assumes that the future price is not 

likely to exceed 3.4 times the current 

price on average. DOE estimates that the 

standard proposed here would cause a 

maximum annual increase in demand 

for rare earth oxides of 296 tons in 2017, 

with lower demand increases in later 

years. DOE welcomes input on the 

reasonableness and appropriateness of 

these estimates and assumptions. (See 

section VI.I for further details.) 

20. DOE assumes in its reference 

shipments and national impacts 

analyses that the future price of xenon 

gas will remain near current levels on 

average. DOE further assumes in an 

alternative-scenario analysis that the 

future price of xenon gas may rise but 

that it is not likely to exceed ten times 

the current price on average. DOE 

welcomes input on the reasonableness 

and appropriateness of these 

assumptions. (See section VI.I for 

further details.) 

21. To improve DOE’s estimates of the 

potential impact of lighting controls on 

this rulemaking, DOE seeks input on the 

current fraction of GSFL ballast 

shipments that are dimming ballasts and 

the likely rate of growth of dimming 

ballasts in the future. (See section VI.I 

for further details.) 

22. DOE assumed zero direct rebound 

effect for efficiency improvements in 

GSFLs and IRLs. DOE conducted 

sensitivity analyses to evaluate 

alternative assumptions about rebound. 

DOE welcomes comment on its 

assumptions and methodology for 

estimating the rebound effect including 

potential magnitudes of rebound effects. 

(See section VI.J.1for further details.) 

23. To calculate the MSP, in the MIA, 

DOE determined the distribution chain 

markup for the GSFL and IRL 

industries. DOE invites comment on its 

methodology of using a 1.52 distribution 

chain markup in combination with the 

medium end-user price to estimate the 

MSP of all GSFLs and IRLs. (See section 

VI.K.2 for further details.) 

24. As part of the MIA, DOE estimates 

the product and capital conversion costs 

that all manufacturers must make to 

comply with potential standards. DOE 

requests comment on the $6.1 product 

conversion costs and $65.4 capital 

conversion costs necessary for IRL 

manufacturers to comply with the 

proposed standards. (See sections 

VI.K.2.a and VII.B.2.a for further 

details.) 

25. DOE solicits comment on the 

application of the new SCC values used 

to determine the social benefits of CO2

emissions reductions over the 

rulemaking analysis period. (The 

rulemaking analysis period covers from 

2017 to 2046 plus the appropriated 

number of years to account for the 

lifetime of the equipment purchased 

between 2017 and 2046.) In particular, 

the agency solicits comment on the 

agency’s derivation of SCC values after 

2050 where the agency applied the 

average annual growth rate of the SCC 

estimates in 2040–2050 associated with 

each of the four sets of values. (See 

section VI.M.1 for further details.) 

26. As part of the MIA, DOE 

quantitatively assessed the impacts of 

potential amended energy conservation 

standards on direct employment. DOE 

seeks comment on the potential 

domestic employment impacts to GSFL 

and IRL manufacturers at the proposed 

efficacy levels. (See section VII.B.2.b for 

further details.) 

27. In the cumulative regulatory 

burden analysis, DOE assess the 

combined effects of recent or impending 

regulations on manufacturers. DOE 

seeks comment on the compliance costs 

of any other regulations GSFL or IRL 

manufacturers must make, especially if 

compliance with those regulations is 

required three years before or after the 

estimated compliance date of these 

proposed standards (2017). (See section 

VII.B.2.e for further details.) 

28. As part of the cumulative 

regulatory burden analysis, DOE 

examines how the proposed standards 

affect manufacturers complying with 

other regulations. Since GSFL 

manufacturers must also comply with 

the Minimata Convention on Mercury, 

DOE seeks comment on GSFL 

manufacturers potentially increasing the 

amount of mercury in GSFLs in order to 

comply with the proposed GSFL 

standards. (See section VII.B.2.e for 

further details.) 

29. For the proposed GSFL standards, 

DOE requests comment on the 

reasonableness of its assumption that 

first cost is a significant driver of 

consumers’ choice of product class, 

which results in the shipments analysis 

projecting a rapid shift from 4-foot MBP 

T8s to standard output T5s in the TSL 

5 standards case. The TSL 5 standards 

case substantially increases first cost for 

4-foot MBP T8s. (See section VII.B.3 for 

further details.) 

30. Noting that DOE projects a sharp 

decrease in total GSFL shipments both 

with and without standards during the 

rulemaking period because of the 

projected sharp incursion of LEDs into 

the GSFL market—DOE seeks comment 

on the reasonableness of the shipments 

model projection for TSL 5, specifically, 

that standard output T5 lamps could 

increase from 3 to 4 percent of the 

standard output GSFL market presently, 

to approximately 13 percent of the same 

market by 2020, and to approximately 

30 percent of the much attenuated 

standard output GSFL market by 2046. 

(See section VII.B.3 for further details.) 

31. DOE requests comment on its 

assumption that there will be no 

lessening of utility or performance such 

that the performance characteristics, 

including lumen package, color quality, 

lifetime, and ability to dim, would be 

adversely affected for the GSFL efficacy 

levels. (See sections VII.B.4, VI.A, VI.B, 

VI.C, and VI.D for further details.) 

32. DOE requests comment on 

whether there are features or attributes, 

including physical constraints such as 

shape or diameter, of the more energyefficient GSFL lamps that manufacturers 

would produce to meet the standards in 

this proposed rule that might affect how 

they would be used by consumers. DOE 

requests comment specifically on how 

any such effects should be weighed in 

the choice of standards for GSFLs for 

the final rule. 

33. DOE requests comment on its 

assumption that there will be no 

lessening of utility or performance such 

that the performance characteristics, 

including lumen package and lifetime, 

would be adversely affected for the IRL 

efficacy levels. (See sections VII.B.4, 

VI.A, VI.B, VI.C, and VI.D for further 

details.) 

34. DOE requests comment on 

whether there are features or attributes, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24188 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

such as the shape or diameter, of the 

more energy-efficient IRL lamps that 

manufacturers would produce to meet 

the standards in this proposed rule that 

might affect how they would be used by 

consumers. DOE requests comment 

specifically on how any such effects 

should be weighed in the choice of 

standards for the IRLs for the final rule. 

35. Due to the assumed shifts in 

shipments between product classes, the 

energy savings and monetized cost and 

benefit values computed for a single 

product class, considered in isolation, 

may yield negative energy savings but 

are more than offset by the large positive 

contributions to the aggregate energy 

savings and monetized benefits across 

all product classes. The expected 

switching between product classes also 

led to an aggregate negative cost 

estimate for the proposed standard 

level. In part due to the negative cost 

estimate for IRLs, DOE requests 

comment on the consumer choice model 

that projects shifts in shipments 

between product classes and whether 

there are other factors (e.g. utility, costs 

to replace light fixtures, design 

incompatibility) that may preclude or 

limit that shifting that may not be 

considered in DOE’s analysis. (See 

section VII.3.c. and chapter 12 of the 

TSD for more details). 

36. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires DOE to 

analyze the impact of its proposed 

standards on small entities, as well as 

any alternatives that accomplish the 

stated objectives of EPCA and minimize 

any significant economic impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities. DOE 

requests comment on the potential 

impacts to GSFL and IRL small 

businesses at the proposed efficacy 

levels. (See section VIII.B for further 

details.) 

X. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of today’s proposed 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 April 11, 

2014. 

David T. Danielson, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE proposes to amend part 

430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 2. In § 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 

ultra-violet region of the spectrum,’’ 

‘‘Reflectorized or aperture lamp,’’ in 

alphabetical order, and revise the 

definition for ‘‘fluorescent lamp’’ to read 

as follows: 

§ 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 

stated in a publicly available document 

(e.g., product literature, catalogs, 

packaging labels, and labels on the 

product itself). 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; 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. 

* * * * * 

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 

§ 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 ultra-violet region of the 

spectrum mean 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 430.32 is amended by 

revising paragraph (n) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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), 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 24189 

(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: 

Lamp type Nominal lamp 

wattage Minimum CRI 

Minimum 

average lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Effective date 

4-foot medium bipin ........................................................................... >35 W 69 75.0 Nov. 1, 1995. 

≤35 W 45 75.0 Nov. 1, 1995. 

2-foot U-shaped ................................................................................. >35 W 69 68.0 Nov. 1, 1995. 

≤35 W 45 64.0 Nov. 1, 1995. 

8-foot slimline ..................................................................................... >65 W 69 80.0 May 1, 1994. 

≤65 W 45 80.0 May 1, 1994. 

8-foot high output ............................................................................... >100 W 69 80.0 May 1, 1994. 

≤100 W 45 80.0 May 1, 1994. 

(2) The standards described in 

paragraph (n)(1) of this section do not 

apply to: 

(i) Any 4-foot medium bipin lamp or 

2-foot U-shaped lamp with a rated 

wattage less than 28 watts; 

(ii) Any 8-foot high output lamp not 

defined in ANSI C78.81 (incorporated 

by reference; see § 430.3) or related 

supplements, or not 0.800 nominal 

amperes; or 

(iii) Any 8-foot slimline lamp not 

defined in ANSI C78.3 (incorporated by 

reference; see § 430.3). 

(3) Except as provided in paragraph 

(n)(4) of this section, each of the 

following general service fluorescent 

lamps manufactured after July 14, 2012, 

shall meet or exceed the following lamp 

efficacy standards shown in the table: 

Lamp type Correlated color 

temperature 

Minimum 

average lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

4-foot medium bipin ........................................................................................... ≤4,500K ........................................................... 89 

>4,500K and ≤7,000K ..................................... 88 

2-foot U-shaped ................................................................................................. ≤4,500K ........................................................... 84 

>4,500K and ≤7,000K ..................................... 81 

8-foot slimline ..................................................................................................... ≤4,500K ........................................................... 97 

>4,500K and ≤7,000K ..................................... 93 

8-foot high output ............................................................................................... ≤4,500K ........................................................... 92 

>4,500K and ≤7,000K ..................................... 88 

4-foot miniature bipin standard output ............................................................... ≤4,500K ........................................................... 86 

>4,500K and ≤7,000K ..................................... 81 

4-foot miniature bipin high output ...................................................................... ≤4,500K ........................................................... 76 

>4,500K and ≤7,000K ..................................... 72 

(4) Each of the following general 

service fluorescent lamps manufactured 

on or after [3 Years after Date of 

Publication of final rule in the Federal 

Register], shall meet or exceed the 

following lamp efficacy standards 

shown in the table: 

Lamp type Correlated color 

temperature 

Minimum 

average lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

4-foot medium bipin ........................................................................................... ≤4,500K ........................................................... 92.4 

>4,500K and ≤7,000K ..................................... 90.6 

2-foot U-shaped ................................................................................................. ≤4,500K ........................................................... 86.9 

>4,500K and ≤7,000K ..................................... 84.3 

8-foot slimline ..................................................................................................... ≤4,500K ........................................................... 99.0 

>4,500K and ≤7,000K ..................................... 94.1 

8-foot high output ............................................................................................... ≤4,500K ........................................................... 97.6 

>4,500K and ≤7,000K ..................................... 95.6 

4-foot miniature bipin standard output ............................................................... ≤4,500K ........................................................... 97.1 

>4,500K and ≤7,000K ..................................... 91.3 

4-foot miniature bipin high output ...................................................................... ≤4,500K ........................................................... 82.7 

>4,500K and ≤7,000K ..................................... 78.6 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

24190 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(5) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(n)(6) and (n)(7) of this section, each of 

the following incandescent reflector 

lamps manufactured after November 1, 

1995, shall meet or exceed the lamp 

efficacy standards shown in the table: 

Nominal lamp wattage 

Minimum 

average lamp 

efficacy 

lm/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) Except as provided in paragraph 

(n)(7) of this section each of the 

following incandescent reflector lamps 

manufactured after July 14, 2012, shall 

meet or exceed the lamp efficacy 

standards shown in the table: 

Rated lamp 

wattage Lamp spectrum Lamp diameter inches Rated voltage 

Minimum 

average lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

40–205 ...................................................... Standard Spectrum ................................... >2.5 ≥125 V 

<125 V 

6.8*P0.27

5.9*P0.27

≤2.5 ≥125 V 

<125 V 

5.7*P0.27

5.0*P0.27

40–205 ...................................................... Modified Spectrum .................................... >2 .5 ≥125 V 

<125 V 

5.8*P0.27

5.0*P0.27

≤2.5 ≥125 V 

<125 V 

4.9*P0.27

4.2*P0.27

Note 1: P is equal to the rated lamp wattage, in watts. 

Note 2: Standard Spectrum means any incandescent reflector lamp that does not meet the definition of modified spectrum in 430.2. 

(7) Each of the following incandescent 

reflector lamps with the exception of 

BPAR, BR, and ER lamps manufactured 

on or after [3 Years after Date of 

Publication of final rule in the Federal 

Register], shall meet or exceed the 

following lamp efficacy standards 

shown in the table: 

Rated lamp wattage Lamp spectrum Lamp diameter 

inches Rated voltage 

Minimum 

average lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

40–205 ...................................................... Standard Spectrum ................................... >2.5 ≥125V 

<125V 

7.1P0.27

6.2P0.27

≤2.5 ≥125V 

<125V 

6.0P0.27

5.2P0.27

40–205 ...................................................... Modified Spectrum .................................... >2.5 ≥125V 

<125V 

6.0P0.27

5.2P0.27

≤2.5 ≥125V 

<125V 

5.1P0.27

4.4P0.27

Note 1: P is equal to the rated lamp wattage, in watts. 

Note 2: Standard Spectrum means any incandescent reflector lamp that does not meet the definition of modified spectrum in 430.2. 

(8)(i)(A) Subject to the exclusions in 

paragraph (n)(8)(ii) of this section, the 

standards specified in this section shall 

apply to ER incandescent reflector 

lamps, BR incandescent reflector lamps, 

BPAR incandescent reflector lamps, and 

similar bulb shapes on and after January 

1, 2008. 

(B) Subject to the exclusions in 

paragraph (n)(8)(ii) of this section, the 

standards specified in this section shall 

apply to incandescent reflector lamps 

with a diameter of more than 2.25 

inches, but not more than 2.75 inches, 

on and after June 15, 2008. 

(ii) The standards specified in this 

section shall not apply to the following 

types of incandescent reflector lamps: 

(A) Lamps rated at 50 watts or less 

that are ER30, BR30, BR40, or ER40 

lamps; 

(B) Lamps rated at 65 watts that are 

BR30, BR40, or ER40 lamps; or 

(C) R20 incandescent reflector lamps 

rated 45 watts or less. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–08740 Filed 4–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS