16920 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket Number EE–2006–STD–0131] 

RIN 1904–AA92 

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. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA) prescribes 

energy conservation standards for 

various consumer products and 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including general service fluorescent 

lamps (GSFL) and incandescent 

reflector lamps (IRL), and the statute 

also requires the Department of Energy 

(DOE) to subsequently determine 

whether more stringent, amended 

standards for GSFL and IRL would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would save 

a significant amount of energy. In 

addition, EPCA directs DOE to consider 

adoption of standards for additional 

GSFL not already covered by EPCAprescribed standards. In this notice, 

DOE proposes amended energy 

conservation standards for certain GSFL 

and IRL and new energy conservation 

standards for certain additional GSFL 

not currently covered by standards. 

DATES: DOE held a public meeting on 

Tuesday, February 3, 2009 in 

Washington, DC. DOE began accepting 

comments, data, and information 

regarding this notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR) at the public 

meeting, and will continue to accept 

comments until no later than June 12, 

2009. See section VIII, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ of this NOPR for details. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting was 

held at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 1E–245, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Any comments submitted must 

identify the NOPR for Energy 

Conservation Standards for Lighting 

Products, and provide the docket 

number EE–2006–STD–0131 and/or 

regulatory information number (RIN) 

number 1904–AA92. Comments may be 

submitted using any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: fluorescent_and_

incandescent_lamps.rulemaking@

ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 

EE–2006–STD–0131and/or RIN 1904– 

AA92 in the subject line of the message. 

• Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. Please 

submit one signed paper original. 

• 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. Please submit one 

signed paper original. 

For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section VIII of this document (Public 

Participation). 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, visit the U.S. 

Department of Energy, Resource Room 

of the Building Technologies Program, 

950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC, (202) 586–2945, 

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at the 

above telephone number for additional 

information regarding visiting the 

Resource Room. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Linda Graves, 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) 586–1851. E-mail: 

Linda.Graves@ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Eric Stas or Ms. Francine Pinto, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, GC–72, Forrestal 

Building, Mail Station GC–72, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9507. E-mail: 

Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov or 

Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov. 

For information on how to submit or 

review public comments, contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards, 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) 586–2945. E-mail: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule 

II. Introduction 

A. Consumer Overview 

B. Authority 

C. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

General Service Fluorescent Lamps, 

Incandescent Reflector Lamps, and 

General Service Incandescent Lamps 

III. Issues Affecting the Scope of This 

Rulemaking 

A. Additional General Service Fluorescent 

Lamps for Which DOE is Proposing 

Standards 

1. Scope of EPCA Requirement that DOE 

Consider Standards for Additional 

Lamps 

2. Identification of the Additional Lamps 

for Which DOE Proposes Standards 

a. Coverage of T5 Lamps 

b. Extension of Lamp Wattage Ranges 

3. Summary GSFL Lamps to Which DOE 

Proposes to Extend Coverage 

B. Exempted Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

C. Amended Definitions 

1. ‘‘Rated Wattage’’ 

2. ‘‘Colored Fluorescent Lamp’’ 

D. Off Mode and Standby Mode Energy 

Consumption Standards 

E. Color Rendering Index Standards for 

General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

IV. General Discussion 

A. Test Procedures 

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. Life-Cycle Costs 

c. Energy Savings 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

f. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy 

g. Other Factors 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

V. Methodology and Discussion of Comments 

A. Product Classes 

1. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

a. T12 and T8 Lamps 

b. T5 Lamps 

c. Correlated Color Temperature 

2. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

a. Modified-Spectrum Lamps 

b. Long-Life Lamps 

c. Lamp Diameter 

d. Voltage 

B. Screening Analysis 

1. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

a. Higher-Efficiency Lamp Fill Gas 

Composition 

b. Higher-Efficiency Phosphors 

c. Glass Coating 

d. Lamp Diameter 

e. Multi-Photon Phosphors 

2. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

C. Engineering Analysis 

1. Approach 

2. Representative Product Classes 

3. Baseline Lamps and Systems 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16921 

a. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

b. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

4. Lamp and Lamp-and-Ballast Designs 

a. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

b. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

5. Efficiency Levels 

a. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

i. Revisions to ANOPR Efficiency Levels 

ii. Four-Foot T5 Miniature Bipin Efficiency 

Levels 

b. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

6. Engineering Analysis Results 

a. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

b. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

7. Scaling to Product Classes Not Analyzed 

a. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

i. Correlated Color Temperature 

ii. U-Shaped Lamps 

b. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

i. Modified-Spectrum IRL 

ii. Lamp Diameter 

iii. Voltage 

D. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

1. Consumer Product Price 

2. Sales Tax 

3. Installation Costs 

4. Disposal Costs 

5. Annual Operating Hours 

a. Sectors Analyzed 

b. Regional Variation 

c. Building Type 

6. Product Energy Consumption Rate 

7. Electricity Prices 

8. Electricity Price Trends 

9. Lifetime 

a. Ballast Lifetime 

b. Lamp Lifetime 

10. Discount Rates 

11. Analysis Period 

12. Effective Date 

13. Payback Period Inputs 

14. Lamp Purchase Events 

E. National Impact Analysis—National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

Analysis 

1. General 

a. Overview of NIA Changes in This Notice 

2. Shipments Analysis 

a. Lamp Inventory 

b. Shipments Growth 

i. Floor Space and Building Growth 

ii. Lamps per Household 

iii. Wider Spacing of More-Efficient 

Fixtures 

c. Base-Case Scenarios: Emerging 

Technologies and Existing Technologies 

i. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

ii. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

d. Fluorescent Market Sectors Analyzed 

e. GSFL Product Migration 

i. Ballast Rule Effective Start Date 

ii. Four-Foot Medium Bipin T12 Lamp 

Replacements 

iii. Eight-Foot Single Pin Slimline T12 

Lamp Replacements 

iv. Four-Foot T5 Lamps 

3. Base-Case Market-Share Matrices 

a. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

b. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

4. GSFL Standards-Case Shipment 

Scenarios and Forecasts 

a. Shift/Roll-Up Scenarios 

b. Lighting Expertise Scenarios 

c. Voluntary Retrofits 

5. IRL-Standards-Case Shipment Scenarios 

and Forecasts 

i. Shift/Roll-Up Scenarios 

ii. Product-Substitution Scenarios 

6. Other Inputs 

a. Analysis Period 

b. Total Installed Cost 

c. Electricity Price Forecast 

d. Energy Site-to-Source Conversion 

e. HVAC Interaction Factor 

f. Rebound Effect 

g. Discount Rates 

F. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

G. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

a. Phase 1, Industry Profile 

b. Phase 2, Industry Cash-Flow Analysis 

c. Phase 3, Subgroup Impact Analysis 

2. Discussion of Comments 

3. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

Analysis 

4. Manufacturer Interviews 

a. Key Issues 

i. GSFL 

ii. IRL 

b. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

Scenarios and Key Inputs 

i. GSFL Base-Case Shipment Forecast 

ii. IRL Base Case Shipments Forecast 

iii. GSFL Standards Case Shipments 

Forecast 

iv. IRL Standards-Case Shipments Forecast 

v. Manufacturing Production Costs 

vi. Amended Energy Conservation 

Standards Markup Scenarios 

vii. Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

H. Employment Impact Analysis 

I. Utility Impact Analysis 

J. Environmental Analysis 

VI. Analytical Results 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

1. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

2. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Consumers 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

i. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

ii. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

i. Low-Income Households 

ii. Institutions of Religious Worship 

iii. Institutions That Serve Low-Income 

Populations 

iv. Historical Facilities 

v. Consumers of T12 electronic ballasts 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results 

i. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

ii. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

b. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

c. Impacts on Employment 

d. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

e. Impacts on Manufacturer Subgroups 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

b. Net Present Value 

c. Impacts on Employment 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy 

C. Proposed Standard 

1. Overview 

2. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

Conclusion 

a. Trial Standard Level 5 

b. Trial Standard Level 4 

c. Trial Standard Level 3 

3. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

Conclusion 

a. Trial Standard Level 5 

b. Trial Standard Level 4 

VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

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 

VIII. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

IX. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

ACEEE American Council for an Energy 

Efficiency Economy 

AEO Annual Energy Outlook 

ANOPR advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking 

ANSI American National Standards 

Institute 

ASAP Appliance Standards Awareness 

Project 

ASE Alliance to Save Energy 

BF ballast factor 

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics 

BPAR bulged parabolic aluminized reflector 

BR bulged reflector (reflector lamp shape) 

BT Building Technologies Program 

BTU British Thermal Unit 

CAIR Clean Air Interstate Act 

CAMR Clean Air Mercury Rule 

CBECS Commercial Buildings Energy 

Consumption Survey 

CCT correlated color temperature 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CFL compact fluorescent lamp 

CIE International Commission on 

Illumination 

CMH ceramic metal halide 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

CRI color rendering index 

CSL candidate standard level 

DIY do-it-yourself 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DOJ U.S. Department of Justice 

E26 Edison screw-base (incandescent lamp 

base type) 

EERE Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

EISA 2007 Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007 

EL efficacy level 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EPACT 1992 Energy Policy Act of 1992 

EPACT 2005 Energy Policy Act of 2005 

EPCA Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

ER elliptical reflector (reflector lamp shape) 

16922 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

FEMP Federal Energy Management Program 

FR Federal Register 

FTC Federal Trade Commission 

GE General Electric Lighting and Industrial 

GRIM Government Regulatory Impact 

Model 

GSFL general service fluorescent lamp 

GSIL general service incandescent lamp 

GW gigawatt 

Hg mercury 

HID high-intensity discharge 

HIR halogen infrared reflector 

HO high output 

HVAC Heating, Ventilating and AirConditioning 

IESNA Illuminating Engineering Society of 

North America 

ImSET Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies 

INPV industry net present value 

I–O input-output 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change 

IR Infrared 

IRFA initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

IRL incandescent reflector lamp 

K degrees Kelvin 

kt kilotons 

LCC life-cycle cost 

LED Light-Emitting Diode 

LMC U.S. Lighting Market Characterization 

Volume I 

Lm/W lumens per watt 

MBP medium bipin 

MECS Manufacturer Energy Consumption 

Survey (MECS) 

MIA Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

MMt million metric tons 

Mt metric tons 

MW megawatts 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NCLC National Consumer Law Center 

NEEP Northeast Energy Efficiency 

Partnership 

NEMA National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association 

NEMS National Energy Modeling System 

NEMS–BT National Energy Modeling 

System—Building Technologies 

NES national energy savings 

NIA National Impact Analysis 

NIST National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

NOPR notice of proposed rulemaking 

NOX nitrogen oxides 

NPCC Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council 

NPV net present value 

NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council 

NVLAP National Voluntary Laboratory 

Accreditation Program 

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer 

OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs 

OMB U.S. Office of Management and 

Budget 

PAR parabolic aluminized reflector 

(reflector lamp shape) 

PBP payback period 

PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric 

quad quadrillion BTU 

R reflector (reflector lamp shape) 

R–CFL reflector compact fluorescent lamp 

R&D research and development 

RDC recessed double contact 

RECS Residential Energy Consumption 

Survey 

RIA regulatory impact analysis 

RoHS Restriction on Hazardous Substances 

directive 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SCF Survey of Consumer Finances 

SEC Securities and Exchange Commission 

SEL spectrally-enhanced lighting 

SG&A selling, general, and administrative 

costs 

SO standard output 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SP single pin 

S&P Standard & Poor’s 

T8, T10, T12 tubular fluorescent lamps, 

diameters of 1, 1.25 or 1.5 inches, 

respectively 

TSD technical support document 

TSL trial standard level 

TWh terawatt-hour 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

U.S.C. United States Code 

UV ultraviolet 

V volts 

VHO very high output 

W watts 

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act (EPCA or the Act) (42 U.S.C. 6291 

et seq.), as amended, requires DOE to 

consider whether to amend the existing 

energy conservation standards for GSFL 

and IRL, and to also consider whether 

to adopt new energy conservation 

standards for additional types of GSFL 

beyond those already covered by EPCAprescribed standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(i)(3)–(5)) The Act also specifies 

that any new or amended energy 

conservation standard DOE prescribes 

for certain consumer and/or commercial 

products, such as GSFL and IRL, shall 

be designed to ‘‘achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency * * * 

which the Secretary determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A); 6316(a)) Furthermore, the 

new or amended standard must ‘‘result 

in significant conservation of energy.’’ 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B); 6316(a)) In 

accordance with these and other 

statutory provisions discussed in this 

notice, DOE proposes new and amended 

energy conservation standards for GSFL 

and IRL, as shown in Table I.1 and 

Table I.2. The proposed standards 

would apply to all products listed in 

Table I.1 and Table I.2 that are 

manufactured in or imported into the 

United States on or after June 30, 2012. 

TABLE I.1—SUMMARY OF THE 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 ................................................................................................................... ≤ 4,500K 84 12% 

> 4,500K 78 4% 

2-Foot U-Shaped ......................................................................................................................... ≤ 4,500K 78 15%/22%* 

> 4,500K 73 7%/14%* 

8-Foot Slimline ............................................................................................................................. ≤ 4,500K 95 19% 

> 4,500K 91 14% 

8-Foot High Output ...................................................................................................................... ≤ 4,500K 88 10% 

> 4,500K 84 5% 

4-Foot Miniature Bipin Standard Output ...................................................................................... ≤ 4,500K 103 20% 

> 4,500K 97 13% 

4-Foot Miniature Bipin High Output ............................................................................................. ≤ 4,500K 89 16% 

> 4,500K 85 10% 

* For these product classes, EPCA has different efficacy standards for lamps with wattages less than 35W and greater than or equal to 35W. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16923 

1The final rule is expected to be published by 

June 30, 2009; therefore, the effective date would 

be June 30, 2012. 

TABLE I.2—SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARD FOR IRL 

Lamp type Diameter Voltage Proposed level 

lm/W 

Percent 

increase over 

current standards or 

baseline 

Standard Spectrum 40W–205W ................................................................... > 2.5 inches ...... ≥ 125 7.1P0.27 69%–100% 

< 125 6.2P0.27 47%–75% 

≤ 2.5 inches ...... ≥ 125 6.3P0.27 50%–78% 

< 125 5.5P0.27 31%–55% 

Modified Spectrum 40W–205W .................................................................... > 2.5 inches ...... ≥ 125 5.8P0.27 38%–63% 

< 125 5.0P0.27 19%–41% 

≤ 2.5 inches ...... ≥ 125 5.1P0.27 21%–44% 

< 125 4.4P0.27 7%–27% 

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

DOE’s analyses indicate that the 

proposed standards would save a 

significant amount of energy—an 

estimated 3.2 to 7.3 quads (for GSFL) 

and 1.3 to 2.3 quads (for IRL) of 

cumulative energy over 31 years (2012– 

2042). The economic impacts on most 

GSFL and all IRL individual and 

commercial consumers (i.e., the average 

life-cycle cost (LCC) savings) are 

positive. 

The cumulative national net present 

value (NPV) of total consumer costs and 

savings of the proposed standards from 

2012 to 2042 in 2007$ ranges from $3.2 

billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to 

$25.7 billion (at a 3-percent discount 

rate) for GSFL. For IRL, the NPV from 

2012 to 2042 in 2007$ ranges from $3.7 

billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to 

$14.0 billion (at a 3-percent discount 

rate). This is the estimated total value of 

future operating-cost savings minus the 

estimated increased product costs, 

discounted to 2007. DOE estimates the 

GSFL industry net present value (INPV) 

to currently be $575–602 million in 

2007$. If DOE were to adopt the 

proposed standards, it expects that 

manufacturers may lose up to 24 

percent of their INPV, which is 

approximately $139 million. The NPV 

of the proposed standards for GSFL 

consumers (at least $3.2 billion at the 7- 

percent discount rate) would exceed 

anticipated industry losses by at least 23 

times. DOE estimates the IRL industry 

net present value to be $207–267 

million in 2007$. If DOE were to adopt 

the proposed standards, it expects that 

manufacturers may lose 29–46 percent 

of their INPV, which is approximately 

$77–94 million. The NPV of the 

proposed standards for IRL consumers 

(at least $3.7 billion at the 7-percent 

discount rate) would exceed anticipated 

industry losses by at least 39 times. 

In addition, the proposed standards 

would have significant environmental 

benefits. All of the energy saved would 

be in the form of electricity, and DOE 

expects the energy savings from the 

proposed standards to eliminate the 

need for approximately 1100 to 3400 

megawatts (MW) of generating capacity 

for GSFL and up to 450 MW for IRL by 

2042. This would result in cumulative 

(undiscounted) greenhouse gas emission 

reductions of 184 to 395 million metric 

tons (MMT) of carbon dioxide (CO2) for 

GSFL and 59 to 114 MMT for IRL from 

2012 to 2042. During this same period, 

the standard would result in power 

plant emission reductions of 12 to 623 

kilotons (kt) of nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

for GSFL and 4 to 181 kt NOX for IRL. 

Mercury (Hg) emission reductions 

would be up to 6.9 tons for GFSL and 

up to 1.7 tons avoided for IRL. 

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 significant conservation 

of energy. DOE further notes that 

products achieving these standard levels 

are already commercially available. 

Based upon the rulemaking analyses 

culminating in this proposal, DOE 

found that the benefits (energy savings, 

consumer LCC savings, national NPV 

increase, and emission reductions) to 

the Nation of the proposed standards 

outweigh the burdens (INPV decrease 

and LCC increases for some lamp users). 

DOE considered higher efficacy levels 

(ELs) as trial standard levels (TSLs), and 

is still considering them in this 

rulemaking; however, DOE has 

tentatively concluded that the burdens 

of the higher efficiency levels outweigh 

the benefits. Based upon consideration 

of public comments and related 

information, DOE may adopt either 

higher or lower ELs presented in this 

proposal or some level in between. 

II. Introduction 

A. Consumer Overview 

EPCA currently prescribes efficacy 

standards for certain IRL and GSFL. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)) DOE proposes to raise 

these standards and to set efficacy 

standards for certain other GSFL, as 

shown in Table I.1 and Table I.2 above. 

The proposed standards would apply to 

products manufactured in the United 

States, or imported to it, three years 

after the final rule is published in the 

Federal Register.1 Table I.1 and Table 

I.2 also show the percentage 

improvement in efficacy that each 

standard level represents, relative to the 

current standard levels or to products 

typically on the market today. The 

proposed standards represent an overall 

improvement of approximately 4 to 22 

percent and 7 to 100 percent in the 

efficacies of the GSFL and IRL baselines, 

respectively, covered by the standards. 

DOE’s analyses suggest that 

residential and commercial consumers 

would see benefits from the proposed 

standards. Although DOE expects that 

under the proposed standards, the 

purchase price of high-efficacy GSFL 

would be higher (up to three times 

higher) than the average price of these 

products today, but that the energy 

efficiency gains would result in lower 

energy costs that more than offset such 

higher costs. When the potential savings 

due to efficiency gains are summed over 

the lifetime of the high-efficacy 

products, consumers would be expected 

to save up to $56.60 (depending on the 

lamp type), on average, compared to 

their expenditures on today’s baseline 

GSFL. 

The results of DOE’s analyses for IRL 

follow a similar pattern. Although DOE 

expects the purchase price of the highefficacy IRL would be higher (ranging 

from 56 to 63 percent) than the average 

price of these products today, the energy 

efficiency gains would result in lower 

energy costs that more than offset the 

higher costs. When these potential 

16924 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

2This part was originally titled Part B; however, 

it was redesignated Part A after Part B was repealed 

by Pub. L. 109–58. 

3 DOE notes that the publication year of the 

referenced article in the definition of ‘‘colored 

incandescent lamp,’’ as printed in section 

321(a)(1)(B) of EISA, contains two typographical 

errors. The citation should read as follows: Journal 

of Optical Society of America, Vol. 58, pages 1528– 

1535 (1968). 

savings due to efficiency gains are 

summed over the lifetime of the highefficacy IRL, it is estimated that 

consumers would save between $1.62 

and $8.14, on average, compared to their 

expenditures on today’s baseline IRL. 

B. Authority 

Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety 

of provisions designed to improve 

energy efficiency. Part A 2 of Title III (42 

U.S.C. 6291–6309) established the 

‘‘Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles.’’ The program covers 

consumer products and certain 

commercial products (referred to 

hereafter as ‘‘covered products’’), 

including GSFL and IRL. (42 U.S.C. 

6292(a)(14) and 6295(i)) EPCA 

prescribes energy conservation 

standards for certain GSFL and IRL. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)) The statute further 

directs DOE to determine whether the 

existing standards for fluorescent and 

incandescent lamps should be amended 

and whether to adopt standards for 

additional GSFL. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3)– 

(5)) This rulemaking represents the first 

round of amendments to the GSFL and 

IRL energy conservation standards as 

directed by 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3). 

The scope of coverage for these 

requirements for GSFL and IRL is 

dictated by EPCA’s definitions of these 

and related terms, as explained below. 

EPCA defines ‘‘general service 

fluorescent lamp’’ as follows: * * * 

[F]luorescent lamps which can be used 

to satisfy the majority of fluorescent 

applications, but does not include any 

lamp designed and marketed for the 

following nongeneral lighting 

applications: (i) Fluorescent lamps 

designed to promote plant growth. (ii) 

Fluorescent lamps specifically designed 

for cold temperature installations. (iii) 

Colored fluorescent lamps. (iv) Impactresistant fluorescent lamps. (v) 

Reflectorized or aperture lamps. (vi) 

Fluorescent lamps designed for use in 

reprographic equipment. (vii) Lamps 

primarily designed to produce radiation 

in the ultra-violet region of the 

spectrum. (viii) Lamps with a color 

rendering index of 87 or greater. (42 

U.S.C. 6291(30)(B)) 

EPCA defines ‘‘incandescent reflector 

lamp’’ as follows: * * * [A] lamp in 

which light is produced by a filament 

heated to incandescence by an electric 

current * * * [and] (commonly referred 

to as a reflector lamp) which is not 

colored or designed for rough or 

vibration service applications, that 

contains an inner reflective coating on 

the outer bulb to direct the light, an R, 

PAR, ER, BR, BPAR, or similar bulb 

shapes with E26 medium screw bases, a 

rated voltage or voltage range that lies 

at least partially within 115 and 130 

volts, a diameter which exceeds 2.25 

inches, and has a rated wattage that is 

40 watts or higher. 

(42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(C), (C)(ii) and (F)) 

EPCA further clarifies this definition 

of IRL by defining the lamp types 

excluded from the definition: The term 

‘‘rough service lamp’’ means a lamp 

that—(i) has a minimum of 5 supports 

with filament configurations that are C– 

7A, C–11, C–17, and C–22 as listed in 

Figure 6–12 of the 9th edition of the 

IESNA Lighting handbook, or similar 

configurations where lead wires are not 

counted as supports; and (ii) is 

designated and marketed specifically for 

‘rough service’ applications, with (I) the 

designation appearing on the lamp 

packaging; and (II) marketing materials 

that identify the lamp as being for rough 

service. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(X)) 

The term ‘‘vibration service lamp’’ 

means a lamp that—(i) has filament 

configurations that are C–5, C–7A, or C– 

9, as listed in Figure 6–12 of the 9th 

Edition of the IESNA Lighting 

Handbook or similar configurations; (ii) 

has a maximum wattage of 60 watts; (iii) 

is sold at retail in packages of 2 lamps 

or less; and (iv) is designated and 

marketed specifically for vibration 

service or vibration-resistant 

applications, with—(I) the designation 

appearing on the lamp packaging; and 

(II) marketing materials that identify the 

lamp as being vibration service only. (42 

U.S.C. 6291(30)(AA)) 

The term ‘‘colored incandescent 

lamp’’ means an incandescent lamp 

designated and marketed as a colored 

lamp that has—(i) a color rendering 

index of less than 50, as determined 

according to the test method given in 

C.I.E. publication 13.3–1995; or (ii) a 

correlated color temperature of less than 

2,500K, or greater than 4,600K, where 

correlated temperature is computed 

according to the Journal of Optical 

Society of America, Vol. 58, pages 

1528–1595 (1986). (42 U.S.C. 

6291(30)(EE)) 3

The advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANOPR) in this proceeding 

(73 FR 13620, 13622, 13625, 13628–29 

(March 13, 2008)), as well as subsection 

II.C and section III below, provide 

additional detail on the nature and 

statutory history of EPCA’s 

requirements for GSFL and IRL. 

Under the Act, DOE’s energy 

conservation program for covered 

products consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) 

Federal energy conservation standards, 

and (4) certification and enforcement 

procedures. The Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) is responsible for 

labeling, and DOE implements the 

remainder of the program. Section 323 

of the Act authorizes DOE, subject to 

certain criteria and conditions, 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) The 

test procedures for GSFL and IRL appear 

at title 10 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) part 430, subpart B, appendix R. 

EPCA provides criteria for prescribing 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards for covered products. As 

indicated above, any new or amended 

standard for a covered product under 

Part A 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)), although EPCA 

precludes DOE from adopting any 

standard that would not result in 

significant conservation of energy. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Moreover, DOE 

may not prescribe a standard: (1) For 

certain products, including GSFL and 

IRL, if no test procedure has been 

established for that type (or class) of 

product, or (2) if DOE determines by 

rule that the standard would not result 

in significant conservation of energy or 

is not technologically feasible or 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)) The Act also provides that, 

in deciding whether a 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 do so 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; 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16925 

4A PDF copy of the framework document 

published in May 2006 is available at: http://www/ 

eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/ 

residential/pdfs/lamps_framework.pdf. 

(3) The total projected amount of 

energy 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 

conservation; and 

(7) Other factors the Secretary 

considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII)) 

Furthermore, EPCA contains what is 

commonly known as an ‘‘antibacksliding’’ provision, which mandates 

that the Secretary not prescribe any 

amended standard that either increases 

the maximum allowable energy use or 

decreases the minimum required energy 

efficiency of a covered product. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary 

may not prescribe an amended or new 

standard if interested persons have 

established by a preponderance of 

evidence that the standard is likely to 

result in the unavailability in the United 

States of any covered product type (or 

class) with 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)) 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(b)(iii), 

EPCA 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, and as 

applicable, water, savings during the 

first year that the consumer will receive 

as a result of the standard, as calculated 

under the applicable test procedure. 

* * *’’ 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1), EPCA sets 

forth additional requirements applicable 

to 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 which have the same function 

or intended use, if * * * 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’’ than applies or will apply to 

the other products. Id. In determining 

whether a performance-related feature 

justifies such a different standard for a 

group of products, DOE must ‘‘consider 

such factors as the utility to the 

consumer of such a feature’’ and other 

factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any 

rule prescribing such a standard must 

include an explanation of the basis on 

which such higher or lower level was 

established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) 

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements generally supersede State 

laws or regulations concerning energy 

conservation testing, labeling, and 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)–(c)) DOE 

can, however, grant waivers of Federal 

preemption for particular State laws or 

regulations, in accordance with the 

procedures and other provisions of 

section 327(d) of the Act. (42 U.S.C. 

6297(d)) 

C. Background 

1. Current Standards 

EPCA prescribes the energy 

conservation standards that are 

currently applicable to specified types 

of GSFL and IRL. More specifically, the 

standards set efficacy levels and color 

rendering index (CRI) levels for certain 

GSFL, and efficacy standards for certain 

IRL. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1); 10 CFR 

430.32(n)) These statutory standard 

levels are set forth in Table II.1 and 

Table II.2 below. 

TABLE II.1—EPCA STANDARD LEVELS FOR GSFL 

Lamp type Nominal lamp 

wattage Minimum CRI 

Minimum 

average 

efficacy 

lm/W 

4-Foot Medium Bipin ................................................................................................................... > 35W 69 75.0 

≤ 35W 45 75.0 

2-Foot U-Shaped ......................................................................................................................... > 35W 69 68.0 

≤ 35W 45 64.0 

8-Foot Slimline ............................................................................................................................. > 65W 69 80.0 

≤ 65W 45 80.0 

8-Foot High Output ...................................................................................................................... > 100W 69 80.0 

≤ 100W 45 80.0 

TABLE II.2—EPCA STANDARD LEVELS

FOR IRL 

Wattage 

Min. avg. 

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 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

General Service Fluorescent Lamps, 

Incandescent Reflector Lamps, and 

General Service Incandescent Lamps 

As stated above, EPCA established 

energy conservation standards for 

certain types of GSFL and IRL. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)) EPCA also requires 

that DOE conduct two cycles of 

rulemakings to determine whether to 

amend these standards, and that DOE 

initiate a rulemaking to determine 

whether to adopt standards for 

additional types of GSFL. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(i)(3)–(5)) This rulemaking 

addresses both the amendment of 

existing GSFL and IRL standards, and 

the adoption of standards for additional 

GSFL. 

DOE initiated this rulemaking on May 

31, 2006, by publishing on its Web site 

its ‘‘Rulemaking Framework Document 

for General Service Fluorescent Lamps, 

Incandescent Reflector Lamps, and 

General Service Incandescent Lamps.’’ 4

DOE also published a notice in the 

Federal Register announcing the 

availability of the framework document 

16926 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

5Pub. L. 110–140 (enacted Dec. 19, 2007). 

6PDF copies of the ANOPR and ANOPR TSD 

published in March 2008 are available at: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/residential/

incandescent_lamps_anopr.html. 

7A notation in the form ‘‘DOE, No. 27 ’’ identifies 

a written comment that DOE has received and has 

included in the docket of this rulemaking or a 

written docket submission. This particular notation 

refers to a comment: (1) Submitted by DOE; and (2) 

in document number 27 in the docket of this 

rulemaking. 

and a public meeting on the document, 

which requested public comments on 

the matters raised in the framework 

document. 71 FR 30834 (May 31, 2006). 

The framework document described the 

procedural and analytical approaches 

that DOE anticipated using to evaluate 

energy conservation standards for the 

products covered by this rulemaking, 

and it identified various issues to be 

resolved in conducting the rulemaking. 

DOE held the public meeting on June 

15, 2006, 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. 

As the title of the framework 

document indicates, DOE initially 

included general service incandescent 

lamps (GSIL) in this rulemaking. This 

was done to address the requirement 

then present in section 325(i)(5) of 

EPCA that DOE consider energy 

conservation standards for additional 

GSIL. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5)) However, 

section 321(a)(3)(A)(iii) of the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 

2007,5 (EISA 2007) amended EPCA to 

remove this requirement, thereby 

eliminating DOE’s authority to regulate 

additional GSIL. Instead, section 

321(a)(3)(A)(ii) of EISA 2007 amended 

EPCA to prescribe energy conservation 

standards for GSIL. Therefore, this 

rulemaking no longer addresses GSIL. 

DOE issued the ANOPR for this 

rulemaking on February 21, 2008 and 

published it in the Federal Register on 

March 13, 2008. 73 FR 13620. On 

February 22, 2008, DOE posted the 

ANOPR, as well as the complete 

ANOPR technical support document 

(TSD), on its Web site.6 The 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; 

(5) product price determinations; (6) 

life-cycle cost (LCC) and pay back 

period (PBP) analyses; (7) shipments 

analysis; and (8) national impact 

analysis (NIA). 

In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

invited comment in particular on the 

following issues: (1) Consideration of 

additional GSFL; (2) amended 

definitions; (3) product classes; (4) 

scaling to product classes not analyzed; 

(5) screening of design options; (6) lamp 

operating hours; (7) energy consumption 

of GSFL; (8) LCC calculation; (9) 

installation costs; (10) base-case marketshare matrices; (11) shipment forecasts; 

(12) base-case and standards-case 

forecasted efficiencies; (13) trial 

standard levels; and (14) period for 

lamp production equipment conversion. 

73 FR 13620, 13686–88 (March 13, 

2008). 

In the ANOPR, DOE described and 

sought comment on the analytical 

framework, models, and tools (e.g., LCC 

and national energy savings (NES) 

spreadsheets) DOE was using to analyze 

the impacts of energy conservation 

standards for GSFL and IRL. DOE held 

a public meeting in Washington, DC, on 

March 10, 2008, to present the 

methodologies and results for the March 

2008 ANOPR analyses. At this meeting, 

stakeholders recommended that DOE 

revise certain analyses in the energy 

conservation standard ANOPR and the 

scope of covered products. DOE later 

received written comments from the 

National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association (NEMA). In addition, DOE 

received a joint comment from several 

stakeholders. The Joint Comment was 

submitted by the American Council for 

an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), 

Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project 

(ASAP), National Consumer Law Center, 

National Grid, Natural Resources 

Defense Council (NRDC), Northeast 

Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP), 

Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council (NPCC), Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company (PG&E), and Vermont Energy 

Investment Corporation. The comments 

received since publication of the March 

2008 ANOPR and during the March 10, 

2008 public meeting have contributed to 

DOE’s proposed resolution of the issues 

in this rulemaking. This NOPR quotes, 

summarizes, and responds to the issues 

raised in these public comments. (A 

parenthetical reference at the end of a 

quotation or paraphrase provides the 

location of the item in the public 

record.) 

Subsequent to the public meeting and 

at NEMA’s request, DOE and NEMA met 

on June 26, 2008 to discuss appropriate 

lumens per watt (lm/W) standards for 

high correlated color temperature (CCT) 

fluorescent lamps. (DOE, No. 27) 7

NEMA subsequently submitted a 

written comment documenting its 

presentation at this meeting (hereafter 

the ‘‘June 2008 NEMA meeting’’). 

(NEMA, No. 26) Topics covered at this 

meeting included the expected market 

share of high-CCT fluorescent lamps, 

appropriate efficacy standard scaling 

factors for GSFL with a CCT greater than 

4,500K but less than or equal to 7,000K, 

and coverage of GSFL with a CCT 

greater than 7,000K. See sections III.C.2, 

V.A.1.c, and V.C.7.a.i of this notice for 

a more detailed discussion of NEMA’s 

comments at this meeting, as well as 

DOE’s responses. 

III. Issues Affecting the Scope of This 

Rulemaking 

A. Additional General Service 

Fluorescent Lamps for Which DOE Is 

Proposing Standards 

1. Scope of EPCA Requirement That 

DOE Consider Standards for Additional 

Lamps 

As discussed above, EPCA established 

energy conservation standards for 

certain general service fluorescent 

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

directed the Secretary to ‘‘initiate a 

rulemaking procedure to determine if 

the standards in effect for fluorescent 

lamps * * * should be amended so that 

they would be applicable to additional 

general service fluorescent [lamps]. 

* * *’’ (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5)) Thus, DOE 

must consider whether to adopt energy 

efficacy standards for additional GSFL 

beyond those already covered by the 

statutorily-prescribed standards. 

The March 2008 ANOPR notes that a 

wide variety of GSFL are not currently 

covered by energy conservation 

standards, and they are potential 

candidates for coverage under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(i)(5). 73 FR 13620, 13628–29 

(March 13, 2008). However, the 

requirement that DOE consider 

additional GSFL appears to conflict 

with EPCA’s definitions of key terms, 

which it might be argued would 

preclude coverage of additional GSFL. 

As explained below, DOE has carefully 

considered these statutory provisions 

and is interpreting them in a manner so 

as to give effect to the requirement to 

consider additional GSFL. 

Specifically, the conflict is centered 

on the statutory definition of ‘‘general 

service fluorescent lamp.’’ As set forth 

above and repeated here for purposes of 

this discussion, ‘‘general service 

fluorescent lamp’’ is defined in 42 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16927 

8 73 FR 13620, 13629 (March 13, 2008). 

9Titled ‘‘for Fluorescent Lamps—Rapid-Start 

Types—Dimensional and Electrical 

Characteristics.’’ 

10Titled ‘‘for Fluorescent Lamps—Instant-Start 

and Cold-Cathode Types—Dimensional and 

Electrical Characteristics.’’ 

11T5, T8, T10, and T12 are nomenclature used to 

refer to tubular fluorescent lamps with diameters of 

0.625, 1, 1.25, and 1.5 inches, respectively. 

U.S.C. 6291(30)(B) to mean: ‘‘fluorescent 

lamps which can be used to satisfy the 

majority of fluorescent lamp 

applications, but does not include any 

lamp designed and marketed for the 

following nongeneral lighting 

applications: [list of eight exclusions not 

relevant to the present issue].’’ 

As such, the term ‘‘general service 

fluorescent lamp’’ appears to be defined 

by reference to the term ‘‘fluorescent 

lamp,’’ which is also defined under the 

statute as follows: ‘‘Except as provided 

in subparagraph (E), the term 

‘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: (i) Any 

straight-shaped lamp (commonly 

referred to as 4-foot medium bi-pin 

lamps) with medium bi-pin bases of 

nominal overall length of 48 inches and 

rated wattage of 28 or more. (ii) Any Ushaped lamp (commonly referred to as 

2-foot U-shaped lamps) with medium 

bi-pin bases of nominal overall length 

between 22 and 25 inches and rated 

wattage of 28 or more. (iii) 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 and 0.800 nominal 

amperes, as defined in ANSI C78.1– 

1978 and related supplements. (iv) 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 52 or more, 

as defined in ANSI C78.3–1978 (R1984) 

and related supplement ANSI C78.3a– 

1985.’’ 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(A) (Emphasis 

added). 

The term ‘‘fluorescent lamp’’ is, by its 

terms, limited to four enumerated types 

of lamps. Further, the four types of 

lamps set forth in the definition of 

‘‘fluorescent lamp’’ have corresponding 

energy conservation standards 

prescribed under the statute at 42 U.S.C. 

6295(i)(1)(B). Given that the statutory 

definition of ‘‘fluorescent lamp’’ is 

limited to four specified types of lamps 

and that the statute prescribes standards 

for those four lamps, it is not possible 

to give effect to the congressional 

directive to consider establishing 

standards for additional GSFL if the 

term ‘‘general service fluorescent lamp’’ 

is limited by the definition of 

‘‘fluorescent lamp.’’ 

Given this identified conflict, DOE 

has determined that there is an inherent 

ambiguity in the statute in terms of how 

these provisions are to be implemented. 

In order to move forward with this 

standards rulemaking, DOE must 

resolve this legal conundrum. 

Although there is no legislative 

history to clarify this point, there are a 

number of reasons to believe that 

Congress did not intend to strictly limit 

consideration of ‘‘additional’’ GSFL. 

First, Congress adopted both the 

relevant statutory definitions and the 

‘‘additional’’ lamps requirement as part 

of Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT 

1992; Pub. L. 102–486). DOE does not 

believe Congress would intentionally 

insert a legislative provision that, when 

read in conjunction with a 

simultaneously added provision, 

amounts to a nullity. Second, reading 

the definition to preclude consideration 

of additional GSFL would run counter 

to the energy-saving purposes of EPCA. 

It is reasonable to assume that Congress 

would not have intended to limit energy 

conservation standards to only those 

technologies available in 1992, but 

would instead cast a broader net that 

would achieve energy efficiency 

improvements in lighting products 

incorporating newer technologies. 

Consequently, DOE interprets these 

statutory provisions such that, in 

defining ‘‘general service fluorescent 

lamp,’’ Congress intended to incorporate 

the term ‘‘fluorescent lamp’’ in a 

broader, more generic sense. DOE 

understands that the industry routinely 

refers to ‘‘fluorescent lamps’’ as 

including products in addition to the 

four enumerated in the statutory 

definition of that term. In fact, in the 

March 2008 ANOPR, DOE presented its 

plan for including additional GSFL for 

coverage, and did not receive adverse 

comment. Thus, DOE has determined to 

read the statutory definition of ‘‘general 

service fluorescent lamp’’ in this 

broader context. 

For these reasons, and for the 

additional reasons set forth in the March 

2008 ANOPR,8 DOE views ‘‘additional’’ 

GSFL, as that term is used in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(i)(5), as lamps that: (1) Meet the 

technical portion of the statutory 

definition of ‘‘fluorescent lamp’’ (i.e., 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) (42 U.S.C. 

6291(30)(A)) without restriction to the 

four specified lamp types in that 

definition; (2) can be used to satisfy the 

majority of fluorescent lighting 

applications (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(B)); (3) 

are not within the exclusions from the 

definition of GSFL specified in 42 

U.S.C. 6291(30)(B); and (4) are ones for 

which EPCA does not prescribe 

standards. Such an interpretation does 

not alter the existing statutory provision 

or standards for ‘‘fluorescent lamps,’’ 

but it does permit DOE to give effect to 

section 6295(i)(5) of EPCA by expanding 

the universe of GSFL open to potential 

regulation. The scope of coverage 

reflected in this NOPR is in keeping 

with the interpretation outlined above. 

2. Identification of the Additional 

Lamps for Which DOE Proposes 

Standards 

As set forth more fully in the March 

2008 ANOPR, DOE took the following 

three steps in terms of identifying 

additional GSFL for which standard 

setting might be appropriate. DOE first 

conducted a comprehensive review of 

the fluorescent lighting market in order 

to identify particular types of lamps that 

meet the four criteria above to 

determine the additional GSFL for 

which DOE would consider adopting 

standards. Second, DOE examined each 

lamp type to determine potential energy 

savings that energy conservation 

standards would bring for that lamp. 

Third, DOE further evaluated selected 

lamps to determine if such standards 

would be technologically feasible and 

economically justified. In carrying out 

these steps before issuance of the March 

2008 ANOPR, DOE considered 

comments on these issues that it had 

received previously. 73 FR 13620, 

13629–30 (March 13, 2008). 

In implementing the first of these 

three steps, DOE identified the 

following categories of GSFL as meeting 

the four criteria for consideration as 

‘‘additional’’ GSFL under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(i)(5): 

• 4-foot, medium bipin (MBP), 

straight-shaped lamps, rated wattage of 

< 28W; 

• 2-foot, medium bipin, U-shaped 

lamps, rated wattage of < 28W; 

• 8-foot, recessed double contact 

(RDC), rapid start, high output (HO) 

lamps not defined in ANSI Standard 

C78.1–1991 9 or with current other than 

0.800 nominal amperes; 

• 8-foot single pin (SP), instant start, 

slimline lamps with a rated wattage ≥ 

52, not defined in ANSI Standard 

C78.3–1991 10; 

• Very high output (VHO) straightshaped lamps; 

• T5 11 miniature bipin (MiniBP) 

straight-shaped lamps; 

• Additional straight-shaped and Ushaped lamps other than those listed 

16928 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

12ANSI Standard C78.1–1991 has been updated 

and replaced by ANSI Standard C78.81–2005, ‘‘for 

Electric Lamps—Double Capped Fluorescent 

Lamps—Electrical and Dimensional 

Characteristics.’’ 

above (e.g., alternate lengths, diameters, 

or bases); and 

• Additional fluorescent lamps with 

alternate shapes (e.g., circline, pin-based 

compact fluorescent lamps (CFL)). 

73 FR 13620, 13630 (March 13, 2008). 

DOE then assessed the potential 

energy savings of standards for these 

GSFL (second step) and whether 

candidate standards for those GSFL 

would be technologically feasible and 

economically justified (third step), in 

order to determine which GSFL to 

analyze in depth regarding whether, and 

at what levels, standards would be 

warranted under the EPCA criteria in 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o). DOE’s analytical process 

related to these additional GSFL 

categories is discussed generally below. 

In a review of 4-foot medium bipin 

lamps, DOE found that the current 

market lacked any products with a rated 

wattage below 25W. Therefore, in the 

March 2008 ANOPR, DOE preliminarily 

decided not to extend coverage to 4-foot 

medium bipin lamps below 25W. In the 

following section, DOE discusses its 

consideration in the March 2008 

ANOPR of possibly regulating lamps 

with rated wattages less than 28W and 

greater than or equal to 25W. 

Similar to the 4-foot medium bipin 

lamps, in the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

investigated the potential for regulating 

2-foot U-shaped lamps less than 28W. A 

review of available manufacturer 

catalogs found no commerciallyavailable products in that category. 

Therefore, DOE concluded that lowering 

the minimum wattage threshold of 2- 

foot U-shaped lamps would likely not 

result in substantial energy savings and 

preliminarily decided not to expand 

coverage to these lamps. 

DOE also considered whether to 

expand coverage to include VHO 

fluorescent lamps. While VHO lamps 

consume large amounts of energy, they 

are commonly used in outdoor 

applications where high-intensity 

discharge (HID) lamps are rapidly 

gaining market share. Further research 

indicated that shipments of VHO T12 

lamps are declining rapidly. Although 

individually these products have greater 

per-lamp energy savings than high 

output or standard output lamps, the 

total energy savings resulting from 

regulation would be small and would be 

expected to decrease over time as these 

lamps disappear from the market. 

Therefore, DOE preliminarily decided 

not to extend coverage to VHO lamps. 

In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE also 

preliminarily decided not to expand 

coverage to T5 fluorescent lamps. DOE’s 

initial analysis showed that T5 lamps 

currently have a relatively small share 

of the GSFL market, and, therefore, have 

limited potential to contribute to total 

energy savings. Although T5 lamps can 

serve as a substitute for T8 or T12 

lamps, DOE found that T5 lamps tend 

to have higher efficacy. Research 

showed that the highest efficacy 32W 4- 

foot medium bipin T8 lamp is 95 lm/W, 

compared to 104 lm/W for a standard 

output 4-foot miniature bipin T5 lamps. 

Thus, DOE stated that excluding T5 

lamps from this rulemaking would be 

unlikely to undermine any energy 

savings that would result from a T12 

and T8 standard, even if the standard 

caused increased sales of T5 systems 

Lastly, DOE preliminarily decided not 

to extend coverage to fluorescent lamps 

that had alternate lengths, diameters, 

bases, or shapes (or a combination 

thereof) than the lamps specifically 

mentioned. DOE reasoned that the 

products it had already selected for 

coverage represented the significant 

majority of the GSFL market, and, thus, 

the bulk of the potential energy savings. 

Furthermore, DOE tentatively 

concluded there was limited potential 

for lamps with miscellaneous lengths 

and bases to grow in market share, given 

the constraint of fixture lengths and 

socket compatibility. 

After eliminating the lamps 

aforementioned lamps from further 

consideration for the reasons cited 

above, DOE was left with the following 

additional GSFL to consider evaluating 

in depth for potential standards: 

• 4-foot, medium bipin lamps with 

wattages ≥ 25 and < 28; 

• 8-foot, recessed double contact 

(RDC), rapid start, high output (HO) 

lamps not defined in ANSI Standard 

C78.1–1991 or with current other than 

0.800 nominal amperes; 

• 8-foot single pin (SP), instant start, 

slimline lamps with a rated wattage ≥ 

52, not defined in ANSI Standard 

C78.3–1991; 

73 FR 13620, 13632 (March 13, 2008). 

As mentioned in the March 2008 

ANOPR, DOE explored extending 

coverage to 4-foot medium bipin lamps 

with wattages less than 28W. A product 

review found that manufacturers 

marketed and sold 25W 4-foot medium 

bipin T8 fluorescent lamps as 

replacements for higher wattage 4-foot 

medium bipin T8 fluorescent lamps. 

Thus, DOE concluded that lowering the 

minimum wattage threshold to include 

these lamps would mitigate the risk of 

25W lamps becoming a loophole and 

would maximize potential energy 

savings. In addition, as the technology 

and incremental costs associated with 

increased efficacy of 25W lamps are 

similar to their already regulated 28W 

counterparts, DOE tentatively 

concluded that standards for these 

lamps would be technologically feasible 

and economically justified. 

In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE also 

preliminarily decided to extend 

coverage to 8-foot recessed double 

contact, rapid start, HO lamps not 

defined in ANSI Standard C78.1–1991. 

Due to the ampere specification in the 

definition, the statutory standards 

covered only T12 8-foot recessed double 

contact HO lamps, but none of the T8 

8-foot recessed double contact HO 

lamps (which usually have 0.400 

nominal amperes). Since the T8 8-foot 

lamps serve as substitutes for their T12 

counterparts, DOE risked losing 

potential energy savings unless such 

lamps are also covered by energy 

conservation standards. Consequently, 

DOE preliminarily extended coverage to 

T8, 8-foot recessed double contact HO 

lamps, thereby adding lamps previously 

restricted by the 0.800 nominal ampere 

limitation in the definition of ‘‘general 

service fluorescent lamp.’’ 

Furthermore, DOE planned to expand 

coverage to 8-foot recessed double 

contact, rapid start, high output 

fluorescent lamps not listed in ANSI 

Standard C78.1–1991. DOE made this 

decision because the ANSI standards 

referenced in DOE regulations were 

outdated.12 As new lamps are 

introduced to the market, it is likely 

they would not be covered by the 1991 

ANSI standard and potentially even the 

currently most up-to-date standard. Any 

of these lamps could serve as substitutes 

for regulated lamps. To maximize 

energy savings from these standards, 

DOE extended coverage to 8-foot 

recessed double contact, rapid start, 

high output fluorescent lamps not listed 

in ANSI Standard C78.1–1991. 

Because the technologies of T8, 8-foot 

recessed double contact HO lamps and 

the 8-foot recessed double contact HO 

lamps not listed in the ANSI Standard 

C78.1–1991 were similar to the 

technologies of their already-regulated 

T12 counterparts, DOE tentatively 

concluded that standards for these 

lamps would meet the statutory 

criterion of technological feasibility. 

Preliminary analysis of these lamps in 

the LCC and NIA demonstrated 

substantial economic savings. Therefore, 

DOE tentatively concluded that energy 

conservation standards for these lamps 

would be expected to be economically 

justified. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16929 

13A notation in the form ‘‘Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21 at pp. 71–72’’ identifies a written 

comment that DOE has received and has included 

in the docket of this rulemaking. This particular 

notation refers to a comment: (1) Submitted during 

the public meeting on March 10–11, 2008; (2) in 

document number 21 in the docket of this 

rulemaking; and (3) appearing on pages 71 through 

72 of the transcript. 

Similar to 8-foot recessed double 

contact HO lamps, in the March 2008 

ANOPR, DOE considered extending 

coverage to 8-foot, single pin, instant 

start, slimline lamps not included in 

ANSI Standard C78.3–1991 (which 

includes T8 lamps as well). DOE’s 

preliminary analysis indicated that 

regulation of these lamps has the 

potential to achieve substantial energy 

savings. Therefore, DOE preliminarily 

decided to expand the scope of energy 

conservation standard coverage to 8-foot 

single pin slimline lamps with a rated 

wattage greater than or equal to 52W not 

listed in ANSI Standard C78.3–1991. 

Since the technologies of T8, 8-foot 

single pin slimline lamps and the 8-foot 

single pin slimline lamps not listed in 

ANSI Standard C78.3–1991 are similar 

to the technologies of their alreadyregulated counterparts, DOE tentatively 

concluded that standards for these 

lamps would be expected to meet the 

statutory criterion of technological 

feasibility. Analyses in the LCC and NIA 

confirmed the potential for substantial 

economic savings associated with 

regulation of these lamp types. As a 

result, in the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

tentatively concluded that energy 

conservation standards for these lamps 

would be economically justified. 

During and after the public meeting, 

DOE received numerous verbal and 

written comments regarding the lamps 

included in or excluded from coverage 

in the March 2008 ANOPR. As a general 

matter, commenters supported DOE’s 

approach for consideration of additional 

GSFL for coverage by energy 

conservation standards. However, 

commenters urged DOE to consider 

changes in its approach in two areas, 

specifically coverage of T5 lamps and 

extension of lamp wattage ranges. 

Sections III.A.2.a and III.A.2.b of this 

notice immediately below discuss the 

submitted comments and DOE’s 

responses. 

a. Coverage of T5 Lamps 

At the March 2008 ANOPR public 

meeting, NEMA announced that it was 

considering supporting coverage of T5 

lamps to prevent the introduction of 

less-efficient T5 lamps into the market, 

particularly those containing 

halophosphors. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21 at pp. 71–72) 13

ACEEE likewise suggested that DOE 

should analyze opportunities involving 

regulation of T5 lamps. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21 at p. 73) In its written 

comments, NEMA stated that it would 

not oppose covering newer T5 

fluorescent lamp technology (e.g., 28W 

4-foot T5 lamps), but would not 

recommend covering older technology 

(i.e., T5 preheat fluorescent lamps). 

(NEMA, No. 22 at p. 3) In addition, the 

Joint Comment stated that DOE should 

extend coverage to T5 lamps. These 

organizations argued that if only T8 and 

T12 lamps are covered by the standard, 

it could possibly spur market 

introduction of less-efficient 

halophosphor T5 lamps with a lower 

first cost. Such a development would 

increase the overall market share of T5 

lamps and decrease the potential energy 

savings associated with this rulemaking. 

(Joint Comment, No. 23 at pp. 2–5) 

DOE agrees with these comments. 

While most T5 lamps are currently more 

efficient than the T8 and T12 lamps for 

which they can be substituted, 

excluding them from energy 

conservation standards could provide 

an incentive for less-efficient T5 lamps 

to enter the market. Such trend would 

result in increased market share of lessefficient products, thereby creating the 

potential for significant energy savings 

losses unless these lamps are regulated. 

Because this potential substitution effect 

is a primary criterion which DOE uses 

to determine coverage for additional 

GSFL, DOE is proposing in this NOPR 

to extend coverage to T5 miniature 

bipin lamps. 

DOE researched the market and 

product availability of T5 lamps and 

found they exist in a variety of lengths 

and wattages. Standard T5 lamps 

include wattages ranging from 14W to 

80W, and lengths ranging from 

nominally 2 feet to 6 feet. DOE’s 

research indicates that the primary 

driver of T5 market share growth is 

substitution for currently regulated 4- 

foot MBP lamps. Therefore, DOE 

proposes to cover only the nominally 4- 

foot lengths of T5 miniature bipin 

lamps. DOE believes that alternate 

lengths of T5 lamps are not likely to 

gain significant market share as they are 

not easily substitutable for 4-foot MBP 

systems which represent the majority of 

the total fluorescent market. In addition, 

interviews with manufacturers and a 

review of product literature indicate 

that standard-output (approximately 

28W) and high-output (approximately 

54W) lamps are the highest volume T5 

miniature bipin lamps. In addition to 

the full-wattage versions of these lamps, 

DOE has found that reduced-wattage 

versions of the standard- and highoutput T5 lamp (26W and 51W 

respectively) are available. Therefore, in 

this NOPR, DOE proposes to extend 

coverage to 4-foot nominal, straightshaped, T5 miniature bipin standard 

output lamps with rated wattages ≥ 26W 

and to 4-foot nominal, straight-shaped, 

T5 miniature bipin high output lamps 

with rated wattages ≥ 51W, as they 

present the greatest potential for energy 

savings. DOE estimates potential energy 

savings from these lamps of up to 2.05 

quads over the analysis period (2012 to 

2042). Because higher-efficacy versions 

of some of these lamps are already 

present in the market, DOE tentatively 

concludes that standards for these 

lamps are technologically feasible. 

Based on DOE’s LCC and NIA 

analyses, coverage of the T5 lamps 

discussed above would be economically 

justified. These analyses show that T5 

lamp coverage has the potential to 

achieve on average $47.03 per standardoutput lamp system and $56.60 per 

high-output lamp system in LCC 

savings. In addition, DOE’s NIA 

indicates that regulating these lamps 

could result in an NPV of up to $6.84 

billion to the Nation (discounted at 3 

percent). See section VI.B.1.a.i and 

section VI.B.3 of this document and 

chapters 8 and 11 of the TSD for more 

details on these results. 

b. Extension of Lamp Wattage Ranges 

Regarding fluorescent lamp coverage, 

the Joint Comment suggested that DOE 

should extend wattage ranges to cover 

lower-wattage products. (Joint 

Comment, No. 23 at p. 4) In relevant 

part, section 123 of EPACT 1992 

amended EPCA to establish standards 

for 4-foot medium bipin lamps of 28W 

or more. The Joint Comment notes that 

since that law took effect, ‘‘new 

products continue to be introduced, and 

there is an incentive to circumvent 

standards by producing lamps just 

outside of the watt range (e.g. the 

current 25W residential lamp).’’ Id. 

NEMA commented that while current 

standards cover 2-foot U-shaped 

medium bipin lamps greater than or 

equal to 28W, new products have been 

introduced at 25W. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21 at p. 73) To prevent 

this trend from continuing, the Joint 

Comment recommended substantially 

lowering watt ranges for GSFL product 

classes to protect the energy savings that 

would be accomplished by this rule. If 

niche products exist in the new range, 

the Joint Comment expressed a 

preference for using narrowly drawn 

exemptions rather than limiting the 

covered watt range. (Joint Comment, No. 

23 at p. 4) 

16930 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

DOE agrees with the Joint Comment 

regarding the appropriateness of 

extending wattage ranges when 

commercially-available products exist. 

As discussed in the March 2008 

ANOPR, DOE proposed to extend 

coverage to 4-foot medium bipin 

fluorescent lamps with wattages 

between 25W and 28W. DOE discovered 

these lamps were being marketed as 

substitutes for currently regulated lamps 

subject to the current and amended 

standards (proposed in this NOPR) on 4- 

foot medium bipin lamps. Therefore, 

consistent with that approach, in this 

NOPR, DOE proposes to extend 

coverage to 2-foot U-shaped lamps with 

wattages greater than 25W. 

The Joint Comment expressed 

concern that substitutable products 

outside the range of covered wattages 

will emerge in other product classes. It 

suggested a proactive approach of 

lowering the watt ranges even further, 

although no products may currently 

exist in that range. (Joint Comment, No. 

23 at p. 4) While DOE understands the 

Joint Comment’s concern, DOE 

disagrees with this approach. DOE is 

required to consider energy 

conservation standards that are 

technologically feasible. If a lower 

wattage lamp does not yet exist, DOE 

cannot confirm that it would be 

technologically feasible or economically 

justified for such a lamp to meet a set 

energy conservation standard. In 

addition, lower wattage lamps may 

provide different lumen outputs, and 

thereby different utility. Therefore, if 

DOE were to include these lamps in its 

coverage without determining if the set 

energy conservation standard is 

technologically feasible, DOE could be 

reducing the utility of covered product 

or precluding its development entirely. 

Further, DOE encourages the 

introduction of lamps at lower wattages. 

Thus, DOE will only propose to extend 

wattage ranges for 4-foot medium bipin 

lamps and 2-foot medium bipin Ushaped lamps to the extent specified in 

this NOPR. 

3. Summary GSFL Lamps to Which DOE 

Proposes To Extend Coverage 

With the exception of the abovediscussed comments, DOE received no 

other input related to coverage of GSFL. 

In addition, DOE’s revised analyses 

indicate that energy conservation 

standards for the lamps which DOE 

preliminarily decided to extend 

coverage in the March 2008 ANOPR are 

still expected to be technologically 

feasible, economically justified, and 

would result in significant energy 

savings. Therefore, in summary, DOE is 

proposing to cover the following 

additional GSFL: 

• 2-foot, medium bipin U-shaped 

lamps with a rated wattage ≥ 25 and less 

than < 28; 

• 4-foot, medium bipin lamps with a 

rated wattage ≥ 25 and less than 28; 

• 4-foot T5, miniature bipin, straightshaped, standard output lamps with 

rated wattage ≥ 26; 

• 4-foot T5, miniature bipin, straightshaped, high output lamps with rated 

wattage ≥ 51; 

• 8-foot recessed double contact, 

rapid start, HO lamps other than those 

defined in ANSI Standard C78.1–1991; 

• 8-foot recessed double contact, 

rapid start, HO lamps (other than 0.800 

nominal amperes) defined in ANSI 

Standard C78.1–1991; and 

• 8-foot single pin instant start 

slimline lamps, with a rated wattage ≥ 

52, not defined in ANSI Standard 

C78.3–1991. 

B. Exempted Incandescent Reflector 

Lamps 

Section 322(a)(1) of EISA 2007 

amended section 321(30)(C)(ii) of EPCA 

to expand the portion of the definition 

of ‘‘incandescent lamp’’ applicable to 

incandescent reflector lamps to include 

lamps with a diameter between 2.25 and 

2.75 inches, as well as ER, BR, BPAR, 

or similar bulb shapes. (42 U.S.C. 

6291(30)(C)(ii)) Furthermore, section 

322(b) of EISA 2007 incorporates several 

new exemptions to the IRL standards in 

the new section 325(i)(1)(C) of EPCA. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(C)) These 

exemptions are as follows: (1) Lamps 

rated 50 watts or less that are ER30, 

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

watts that are BR30, BR40, or ER40 

lamps; and (3) R20 incandescent 

reflector lamps rated 45 watts or less. 

At the ANOPR stage, DOE concluded 

that it does not have the authority to set 

standards for these lamps, for the 

following reasons. Although Congress 

included ER, BR, and small-diameter 

(less than 2.75 inches) lamps in the 

definition of an ‘‘incandescent lamp,’’ it 

specifically exempted certain wattages 

and diameters from the prescribed 

efficacy standards, thereby indicating 

Congress’s intent not to set standards for 

those products. Furthermore, DOE’s 

reading of 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3), which 

directs DOE to amend the standards in 

paragraph (1), led it to believe that 

DOE’s authority to amend the standards 

does not include the authority to amend 

the exemptions. Specifically, under 42 

U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(C), ‘‘Exemptions,’’ the 

statute refers to ‘‘the standards specified 

in subparagraph (B),’’ whose title is 

‘‘Minimum Standards.’’ Therefore, in 

amending the standards in paragraph 

(1), under 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3), DOE 

reasoned that it had the authority to 

change the efficacy values but not the 

exemptions. Accordingly, DOE 

conducted its ANOPR analyses under 

the premise that it could not extend 

coverage to these statutorily-exempted 

products. 

The Joint Comment argued that by 

covering these products in EISA 2007, 

Congress effectively brought them into 

the Federal standards program and, 

thus, granted DOE the authority to 

regulate them. The Joint Comment 

recommended extending coverage to 65- 

watt ER and BR lamps. In addition, it 

encouraged DOE to evaluate standards 

for ER and BR lamps less than 65 watts 

and for R20 lamps less than 45 watts. 

The Joint Comment further contended 

that by failing to extend coverage to 

these lamps, DOE is not meeting its 

obligation to maximize energy savings. 

The Joint Comment argued that the 

exempted lamps represent a large, 

growing market share and are a 

substitute for products that DOE plans 

to regulate. The Joint Comment stated 

that because 65-watt BR lamps represent 

a low-cost, low-efficacy alternative to 

the more-efficient products covered by 

the standards, continued exemptions 

could decrease the potentially 

significant energy savings associated 

with the present rulemaking. (Joint 

Comment, No. 23 at p. 12–14) 

Accompanying the Joint Comment 

were two legal memoranda from the 

National Consumer Law Center (NCLC), 

maintaining that not only does DOE 

have the authority to regulate ER and BR 

lamps, but that DOE is obligated to 

regulate them. NCLC pointed out that 

with the passage of EISA 2007, Congress 

included BR and ER lamps that have a 

‘‘rated wattage that is 40 watts or 

higher’’ within the definition of 

‘‘incandescent lamp’’ [EISA 2007, 

section 322(a), amending 42 U.S.C. 

6291(30)(C)] and, thus, included these 

BR and ER lamps as covered products 

under 42 U.S.C. 6291(2) and 

6292(a)(14). NCLC further contended 

that the only explanation for Congress 

adding ER and BR lamps to the 

definition was to include them among 

the covered products. (Joint Comment, 

No. 23 at p. 27) NCLC cited the 

rulemaking for microwave and electric 

ovens as an example of a rulemaking in 

which DOE is considering applying 

standards to products for which no 

prescriptive efficiency standards exist. 

(Joint Comment, No. 23 at p. 28) 

Through the initial drafting of this 

NOPR, DOE adhered to its earlier 

conclusion that it lacked authority to 

consider standards for ER, BR, and 

small-diameter lamps that had been 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16931 

specifically exempted by Congress. 

However, after carefully considering the 

testimony of the February 3, 2009 NOPR 

public meeting and reexamining the 

ANOPR public comments on this issue, 

DOE reexamined its authority under 

EPCA to amend standards for ER, BR, 

and small-diameter lamps and has 

concluded that its earlier view may have 

been in error. DOE is further 

considering if it has authority to 

consider energy conservation standards 

for ER, BR, and small-diameter lamps 

for the reasons that follow. 

DOE agrees with the Joint Comment, 

that prior to enactment of EISA 2007 on 

December 19, 2007, ER, BR, and smalldiameter lamps were by definition 

excluded from coverage under EPCA; 

however, once EISA 2007 amended the 

definition of ‘‘incandescent lamp,’’ ER, 

BR, and small-diameter lamps become 

products by the new definition. (Joint 

Comment, No. 23 at p. 27) Congress 

proceeded to expressly exempt certain 

types of ER, BR, and small-diameter 

lamps from the statutorily-set IRL 

standards established by EISA 2007. 

However, given that these expressly 

exempted lamp types constitute the 

overwhelming majority of the ER, BR, 

and small-diameter lamps market, 

DOE’s original construction of the 

relevant statutory provisions (as 

expressed in the ANOPR) would have 

the effect of once again moving most ER, 

BR, and small-diameter lamps beyond 

the reach of energy conservation 

standards. Accordingly, DOE is 

reconsidering whether, under 42 U.S.C 

6295(i)(3), the directive to amend the 

standards in paragraph (1) encompasses 

both the statutory levels and the 

exemptions to those standards. 

As a practical matter, if DOE does 

conclude that it has authority to 

establish standards for ER, BR, and 

small-diameter lamps, it cannot 

consider such lamps as part of the 

present rulemaking because it has not 

conducted the requisite analyses to 

propose appropriate standard levels. At 

the same time, DOE does not wish to 

delay the present rulemaking (and the 

accompanying energy savings to the 

Nation) for the sole reason of 

considering this subset of ER, BR, and 

small-diameter lamps. The analyses to 

consider standards for ER, BR, and 

small-diameter lamps are severable from 

the analyses underlying the present 

rulemaking, so separate treatment 

would not impact the outcomes for any 

of the lamp types under consideration 

in this NOPR. Therefore, DOE has 

decided to proceed with setting energy 

conservation standards for the lamps 

that are the subject of the present 

rulemaking and to commence a separate 

rulemaking for ER, BR, and smalldiameter lamps. DOE believes that 

much of the analytical work for the 

current rulemaking will benefit the ER, 

BR, and small diameter lamps 

rulemaking, thereby permitting issuance 

of a new NOPR and final rule on an 

accelerated basis, if it determined that it 

has the authority to do so. 

For the purposes of the present NOPR, 

however, DOE notes that the balance of 

this notice (analyses and related 

discussions) assumes that the exempted 

ER, BR, and small-diameter lamps 

remain unregulated by energy 

conservation standards. DOE 

acknowledges that while such an 

assumption has no impact on the 

engineering and life-cycle cost analyses, 

the regulation of these exempted IRL 

may affect the future shipment of IRL 

and thereby the national impact and 

other downstream analyses. However, 

DOE believes that its analysis of 

multiple shipment scenarios (as 

discussed in section V.E.5) captures the 

broad range of possible impacts were 

these exempted lamps to be regulated in 

the future. Therefore DOE’s assumption 

does not impact the standards proposed 

in this rulemaking or DOE’s 

reconsideration of its authority, nor 

does it otherwise constrain DOE’s 

ability to conduct further analyses in a 

separate rulemaking. 

C. Amended Definitions 

To clarify the scope of EPCA’s 

coverage of GSFL, IRL, and the recently 

adopted standards for GSIL, DOE 

proposes to revise its existing 

definitions of ‘‘rated wattage’’ and 

‘‘colored fluorescent lamp.’’ These 

definitional changes are discussed 

below. 

1. ‘‘Rated Wattage’’ 

One element of EPCA’s definitions for 

‘‘fluorescent lamp’’ and ‘‘incandescent 

reflector lamp’’ is a lamp’s rated 

wattage, which helps delineate the 

lamps for which the statute sets 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(A), (C)(ii) 

and (F), and 6295(i)). In addition, 

section 321(a)(3) of EISA 2007 amended 

EPCA to prescribe energy conservation 

standards for GSIL, requiring lamps of 

particular lumen outputs to have certain 

maximum rated wattages. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(i)) However, EPCA does not define 

the term ‘‘rated wattage.’’ 

DOE has defined ‘‘rated wattage’’ in 

its regulations, but only for 4-foot 

medium bipin T8, T10, and T12 

fluorescent lamps. 10 CFR 430.2. This 

definition references ANSI Standard 

C78.1–1991, ‘‘for Fluorescent Lamps— 

Rapid-Start Types—Dimensional and 

Electrical Characteristics.’’ Id. Although 

EPCA also uses the term ‘‘rated wattage’’ 

to delineate 2-foot U-shaped lamps (42 

U.S.C. 6291(30)(A)(ii)), 8-foot slimline 

lamps, (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(A)(iv)), and 

IRL (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(C)), DOE has 

not defined ‘‘rated wattage’’ for these 

lamps. In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

considered revising and updating the 

definition of ‘‘rated wattage’’ to cite the 

current version of ANSI Standard 

C78.1–1991, clarify and improve the 

definition, and apply the revised 

definition to those lamps for which 

rated wattage is a key characteristic but 

is not currently defined by DOE. In 

response to the March 2008 ANOPR, 

DOE received one comment regarding 

the definition of ‘‘rated wattage.’’ NEMA 

commented that it agrees with DOE’s 

revised definition. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 

4). 

Therefore, DOE proposes the 

following definition for ‘‘rated wattage’’: 

Rated wattage means: 

(1) With respect to fluorescent lamps 

and general service fluorescent lamps: 

(i) If the lamp is listed in ANSI 

C78.81–2005 or ANSI C78.901–2005, 

the rated wattage of a lamp determined 

by the lamp designation of Clause 11.1 

of ANSI C78.81–2005 or ANSI C78.901– 

2005; 

(ii) If the lamp is a residential straightshaped lamp, and not listed in ANSI 

C78.81–2005, the wattage of a lamp 

when operated on a reference ballast for 

which the lamp is designed; or 

(iii) If the lamp is neither listed in one 

of the ANSI guides referenced in (1)(i) 

nor a residential straight-shaped lamp, 

the wattage of a lamp when measured 

according to the test procedures 

outlined in Appendix R to subpart B of 

this part. 

(2) With respect to general service 

incandescent lamps and incandescent 

reflector lamps, the wattage measured 

according to the test procedures 

outlined in Appendix R to subpart B of 

this part. 

2. ‘‘Colored Fluorescent Lamp’’ 

Colored fluorescent lamps are 

excluded from EPCA’s definition of 

‘‘general service fluorescent lamp.’’ (42 

U.S.C. 6291 (30)(B)(iii)) However, EPCA 

does not define the term ‘‘colored 

fluorescent lamp.’’ In order to fully 

define the scope of EPCA’s definition of 

GSFL, DOE currently defines ‘‘colored 

fluorescent lamp’’ as follows: 

‘‘Colored fluorescent lamp’’ means a 

fluorescent lamp designated and marketed as 

a colored lamp, and with either of the 

following characteristics: a CRI less than 40, 

as determined according to the method given 

in CIE Publication 13.2 (10 CFR 430.3), or a 

correlated color temperature less than 2,500K 

or greater than 6,600K. 

16932 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

14Ex parte communication with Edward Yandek 

of General Electric Company (Dec. 8, 2008) (DOE, 

No. 29). 

10 CFR 430.2. Because these lamps are 

not GSFL under EPCA, they are not 

covered by the standards applicable to 

GSFL. 

The central element of EPCA’s 

definition of ‘‘general service 

fluorescent lamp’’ is that they are 

fluorescent lamps ‘‘which can be used 

to satisfy the majority of lighting 

applications.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(B)) 

The exclusions, such as the one for 

colored lamps, are for lamps designed 

and marketed for ‘‘non-general lighting 

applications.’’ Id. As detailed in the 

March 2008 ANOPR, DOE became 

aware of a lamp on the European market 

that meets the above definition of 

‘‘colored fluorescent lamp’’ and that is 

intended for general illumination 

applications. 73 FR 13620, 13634 

(March 13, 2008). Although DOE is 

unaware of any similar general purpose 

fluorescent lamps being introduced into 

the U.S. market, the availability of the 

European lamp demonstrates the 

potential for DOE’s definition of 

‘‘colored fluorescent lamp’’ to exclude 

new products with general service 

applications from the definition of 

‘‘general service fluorescent lamp,’’ and 

thereby from the coverage of standards 

applicable to GSFL. For this reason, in 

the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE proposed 

to revise its definition of ‘‘colored 

fluorescent lamp’’ by adding the 

following phrase after the words 

‘‘colored lamp’’: ‘‘and not designed or 

marketed for general illumination 

applications.’’ Id. 

In submitted written comments on the 

ANOPR, NEMA agreed with the 

proposed revised definition of ‘‘colored 

fluorescent lamp,’’ while noting that 

DOE will need to give additional 

consideration to general illumination 

fluorescent lamps with higher color 

temperatures. NEMA cited an example 

of a lamp with a CCT of 8,000K that 

could be used for both general 

illumination and specialty applications 

(NEMA, No. 22 at p. 9). NEMA 

requested a meeting to discuss this 

matter in greater detail, since it was 

performing research related to this 

topic. (DOE, No. 27) This meeting is 

subsequently discussed in section II.C.2 

of this NOPR. 

At the June 2008 NEMA meeting and 

in its written comments, NEMA 

recommended that the range of GSFL 

affected by standards should be 

increased to 7,000K from the current 

coverage, which extends to only 6,600K. 

NEMA believes that lamps with a CCT 

between 4,500K and 7,000K are growing 

in popularity and, therefore, energy 

conservation standards within that 

range are justifiable (NEMA, No. 26 at 

pp. 3–4). 

NEMA also stated that an efficacy 

standard would be inappropriate for 

GSFL with a CCT greater than 7,000K. 

Because very few GSFL with a CCT 

greater than 7,000K are commercially 

available, NEMA argued that it would 

be impossible to determine whether 

there would be an appropriate efficacy 

standard for these lamps that would be 

technologically feasible. (NEMA, No. 26 

at pp. 5–6) NEMA also stated that it is 

unlikely that exempting these high CCT 

lamps would increase their sales after a 

standard, as these lamps are often too 

‘‘blue’’ for typical consumers. Therefore, 

NEMA urged DOE to exempt all lamps 

with a CCT greater than 7,000K from 

energy conservation standards (NEMA, 

No. 26 at pp. 3–4). 

DOE considered NEMA’s input and 

agrees that because so few of these 

products with a CCT greater than 

7,000K exist in the market, there is not 

enough information to reliably analyze 

the performance of currently-available 

products or the expected performance of 

emerging products. Manufacturing 

lamps with CCTs greater than 7,000K 

would likely require the use of new 

materials not currently utilized in 

commonly sold lamps today. In 

addition, manufacturers may encounter 

different design trade-offs when 

developing their products Therefore, 

DOE is unable to determine whether a 

particular standard level would be 

technologically feasible for these lamps. 

DOE also agrees that it is appropriate 

to raise the 6,600K limit to 7,000K in the 

definition of ‘‘colored fluorescent 

lamp.’’ DOE believes that this 

amendment would further the statutory 

objective of maintaining the coverage of 

GSFL serving general application 

purposes under DOE’s energy 

conservation standards. Although lamps 

with CCTs greater than 6,600K and less 

than 7,000K are not prevalent in the 

market, DOE’s research14 indicates that 

manufacturers would likely be able to 

produce a lamp at 7,000K using the 

same materials as a 6,500K lamp (a 

commonly sold lamp). In consideration 

of the technological similarity between 

6,500K and 7,000K lamps, DOE believes 

that it would be possible to establish 

technologically feasible efficacy levels 

for 7,000K lamps. 

Therefore, DOE proposes to modify 

the definition of ‘‘colored fluorescent 

lamp’’ so as to include lamps with CCT 

less than or equal to 7,000K exclude all 

lamps with a CCT greater than 7,000K 

from energy conservation standards. 

However, DOE notes that NEMA has 

offered to track the sales of GSFL with 

a CCT greater than 7,000K in order to 

determine in the future if energy 

conservation standards are necessary for 

these products. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 4) 

If these lamp sales show significant 

growth, and thus the potential for 

significant energy savings, DOE may 

consider amending the definition of 

‘‘colored fluorescent lamp’’ to provide 

for coverage of these lamps and setting 

an appropriate energy conservation 

standard for them in a future 

rulemaking. 

As discussed in the March 2008 

ANOPR, the discovery of a fluorescent 

lamp in the European market with a 

CCT of 17,000K being marketed for 

general illumination applications 

prompted DOE to consider actions to 

prevent such lamps from becoming a 

potential loophole to the GSFL energy 

conservation standard. However, the 

inherently ‘‘blue’’ color of these lamps 

may prevent widespread adoption as 

substitutes for standard CCT lamps (e.g., 

4,100K). Therefore, DOE no longer 

considers these lamps to be a potential 

loophole to standards set forth by this 

rulemaking. For this reason and because 

DOE is unable to determine a 

technologically feasible standard for 

these lamps, DOE believes that the 

addition of the phrase ‘‘and not 

designed or marketed for general 

illumination applications’’ with respect 

lamps with a CCT greater than 7,000K 

is no longer necessary. 

After incorporating the changes 

discussed above, DOE proposes the 

following definition of ‘‘colored 

fluorescent lamp’’ for this notice: 

Colored fluorescent lamp means either: (1) 

A fluorescent lamp designated and marketed 

as a colored lamp with a CRI less than 40, 

as determined according to the method set 

forth in CIE Publication 13.2 (10 CFR 430.3); 

(2) a fluorescent lamp designed and marketed 

as a colored lamp with a correlated color 

temperature (CCT) less than 2,500K; or (3) a 

fluorescent lamp with a CCT greater than 

7,000K. 

D. Off Mode and Standby Mode Energy 

Consumption Standards 

Section 310(3) of EISA 2007 amended 

EPCA to require future energy 

conservation standards to address 

standby mode and off mode energy use. 

Specifically, EPCA, as amended, now 

requires that, when DOE adopts 

standards for a covered product after 

July 1, 2010, DOE must, if justified by 

the criteria for adoption of standards in 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o), incorporate standby 

mode and off mode energy use into the 

standard, if feasible, or adopt a separate 

standard for such energy use for that 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) DOE 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16933 

15 ‘‘Uniform Test Method for Measuring Average 

Lamp Efficiency (LE) and Color Rendering Index 

(CRI) of Electric Lamps.’’ 

16This written comment was submitted to the 

docket of the test procedure rulemaking (Docket No. 

EERE–2007–BT–TP–0013; RIN number 1904– 

AB72). 

17 DOE’s regulations set forth the following 

definition of ‘‘technological feasibility’’: 

‘‘Technologies incorporated in commercially 

available products or in working prototypes will be 

considered technologically feasible.’’ 10 CFR 430, 

subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i). 

notes that although the final rule in this 

standards rulemaking is scheduled for 

publication by June 2009 (i.e., before the 

statutory deadline above), DOE 

nonetheless undertook a preliminary 

analysis of the potential for energy 

savings associated with the regulation of 

standby mode and off mode in covered 

lamps. DOE has tentatively determined 

that current technologies for the GSFL 

and IRL that are the subjects of this 

rulemaking do not use a standby mode 

or off mode, so a determination of the 

energy consumption of such features is 

inapplicable. 

Given EISA 2007’s definitions of 

‘‘active mode,’’ ‘‘off mode,’’ and 

‘‘standby mode’’ applicable to both 

GSFL and IRL, in order to meet the 

definition of ‘‘off-mode’’ or ‘‘standby 

mode,’’ the lamp must not be providing 

any active mode function (i.e., emit 

light). However, to reach such a state, 

the lamp must be entirely disconnected 

from the main power source (i.e., the 

lamp is switched off), thereby not 

satisfying the requirements of operating 

in off mode. In addition, DOE believes 

that all covered products that meet the 

definitions of ‘‘general service 

fluorescent lamp’’ and ‘‘incandescent 

reflector lamp’’ are single-function 

products and do not offer any secondary 

user-oriented or protective functions. 

Thus, GSFL and IRL do not satisfy the 

definition for ‘‘standby mode.’’ DOE 

received comments from NEMA in 

response to the March 2008 ANOPR 

supporting this characterization of off 

mode and standby mode energy 

consumption for these products. 

(NEMA, No. 22 at p. 1) Therefore, DOE 

maintains that it is not feasible to 

incorporate off mode or standby mode 

energy use into the energy conservation 

standards for GSFL and IRL and is not 

proposing amendments to the standard 

to address lamp operation in such 

modes. The March 2008 ANOPR 

provides additional details that support 

this conclusion. 73 FR 13620, 13627 

(March 13, 2008). 

E. Color Rendering Index Standards for 

General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

Existing EPCA standards specify both 

lumens per watt and CRI levels that 

products must comply with before 

entering the market. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(i)(1)) At the public meeting and in 

written comments, NEMA and the Joint 

Comment suggested that it may be 

necessary to amend the minimum CRI 

requirements to prevent the possible 

emergence of loopholes in the product 

classes structure and standards levels 

considered in the March 2008 ANOPR. 

(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 21 at 

pp. 82–84, 92, 94; Joint Comment, No. 

23 at p. 6; NEMA, No. 22 at p. 4–5) 

However, because CRI is not a 

measure of energy consumption or 

efficacy, but rather a measure of the 

color quality of the light, DOE has 

concluded that it does not have the 

authority to change the CRI standard, for 

the reasons that follow. According to 42 

U.S.C. 6291(6), ‘‘energy conservation 

standard’’ means either: (1) A 

performance standard which prescribes 

a minimum level of energy efficiency or 

a maximum quantity of energy use; or 

(2) a design requirement (only for 

specifically enumerated products). 

Although CRI is a performance 

requirement, it is not an energy 

performance requirement within the 

meaning of the term ‘‘energy 

conservation standard.’’ Because, in the 

case of GSFL, DOE has the authority to 

regulate only energy conservation 

standards (i.e., energy performance 

requirements), DOE is not proposing to 

amend the existing minimum CRI 

requirements. 

IV. General Discussion 

A. Test Procedures 

DOE’s test procedures for fluorescent 

and incandescent lamps are set forth at 

10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix 

R.15 These test procedures provide 

detailed instructions for measuring 

GSFL and IRL performance, as well as 

performance attributes of GSIL, largely 

by incorporating several industry 

standards. Prompted by an earlier 

NEMA comment (NEMA, No. 12, pp. 2– 

4) at the Framework stage of the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking, 

DOE examined these test procedures 

and decided to initiate a rulemaking, in 

parallel with this standards rulemaking, 

to revise its test procedures for GSFL, 

IRL, and GSIL (even though, as 

explained above, GSIL are no longer 

part of this standards rulemaking). 

These revisions consist largely of: (1) 

Referencing the most current versions of 

several lighting industry standards 

incorporated by reference; (2) adopting 

certain technical changes and 

clarifications; (3) expanding the test 

procedures to accommodate new classes 

of lamps subject to extended coverage 

by either EISA 2007 or this energy 

conservation standards rulemaking; and 

(4) addressing standby mode and off 

mode energy consumption (which were 

found not to apply to GSFL and IRL), as 

mandated by EISA 2007. 

To this end, DOE published a NOPR 

that proposed to update the current test 

procedure’s references to industry 

standards for fluorescent and 

incandescent lamps. 73 FR 13465 

(March 13, 2008) (the test procedure 

NOPR). The test procedure NOPR also 

proposed the following: (1) A small 

number of definitional and procedural 

modifications to the test procedure to 

accommodate technological migrations 

in the GSFL market and approaches 

DOE is considering in this standards 

rulemaking (73 FR 13465, 13472–73 

(March 13, 2008)); (2) revision of the 

reporting requirements for GSFL, such 

that all covered lamp efficacies would 

be reported with an accuracy to the 

tenths decimal place (73 FR 13465, 

13473 (March 13, 2008)); and (3) 

adoption of a testing and calculation 

method for measuring the CCT of 

fluorescent and incandescent lamps (73 

FR 13465, 13473–74 (March 13, 2008)). 

Please see the March 2008 ANOPR (73 

FR 13620, 13627–28 (March 13, 2008)) 

and the March 2008 test procedure 

NOPR (73 FR 13465, 13472–74 (March 

13, 2008)) for a detailed discussion of 

these proposals and related matters. 

The public meeting for the March 

2008 ANOPR also served as a public 

meeting to present and receive 

comments on the test procedure NOPR. 

DOE later received written remarks from 

NEMA responding to the proposals 

contained in the test procedure NOPR. 

(NEMA, No. 16) 16 DOE is considering 

these comments, and will be publishing 

a final rule in the near future. 

B. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

In each standards rulemaking, DOE 

conducts a screening analysis, which it 

bases on information it has gathered on 

all current technology options and 

prototype designs that could improve 

the efficiency of the product or 

equipment that is the subject of the 

rulemaking. DOE considers a design 

option to be ‘‘technologically 

feasible’’ 17 if it is in the marketplace or 

if research has progressed to the 

development of a working prototype. 

In consultation with manufacturers, 

design engineers, and other interested 

parties, DOE develops a list of design 

options for consideration in the 

rulemaking. In the context of the present 

rulemaking, when determining 

16934 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

18As discussed in section V.C, due to scheduling 

and resource constraints, DOE did not analyze all 

GSFL and IRL product classes. Instead, DOE chose 

representative product classes to directly analyze 

and scaled analytical results to the remaining 

product classes. Table IV.1 and Table IV.2 present 

max-tech levels for only analyzed product classes. 

Classes not analyzed include the 2-foot U-shaped 

and high-CCT product classes (for GSFL) and the 

modified spectrum, ≥ 125 volts, and ≤ 2.5 inches 

diameter product classes (for IRL). 

proposed efficacy levels for GSFL, DOE 

only considered commercially-available 

products that can meet or exceed each 

level. For IRL, trial standard levels 2, 3, 

4, and 5 are based on commerciallyavailable products. Although TSL1 is 

not based on product currently sold in 

the marketplace, DOE has used a design 

option (i.e., higher-efficiency gas fills) to 

model the performance of a higherefficacy lamp that meets TSL1. DOE 

received input from manufacturers 

during interviews to verify that such a 

design option is technologically 

feasible. Therefore, DOE has concluded 

that the all design options to achieve the 

proposed efficacy levels are 

technologically feasible. 

Once DOE has determined that 

particular design options are 

technologically feasible, it evaluates 

each design option in light of the 

following criteria: (1) Practicability to 

manufacture, install, or service; (2) 

adverse impacts on product utility or 

availability; and (3) adverse impacts on 

health or safety. Chapter 4 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice contains a 

description of the screening analysis for 

this rulemaking. Also, see section 0 of 

this notice for a discussion of the design 

options DOE considered. 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

When DOE proposes to adopt or to 

decline to adopt an amended or new 

standard for a type (or class) of covered 

product, as part of the rulemaking 

process, DOE must ‘‘determine the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency or maximum reduction in 

energy use that is technologically 

feasible’’ for the product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(1)) In response to the ANOPR, 

stakeholders commented that 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o) requires that DOE evaluate the 

maximum technologically feasible, or 

‘‘max-tech,’’ potential standard 

efficiency levels. They assert that 

because DOE has gathered only 

technical information based on products 

available on the market today, it may 

not have considered those products that 

are technically feasible but not yet 

marketed. If such options are available, 

stakeholders believe DOE should model 

them as the max-tech efficiency levels. 

(Joint Comment, No. 23 at p. 19) 

DOE researched whether any 

technologies could improve the efficacy 

of GSFL lamps currently marketed. DOE 

found that higher efficacy GSFL could 

be achieved but require the use of a 

higher efficiency fill gas composition. 

More efficient fill gases often include 

higher molecular weight gases (e.g., 

krypton) to increase ultraviolet light 

output, and, thus, visible light output. 

However, the use of these heavier gases 

can cause lamp instability, resulting in 

striations or flickering. Evidence of this 

effect can be seen with reduced-wattage 

lamps, which generally incorporate a 

mixture of krypton and argon gases, 

versus full-wattage lamps which 

primarily use only argon. Reducedwattage lamps are often marketed with 

several application-limiting 

performance notes. For example, NEMA 

stated reduced-wattage lamps can have 

performance issues in low-temperature 

applications or when operated on rapid 

start or dimming ballasts. (NEMA, No. 

21 at p. 10) Therefore, DOE did not 

consider efficacy levels for GSFL that 

would require the use of higherefficiency fill gases that would result in 

reduced utility. DOE was unable to find 

any higher-efficacy prototypes or 

commercially-available lamps that 

provide the same utility and 

performance required of GSFL. 

Therefore, DOE has concluded that 

TSL5 was the maximum technologically 

feasible level for GSFL. 

For IRL, DOE determined that the 

maximum technologically feasible 

efficacy level incorporates the highest 

technologically feasible efficiency 

reflector, halogen infrared coating, and 

filament design. From its research, DOE 

believes that the highest efficiency 

reflector employs silver, a technology 

that DOE understands to be proprietary. 

From discussions with developers of IR 

coating technology, DOE understands 

that by modifying the coating pattern 

and materials used, varying degrees of 

IR coating efficiencies can be achieved. 

Finally, altering filament design to 

obtain the highest temperature filament 

operation, while maintaining a lifetime 

similar to the baseline lamp (3,000 

hours), would result in the most 

efficacious filament. Combining all 

three of these highest efficiency 

technologies simultaneously results in 

the maximum technologically feasible 

level; however, this level is dependent 

on the use of a proprietary technology 

(the silver reflector). Because DOE is 

unaware of any alternate technology 

pathways to achieve this efficacy level, 

DOE did not consider it in its analysis. 

Instead, DOE based the highest efficacy 

level analyzed for IRL on a 

commercially-available IRL which 

employs a silver reflector, an improved 

(but not most efficient) IR coating, and 

a filament design that results in a 

lifetime of 4,200 hours. Although, this 

commercially-available lamp uses silver 

technology, DOE believes that there are 

alternate pathways to achieve this level. 

A combination of redesigning the 

filament to achieve higher temperature 

operation (and thus reducing lifetime to 

3,000 hours), employing other nonproprietary high-efficiency reflectors, or 

applying higher-efficiency IR coatings 

has the potential to result in an IRL that 

meets an equivalent efficacy level. For 

more information regarding these 

technologies, see chapter 3 of the TSD. 

Therefore, DOE has concluded that 

TSL5 is the maximum technologically 

feasible level for IRL that is not 

dependent on the use of a proprietary 

technology. 

Table IV.1 and Table IV.2 list the 

max-tech levels (TSL5 for GSFL and 

TSL5 for IRL) that DOE determined for 

this rulemaking.18

TABLE IV.1—MAX-TECH LEVELS FOR GSFL 

Lamp type CCT 

Max-tech 

efficiency 

lm/W 

4-Foot Medium Bipin ............................................................................................................................................... ≤ 4,500K 94 

8-Foot Single Pin Slimline ....................................................................................................................................... ≤ 4,500K 100 

8-Foot RDC HO ....................................................................................................................................................... ≤ 4,500K 95 

4-Foot T5 SO ........................................................................................................................................................... ≤ 4,500K 108 

4-Foot T5 HO ........................................................................................................................................................... ≤ 4,500K 92 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16935 

TABLE IV.2—MAX-TECH LEVEL FOR IRL 

Lamp type Diameter Voltage 

Max-tech efficiency 

lm/W 

Standard Spectrum ...................................................................................................................... > 2.5 inches < 125 6.9P0.27 *

* Where P is the rated wattage. 

C. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

DOE used its NIA spreadsheets to 

estimate energy savings from amended 

standards for the lamps currently 

covered by standards and from new 

standards for the remaining additional 

lamps that are the subject of this 

rulemaking. (The NIA spreadsheet 

models are described in section V.E of 

this notice and in chapter 11 of the 

TSD.) DOE forecasted energy savings 

over the period of analysis (beginning in 

2012, the year that amended standards 

would go into effect, and ending in 

2042) for each TSL. It quantified the 

energy savings attributable to amended 

and new energy conservation standards 

(i.e., to each TSL) as the difference in 

energy consumption between the 

standards case and the base case. The 

base case represents the forecast of 

energy consumption in the absence of 

amended and new mandatory energy 

conservation standards. The base case 

considers market demand for moreefficient products. For example, for both 

GSFL and IRL, DOE models a shift in 

the base case from covered GSFL and 

IRL toward emerging technologies such 

as light emitting diodes (LED). In 

addition, consistent with current GSFL 

market trends, DOE models a shift from 

T12 lamps to higher-efficacy T8 and T5 

lamps. For IRL in the commercial sector, 

the base-case shipments forecast also 

considers a migration from halogen IRL 

to higher-efficacy halogen infrared (HIR) 

lamps. See section 0 of this notice and 

chapter 10 of the TSD for details. 

The NIA spreadsheet models calculate 

the energy savings in site energy 

expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh). Site 

energy is the energy directly consumed 

at building sites by GSFL or IRL. DOE 

reports national energy savings in terms 

of the source energy savings, which is 

the savings in the energy that is used to 

generate and transmit the energy 

consumed at the site. To convert site 

energy to source energy, DOE uses 

annual site-to-source conversion factors 

based on the version of the National 

Energy Modeling System (NEMS) that 

corresponds to Annual Energy Outlook 

2008 (AEO2008). The conversion factors 

vary over time because of projected 

changes in the nation’s portfolio of 

generation sources. DOE estimated that 

conversion factors remain constant at 

2030 values throughout the remainder 

of the forecast. See chapter 11 of the 

TSD for details. 

2. Significance of Savings 

Section 325 of EPCA prohibits DOE 

from adopting a standard for a covered 

product if that standard would not 

result in ‘‘significant’’ energy savings. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) While the term 

‘‘significant’’ is not defined in EPCA, 

the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. 

Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (DC 

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 are nontrivial, and therefore, 

DOE considers them ‘‘significant’’ 

within the meaning of section 325 of 

EPCA. 

D. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

As noted earlier, EPCA provides 

seven factors to be evaluated in 

determining whether an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)). The 

following sections discuss how DOE has 

addressed each of those seven factors in 

this rulemaking. 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

and Consumers 

To determine the quantitative impacts 

of a new or amended standard on 

manufacturers, the economic impact 

analysis is based on an annual-cashflow approach. This includes both a 

short-term assessment—based on the 

cost and capital requirements during the 

period between the announcement of a 

regulation and the regulation’s effective 

start date—and a long-term assessment. 

The 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 appropriate measures 

of impact. Second, DOE analyzes and 

reports the impacts on different types of 

manufacturers, with particular attention 

to impacts on small manufacturers. 

Third, DOE considers the impact of 

standards on domestic manufacturer 

employment, manufacturing capacity, 

plant closures, and loss of capital 

investment. Finally, DOE takes into 

account cumulative impacts of different 

DOE and other regulations on 

manufacturers. 

For consumers, measures of economic 

impact include the changes in price, 

LCC, and payback period for each trial 

standard level. The LCC is one of the 

seven factors to be considered in 

determining the economic justification 

for a new or amended standard. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) 

b. Life-Cycle Costs 

The LCC is the sum of the purchase 

price of a product (including its 

installation) and the operating expense 

(including energy and maintenance 

expenditures) discounted over the 

lifetime of the product. For each GSFL 

and IRL product class, DOE calculated 

both LCC and LCC savings for various 

efficacy levels. The LCC analysis 

required a variety of inputs, such as 

product prices, installation labor costs, 

electricity prices, annual operating 

hours, product energy consumption 

rates, and discount rates. 

To characterize variability in 

electricity pricing, DOE established 

regional differences in electricity prices. 

To account for uncertainty and 

variability in other inputs, such as 

annual operating hours and discount 

rates, DOE used a distribution of values 

with probabilities assigned to each 

value. Then for each consumer, DOE 

sampled the values of these inputs from 

the probability distributions. The 

analysis produced a range of LCCs. A 

distinct advantage of this approach is 

that DOE can identify the percentage of 

consumers achieving LCC savings due 

to an increased energy conservation 

standard, in addition to the average LCC 

savings. DOE presents only average LCC 

savings in this NOPR; however, 

additional details showing the 

distribution of results can be found in 

chapter 8 and appendix 8B of the TSD. 

In the LCC analysis, DOE also 

considered several events that would 

prompt a consumer to purchase a lamp. 

For GSFL, DOE calculated LCCs for five 

lamp purchasing events: (1) Lamp 

failure; (2) standards-induced retrofit; 

16936 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(3) ballast failure; (4) ballast retrofit; and 

(5) new construction/renovation. For 

IRL, DOE calculated LCCs for the lamp 

failure and new construction/renovation 

events, as these were the only lamp 

purchase events deemed applicable to 

this product type. Because each event 

may present the consumer with 

different lamp (or lamp-and-ballast) 

options and economics, DOE presents 

the LCC results for several events for 

each product class in this NOPR. DOE 

assumed that the consumer purchases 

the product in 2012 (the effective start 

date of the standard). For further detail 

regarding lamp purchasing events and 

related LCC calculations, see section 

V.D and chapter 8 of the TSD. 

c. Energy Savings 

While significant conservation of 

energy is a separate statutory 

requirement for adopting an energy 

conservation standard, EPCA requires 

DOE, in determining the economic 

justification of a standard, to consider 

the total projected energy savings that 

are expected to result directly from the 

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

DOE used the NES spreadsheet results 

in its consideration of total projected 

savings. 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

In establishing classes of products, 

and in evaluating design options and 

the impact of potential standard levels, 

DOE aimed to develop standards for 

GSFL and IRL that would not lessen the 

utility or performance of these products. 

None of the considered trial standard 

levels would reduce the utility or 

performance of the GSFL and IRL under 

consideration in the rulemaking. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) 

Since all standard levels for GSFL use 

full-wattage lamps, rather than requiring 

a shift to higher-efficacy reducedwattage lamps (which may have 

application restrictions), no GSFL 

efficacy levels reduce the utility or 

performance of the covered products. 

For IRL, for all standard levels, there are 

commercially available IRL with the 

same utility and performance as the 

baseline lamps. Therefore, DOE believes 

that none of the considered trial 

standard levels would reduce the utility 

or performance of the IRL under 

consideration in this rulemaking. 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider any 

lessening of competition likely to result 

from standards. It 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 no later than 60 days after the 

publication of a proposed rule, together 

with an analysis of the nature and 

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

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) DOE has 

transmitted a copy of today’s proposed 

rule to the Attorney General and has 

requested that the Department of Justice 

(DOJ) provide its determination on this 

issue. DOE will address the Attorney 

General’s determination in the final 

rule. 

f. Need of the Nation To Conserve 

Energy 

The non-monetary benefits of the 

proposed standard are likely to be 

reflected in improvements to the 

security and reliability of the Nation’s 

energy system—namely, reductions in 

the overall demand for energy will 

result in reduced costs for maintaining 

the Nation’s electricity system. DOE 

conducts a utility impact analysis to 

estimate how standards may affect the 

Nation’s needed power generation 

capacity. This analysis captures the 

effects of efficiency improvements on 

electricity consumption by the covered 

products that are the subject of this 

rulemaking. 

The proposed standard also is likely 

to result in improvements to the 

environment. In quantifying these 

improvements, DOE has defined a range 

of primary energy conversion factors 

and associated emission reductions 

based on the estimated level of power 

generation displaced by energy 

conservation standards. DOE reports the 

environmental effects from each TSL for 

this equipment in the environmental 

assessment in the TSD. (42. U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and 6316(a)) 

g. Other Factors 

EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, 

in determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, to consider any 

other factors that the Secretary deems to 

be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) Under this 

provision, DOE considered subgroups of 

consumers that may be adversely 

affected by the standards proposed in 

this rule. Specifically, DOE assessed the 

impact of standards on low-income 

consumers, institutions of religious 

worship, historical facilities, and 

institutions that serve low-income 

populations. In considering these 

subgroups, DOE analyzed variations on 

electricity prices, operating hours, 

discount rates, and baseline lamps. See 

section 0 of this notice for further detail. 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

As set forth in section 325(o)(2)(B)(iii) 

of EPCA, there is 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 level is less than three times 

the value of the first-year energy (and, 

as applicable, water) savings resulting 

from the standard, as calculated under 

the applicable DOE test procedure. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 42 U.S.C. 

6316(e)(1)) DOE’s LCC and PBP analyses 

generate values that calculate the 

payback period for consumers of 

potential energy conservation standards, 

which includes, but is not limited to, 

the three-year payback period 

contemplated under the rebuttable 

presumption test discussed above. 

However, DOE routinely conducts a full 

economic analysis that considers the 

full range of impacts, including those to 

the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, 

and environment, as required under 42 

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

6316(e)(1)). The results of this analysis 

serve as the basis for DOE to definitively 

evaluate the economic justification for a 

potential standard level (thereby 

supporting or rebutting the results of 

any preliminary determination of 

economic justification). Section 0 of this 

notice addresses the rebuttablepresumption payback calculation. 

V. Methodology and Discussion of 

Comments 

A. Product Classes 

In general, in evaluating and 

establishing energy conservation 

standards, DOE divides covered 

products into classes by the type of 

energy used, capacity, or other 

performance-related features that affect 

efficiency, and factors such as the utility 

of the product to users. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)) DOE normally establishes 

different energy conservation standards 

for different product classes based on 

these criteria. 

1. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

proposed to establish product classes for 

GSFL based on the following three 

attributes that have differential utility 

and affect efficacy: (1) Physical 

constraints of lamps (i.e., lamp shape 

and length); (2) lumen package (i.e., 

standard versus high output); and (3) 

correlated color temperature. 73 FR 

13620, 13636 (March 13, 2008). The 

following sections summarize and 

address comments DOE received in 

response to the GSFL product classes it 

considered for the March 2008 ANOPR. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16937 

DOE received comments related to 

product classes on three major topics: 

T12 and T8 lamps, T5 lamps, and 

correlated color temperature. 

a. T12 and T8 Lamps 

The physical constraints of the lamp 

relate to the shape of the lamp (e.g., Ushaped versus linear) and the fact that 

these lamps could not be substitutes for 

each other, unless the entire fixture is 

changed. The lamp shapes provide 

unique utility because the shapes of 

these lamps prevent them from being 

used as replacements, even with a 

ballast replacement, in a given fixture. 

However, the shape and geometry of a 

lamp also impact its efficacy. In the 

March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

acknowledged that a lamp’s diameter 

can affect its efficacy. However, because 

the utility provided to the end-user is a 

function of the light output in lumens 

(which is comparable between T12 and 

T8 lamps) and not diameter of the bulb, 

DOE decided not to establish separate 

product classes for T12 and T8 lamps. 

At the public meeting and in its 

written comments, NEMA stated that 

separate product classes might be 

necessary for T8 and T12 lamps. Both 

NEMA and General Electric (GE) noted 

that DOE used the 10-percent efficacy 

differential between 8-foot slimline and 

8-foot high output lamps as one reason 

for establishing their separate product 

classes. They reasoned that because T8 

lamps are at least 10 percent more 

efficient that T12 lamps, DOE should 

also split T8 and T12 lamps into 

separate classes. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21 at pp. 82–86; NEMA, 

No. 22 at p. 5) GE emphasized that 

because T8 and T12 lamps require 

different ballasts and because a growing 

number of new T8 fixtures will not fit 

T12 lamps, the two are not always 

suitable replacements and should 

therefore have separate product classes. 

GE also expressed concern that it would 

be impossible to set a single efficacy 

standard using a lumen-per-watt metric 

that would be suitable for both T8 and 

T12 lamps. (Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 21 at pp. 88–89) 

Conversely, the Joint Comment 

strongly supported combining T8 and 

T12 lamps under one product class 

because the lamps are the same length, 

use the same lamp holders, and provide 

the same utility (as measured by lumen 

package). At the public meeting, ACEEE 

emphasized that the two lamps compete 

directly in the marketplace because of 

their similar performance features. 

ACEEE also expressed concern that 

setting product classes based on efficacy 

could lead to separate standards for any 

inefficient product. (ACEEE, No. 22 at p. 

91) The Joint Comment also stated that 

the fact that the two lamps use different 

ballasts is an economic issue, not a 

utility issue. The Joint Comment noted 

that large energy savings would be lost 

if DOE used separate classes because 

consumers would not migrate to the 

more efficient T8 lamps—a factor DOE 

must consider, given its obligation to set 

standards at the ‘‘maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency’’ that 

is ‘‘technologically feasible and 

economically justified.’’ (Joint 

Comment, No. 23 at pp. 4–5) 

DOE research shows that T8 lamps are 

commonly used to replace T12 lamps; 

this implies that, in this case, lamp 

diameter does not significantly affect 

lamp utility. It also illustrates that the 

lamps share performance features and 

compete directly in the market. While 

DOE recognizes that lamp diameter can 

affect efficacy, lamp efficacy alone is not 

a criterion DOE uses to establish 

product classes; to warrant a separate 

product class, a unique utility feature 

must be present. As DOE has not 

identified a unique utility feature of T12 

lamps, DOE has decided to combine 

both T8 and T12 lamps into one product 

class for each lamp type. However, in 

response to GE’s comment, DOE 

recognizes that T8 and T12 lamps 

usually operate on different ballasts. 

Thus, DOE has structured its analytical 

tools to consider the impact of standards 

on consumers of both lamp types. That 

is, DOE takes the economics of 

purchasing another ballast into account 

in its LCC and NIA analyses. 

b. T5 Lamps 

The Joint Comment stated that T5 

lamps (in this rulemaking, referred to as 

4-foot miniature bipin lamps) should 

probably be in the same product class as 

T8 and T12 lamps because they compete 

against them in the market. The 

advocates noted the existence of 

retrofitting kits for installing T5 lamps 

into T8 and T12 fixtures, but 

acknowledged T5 lamps require 

different lamp holders and are ‘‘too 

bright to use in direct lighting fixtures.’’ 

The Joint Comment asked DOE to 

research the pros and cons of including 

T5 lamps with T8 and T12 lamps. (Joint 

Comment, No. 23 at p. 5) 

Based on its research and 

consideration of the above comments, 

DOE has decided to establish a separate 

product class for 4-foot miniature bipin 

lamps because their physical constraints 

prevent them from being used as direct 

replacements for T8 and T12 lamps in 

many applications. For example, 

applications in which consumers cannot 

change the lamp fixture (from a 4-foot 

MBP to a 4-foot MiniBP) may not be 

appropriate for retrofitting to the 4-foot 

MiniBP system type. As the Joint 

Comment noted, these lamps require 

different lamp holders (due to 

differences in length and base type), and 

thereby qualify for a separate product 

class under the previously established 

‘‘physical constraints of lamps’’ classsetting criteria. 

In addition, a lamp’s lumen package 

may result in certain application 

constraints. Because 4-foot T5 MiniBP 

lamps have similar total lumen output 

as 4-foot T8 and T12 MBP lamps over 

a significantly smaller surface area, T5 

lamps are often marketed as too bright 

for use in direct lighting fixtures. If 4- 

foot T5 MiniBP lamps were regulated in 

the same product class as 4-foot MBP 

lamps, the standard could effectively 

mandate the use of T5 lamps. To 

prevent eliminating lamps appropriate 

for direct lighting applications, DOE 

believes that 4-foot miniature bipin 

lamps (T5 lamps) warrant a separate 

product class from 4-foot medium bipin 

lamps (primarily T8 and T12 lamps). 

In researching these lamp types, DOE 

found that the high output lamp is rated 

to emit more than one and a half times 

the number of lumens as the standard 

output lamp, also potentially affecting 

utility. In general, lamps that have high 

lumen output may be installed in 

certain high-ceiling or outdoor 

installations, where large quantities of 

light are needed. Lamps that have 

standard levels of light output might be 

installed in lower-ceiling installations 

such as offices or hospitals, where 

distance between the light source and 

the illuminated surfaces is not as large. 

DOE also found that this significant 

lumen output differential in standard 

output and high output T5 lamps is 

accompanied by an efficacy difference. 

Considering the differences in utility 

(light output and their applicability in 

direct lighting fixtures) and efficacy, 

and consistent with DOE’s approach in 

the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE is 

proposing separate product classes for 

standard output 4-foot miniature bipin 

lamps and high output 4-foot miniature 

bipin lamps. 

c. Correlated Color Temperature 

Correlated color temperature is a 

measure of the perceived color of the 

white light emitted from a lamp, which 

DOE believes affects lamp utility. 

Generally, as CCT increases, efficacy of 

the bulb decreases. The measured 

efficacy of lamps with different CCT is 

different because efficacy is measured in 

lumens per watt, and light emitted 

across the visible spectrum is not given 

equal weighting under this metric. 

Lumens are determined using the 

16938 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

19 DOE has conducted several studies on SEL 

examining whether a significant amount of energy 

can be saved by using lamps that have less light 

output, but higher CCT. Lamps with higher CCT 

appear brighter than those with lower CCT, so the 

actual light output of higher-CCT lamps can be 

decreased, while maintaining equivalent perceived 

brightness and visual acuity. More information on 

spectrally enhanced lighting is available at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

spectrally_enhanced.html. 

20 ‘‘Full Spectrum Q&A,’’ National Lighting 

Product Information Program, Vol. 7 Issue 5 (March 

2005). Available at: http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/ 

programs/nlpip/lightingAnswers/fullSpectrum. 

human eye’s sensitivity function, and 

due to the fact that the human eye is less 

responsive to blue light, those 

fluorescent lamps that shift their 

spectral emission profiles to contain 

more blue light will have lower 

efficacies. In the March 2008 ANOPR, 

DOE established two product classes for 

GSFL based on CCT: one for high-colortemperature lamps greater than 4,500K, 

and another for lamps less than 4,500K. 

At the public meeting and in its 

written comments, NEMA agreed with 

DOE’s decision to establish two product 

classes based on CCT. However, at the 

public meeting NEMA noted additional 

divisions may be necessary at higher 

CCT levels because these lamps—NEMA 

specifically noted an 8,000K lamp—are 

capturing an increasing market share of 

general service applications. (Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 21 at pp. 95–97) 

Industrial Ecology stated that lamps 

around 6,500K, which were once 

reserved for specialty applications, are 

increasingly being used in general 

service applications. Industrial Ecology 

argued that such a trend supports the 

idea of another product class above the 

4,500K division. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21 at pp. 97–98). 

At the June 2008 NEMA meeting and 

in a written comment, NEMA 

commented that growth in higher CCT 

lamps would likely come at the 5,000K 

level, although they would remain a 

relatively small portion of the general 

service market for the foreseeable future. 

Lamps with CCTs greater than 7,000K 

represent a very small portion of the 

general service market because most 

consumers consider their light to be too 

blue. Given the small market for lamps 

above 7,000K, NEMA stated it had very 

little practical production data related to 

efficacies and costs. Therefore, NEMA 

argued, lamps above 7,000K should be 

exempt from standards, especially 

considering that the current energy 

savings potential from their coverage is 

very small and unlikely to grow anytime 

soon. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 3–4) 

NEMA also commented that an 

equation using a continuous function 

(without discontinuities) is 

inappropriate when developing an 

efficacy standard for GSFL based on 

CCT. According to NEMA, practical 

lamp designs used to develop higher 

CCT lamps—such as phosphor design, 

weight and coating formulation, and 

coating adherence—do not provide for a 

general physical equation that yields an 

optimum lumens-per-watt standard. 

Instead, NEMA stated that successive 

step function factors need to be applied 

as CCT continues to increase. (NEMA, 

No. 26 at p. 5) The Joint Comment said 

that DOE should design CCT product 

class divisions carefully to prevent 

‘‘gaming.’’ The advocates preferred a 

continuous function to multiple product 

class divisions because the latter would 

encourage products to migrate to the 

lowest CCT value in each product class. 

If a continuous function were not 

possible, the Joint Comment strongly 

recommended raising the 4,500K 

division to 4,900K. Additionally, the 

Joint Comment stated, if DOE does set 

a product class aimed at regulating the 

8,000K lamps, the boundary should be 

approximately 7,900K. (Joint Comment, 

No. 23 at pp. 5–6) 

As noted above, DOE believes CCT 

affects consumer utility. For example, a 

lighting designer would likely consider 

the bluish color of higher color 

temperature lamps when specifying a 

luminaire for a particular application. In 

addition, as NEMA stated, higher CCT 

lamps are sometimes used for 

spectrally-enhanced lighting (SEL).19

Advocates of spectrally-enhanced 

lighting believe that lamps with a higher 

CCT can help save energy and may also 

have health benefits. (NEMA, No. 26 at 

pp. 2–3) However, DOE notes that 

although spectrally-enhanced lighting 

has benefits, higher CCT lamps do emit 

a different color light that may not be 

appropriate for all applications. Given 

the effect on utility and the fact that 

lamp efficacy usually decreases with 

higher color temperatures, it is 

appropriate to establish different 

product classes based on CCT. 

DOE agrees that a continuous function 

is not possible because increasing the 

CCT does not lead to proportional 

reductions in lumens per watt. This 

occurs because design factors that do 

not have a linear relationship with 

lumens per watt, such as rare earth 

phosphor mix and reformulation, must 

be employed to maintain efficacy, 

particularly as CCT increases. 

DOE disagrees that a 4,900K division 

should be used rather than the proposed 

4,500K division. If DOE were to use a 

4,900K division and manufacturers 

introduced a 4,850K lamp to the market, 

it would be subject to standards based 

on the performance of a 4,100k lamp, 

which might be difficult to meet, as 

4,100K lamps are generally more 

efficacious than their higher CCT 

counterparts. Likewise, if DOE used a 

4,200K division and manufacturers 

developed a 4,300K lamp for 

commercial use, it would be subject to 

potentially lower standards based on the 

performance of a 5,000k lamp. This may 

result in a significant loss in potential 

energy savings. Instead, DOE proposes 

to use a 4,500K division, which 

effectively represents the midpoint 

between the most common 

commercially available ‘‘warmer’’ and 

‘‘cooler’’ lamps at 4,100K and 5,000K, 

respectively. By establishing the 

product class division at the midpoint, 

DOE ensures that it is establishing a 

structure that will not subject lamps to 

inappropriately high standards and also 

not result in the loss of potential energy 

savings. 

DOE also disagrees with the Joint 

Comment’s argument for a third product 

class division around 7,900K aimed at 

8,000K lamps. As discussed in section 

III.C.2, DOE is amending its definition 

of ‘‘colored fluorescent lamp,’’ such that 

these lamps above 7,000K would be 

excluded from coverage by energy 

conservation standards. In consideration 

of this exclusion, DOE feels that is 

unnecessary to establish a third product 

class for lamps with a CCT greater than 

7,900K. 

2. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

considered product classes for IRL 

based on the standard-spectrum and 

modified-spectrum of the lamp. DOE 

received numerous comments regarding 

establishing separate product classes 

for: (1) Modified-spectrum lamps; (2) 

long-life lamps; (3) lamp diameter; and 

(4) voltage. The following sections 

summarize and address these 

comments. 

a. Modified-Spectrum Lamps 

Modified-spectrum lamps provide a 

unique performance-related feature to 

consumers, in that they offer a different 

spectrum of light from the typical 

incandescent lamp, much like two 

fluorescent lamps with different CCT 

values. These lamps offer the same 

benefits as fluorescent lamps with 

‘‘cooler’’ CCTs, in that they may ensure 

better color discrimination and often 

appear more similar to natural daylight, 

possibly resulting in psychological 

benefits.20 In addition to providing a 

unique performance feature, DOE also 

understands that the technologies that 

modify the spectral emission from these 

lamps also decrease their efficacy 

because a portion of the light emission 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16939 

is absorbed by the coating. NEMA and 

GE supported establishing separate 

product classes for modified-spectrum 

lamps. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

21 at p. 105; NEMA, No. 22 at p. 6). 

However, the Joint Comment stated 

that separate product classes are 

unnecessary because modified-spectrum 

products which meet all efficacy levels 

DOE considered in the ANOPR already 

exist in the market place. The Joint 

Comment further argued that additive 

methods, used for some non-IRL 

technologies, boost particular visible 

wavelengths of light to achieve a 

modified spectrum. These methods 

represent a more efficient way to 

achieve a modified spectrum than 

subtractive methods commonly used for 

IRL, which filter particular visible 

wavelengths of light. Therefore, 

according to the Joint Comment, 

establishing a separate product class 

could reduce energy savings because 

modified-spectrum technology would be 

subject to a needlessly lower standard. 

The Joint Comment contended that such 

a situation would run counter to the 

rulemaking’s goals. (Joint Comment, No. 

23 at pp. 14–15) At the public meeting, 

ACEEE and PG&E questioned whether 

consumers receive additional utility 

from modified-spectrum lamps, and, if 

they do, whether it is sufficient to 

warrant a separate product class. ACEEE 

and PG&E suggested DOE analyze the 

energy savings that could be lost with a 

separate product class. PG&E further 

noted that consumers could obtain any 

additional utility that modifiedspectrum lamps provide from other 

available light sources. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21 at pp. 101–103) PG&E 

commented that modified-spectrum 

lamps occupy significant retail shelf 

space, which suggests they have a 

significant market share, and therefore, 

present a significant energy savings 

opportunity. (Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 21 at p. 104) 

DOE maintains that modifiedspectrum lamps provide a unique 

performance-related feature (a different 

spectrum of light from the typical 

incandescent lamp) that standard 

spectrum lamps do not provide. 

However, the coatings used for 

modified-spectrum IRL absorb light 

output, thus reducing the lamps’ 

efficacies. Given the reduction in 

efficacy, DOE believes that some 

modified-spectrum lamps may not be 

able to meet standards if subjected to 

the same levels as standard-spectrum 

lamps. That, in turn, could cause the 

unavailability of such products, thereby 

eliminating this performance-related 

feature from the IRL market. DOE notes 

that the statute directs DOE to maintain 

performance-related features for a 

covered product type. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(4)) 

Regarding the Joint Comment’s 

argument that higher-efficiency, 

additive technologies may be 

substituted for subtractive technologies 

currently used in modified-spectrum 

IRL lamps, DOE is unaware of any 

commercially-available IRL or working 

IRL prototype that employs these 

additive technologies. Although 

modified-spectrum LED products may 

be available, because DOE has 

determined that modified-spectrum 

lamps provide a unique performancerelated feature, it is unable to subject 

them to standards that would result in 

the elimination of such IRL products 

from the market. Thus, DOE believes it 

is appropriate to establish a separate 

product class for modified-spectrum 

lamps based on their unique 

performance feature and the impact of 

this performance feature on product 

efficacy. 

b. Long-Life Lamps 

DOE received several comments 

regarding IRL with long lifetimes. At the 

public meeting, NEMA commented that 

lamp life is a top consideration for the 

lighting industry’s customers, 

particularly large retailers. NEMA stated 

in its written comments that the current 

long-life lamps on the market might be 

jeopardized by the proposed standard 

levels, which could cause 

manufacturers to reduce lamp life to 

increase efficacy—a scenario not 

necessarily in the market’s interest. 

(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 21 at 

pp. 177–178; NEMA, No. 22 at p. 17) 

Although NEMA did not explicitly 

request a separate product class, the 

Joint Comment argued that DOE should 

not establish a separate product class for 

long-life lamps, noting that other 

existing lamp types, including halogen 

infrared reflector lamps and CFLs, could 

adequately serve long-life applications. 

In support of their position, the 

advocates stated further that Congress 

did not establish a separate class for 

‘‘long life’’ general service incandescent 

lamps. (Joint Comment, No. 23 at p. 15) 

DOE considers lifetime an economic 

issue rather than a utility issue, and 

accounts for lifetime in its LCC and NPV 

calculations. Lifetime is not considered 

a utility issue because it does not 

change the light output of the lamp. As 

such, DOE did not establish a separate 

product class based on lamp lifetime. 

For more details, see the engineering 

analysis in section V.C.4.b and chapter 

5 of the TSD. 

c. Lamp Diameter 

In its written comments, NEMA noted 

that smaller diameter lamps— 

specifically, PAR20 lamps—are 

inherently less efficient than larger 

diameter IRL. Manufacturing PAR20 

lamps to be compliant with the same 

efficacy standards as larger lamps would 

be very difficult. NEMA also 

commented that the technology options 

available to larger lamps are not 

necessarily applicable to PAR20 lamps. 

For example, the most efficient doubleended infrared halogen burner is 

difficult to use in PAR20 lamps because 

of mounting considerations. (NEMA, 

No. 22 at p. 17) 

In response, DOE believes that the IRL 

diameter provides a distinct utility to 

the consumer (such as the ability of 

reduced diameter lamps to be installed 

in smaller fixtures) and recognizes that 

efficacy declines with a smaller lamp 

diameter. A smaller diameter lamp has 

an inherently lower optical efficiency 

than a larger diameter lamp given a 

similar filament size. Therefore, DOE is 

proposing to establish separate product 

classes for lamps with a diameter of 2.5 

inches or less and lamps with a 

diameter greater than 2.5 inches. 

d. Voltage 

In its written comments, NEMA 

mentioned that DOE’s proposed product 

classes and standards do not address 

how the market actually uses 130 volt 

(V) lamps, which represent a sizable 

portion of standard halogen product 

sales. NEMA stated that customers 

almost always operate these 130V lamps 

at 120V (normal line voltage), which 

doubles their lifetime but reduces their 

efficacy below standard levels. (NEMA, 

No. 22 at p. 16) 

DOE agrees with NEMA and is 

concerned that the operation of 130V 

lamps at 120V has the potential to 

significantly affect energy savings. 

When operated under 120V conditions, 

lamps rated at 130V in compliance with 

existing IRL efficacy standards are 

generally less efficacious than lamps 

using equivalent technology rated at 

120V. Because of this inherent 

difference in efficacy, it may be less 

costly to manufacture a lamp rated at 

130V and tested at 130V that complies 

with a standard than a similar 120V 

lamp complying with the same 

standard. For example, if DOE were to 

adopt a minimum efficacy requirement 

that would effectively require HIR 

technology for 120V lamps, due to 

differences in the test procedures for 

lamps rated at 130V, a 130V lamp may 

only need to employ an improved 

halogen technology, which would be 

16940 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

21 ‘‘Quantum efficiency,’’ in this context, is used 

to quantify the percentage of ultraviolet photons 

absorbed by the phosphor that are then reemitted 

as visible photons. 

less costly. If DOE does not establish a 

separate standard for lamps rated at 

130V, more consumers may purchase 

130V lamps because they are less 

expensive. When consumers operate 

these lamps at 120V, in order to obtain 

sufficient light output, they may use 

more energy than standards-compliant 

120V lamps. This practice would 

increase energy consumption and result 

in lamps operating with a lower efficacy 

than any cost-justified standard level. 

Therefore, to preserve the energy 

savings intended by these standards, 

DOE is proposing to establish two 

separate product classes: (1) Lamps with 

a rated voltage less than 125V, and (2) 

lamps with a rated voltage greater than 

or equal to 125V. 

DOE recognizes that there are other 

possible approaches for addressing this 

issue of the operational efficacy of 130V 

lamps. One alternative approach would 

be that DOE could require all IRL to be 

tested at 120V, the most common 

application voltage in the market. DOE 

requests comment on this issue. 

B. Screening Analysis 

DOE uses the following four screening 

criteria to determine which design 

options are unsuitable for further 

consideration in the rulemaking: 

(1) Technological Feasibility. DOE 

will consider technologies incorporated 

in commercial products or in working 

prototypes to be technologically 

feasible. 

(2) Practicability to Manufacture, 

Install, and Service. If mass production 

and reliable installation and servicing of 

a technology in commercial products 

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. 

(3) Adverse Impacts on Product Utility 

or Product Availability. If DOE 

determines a technology would have 

significant adverse impact on the utility 

of the product to significant subgroups 

of consumers, or would 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 consider this 

technology further. 

(4) Adverse Impacts on Health or 

Safety. If DOE determines that a 

technology will have significant adverse 

impacts on health or safety, it will not 

consider this technology further. 

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 

(4)(a)(4) and (5)(b). 

Considering these criteria, DOE 

compiled a list of design options in the 

March 2008 ANOPR that could be used 

to increase the efficacy of GSFL and IRL 

lamps (Table V.1). 73 FR 13620, 13644 

(March 13, 2008). 

TABLE V.1—GSFL AND IRL DESIGN OPTIONS

GSFL design options IRL design options 

Highly emissive electrode coatings Higher temperature operation. 

Higher efficiency lamp fill gas composition Thinner filaments. 

Higher efficiency phosphors Efficient filament coiling. 

Glass coatings Efficient filament orientation. 

Higher efficiency lamp diameter Higher efficiency inert fill gas. 

Tungsten-halogen lamps. 

Higher pressure tungsten-halogen lamps. 

Infrared glass coatings. 

Higher efficiency reflector coatings. 

Efficient filament placement. 

DOE received a number of comments 

in response to its list of proposed design 

options, as discussed below. 

1. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

NEMA generally agreed with the list 

of design options, but mentioned that 

for GSFL, further efficacy improvement 

will likely come from improved system 

(lamp-ballast-luminaire) combinations, 

and urged DOE to aim in future 

rulemakings to improve overall systems. 

(NEMA, No. 22 at p. 9; Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21 at pp. 108–109) 

DOE understands that the fluorescent 

lamp is only one part of a fluorescent 

lamp system, which also includes 

ballasts and fixtures. However, DOE 

does not have the authority to regulate 

a fluorescent lamp system. EPCA 

prescribes energy conservation 

standards for certain GSFL (42 U.S.C. 

6295(i)(1)(B)) and fluorescent lamp 

ballasts. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(7)) EPCA 

does not contain any standards for 

fluorescent lamp systems. Since EPCA 

directs DOE to amend only the existing 

standards for GSFL and fluorescent 

lamp ballasts, DOE has concluded that 

it does not have the authority to set 

energy conservation standards for 

fluorescent lamp systems. DOE believes 

other approaches, such as building 

codes, are more appropriate for 

regulating a fluorescent lamp system. 

a. Higher-Efficiency Lamp Fill Gas 

Composition 

NEMA commented that fill gas mixes 

are already in use in both T12 and T8 

reduced-wattage energy savings lamps. 

NEMA stated that lamps could be 

manufactured using even higher 

efficiency fill gas compositions; 

however, the actual achieved lumen 

levels may be unacceptable to the 

market. NEMA also commented that 

most manufacturers identify several 

application-limiting issues for both T8 

and T12 reduced-wattage energy saving 

lamps. (NEMA, No. 22 at pp. 7, 11–12) 

DOE agrees that using fill gas 

composition in reduced-wattage lamps 

can lead to lamps with limited utility. 

For example, when marketed, many 

reduced wattage lamps are not 

recommended to be used under low 

lamp ambient temperatures or in drafty 

locations and on dimming ballasts. 

These situations could result in lamp 

starting or stabilization problems, 

striation (alternating light and dark 

bands), pulsing or a reduction in light 

output. Therefore, although DOE 

incorporates reduced-wattage lamps 

into the LCC and NIA (as they are viable 

and likely choices for most GSFL 

applications), DOE does not consider 

any efficacy level that would force 

consumers to purchase these lamps. See 

section V.C.4.a for details. 

b. Higher-Efficiency Phosphors 

NEMA commented that rare earth 

phosphors are already at nearly 100 

percent quantum efficiency.21 While 

slight improvements in efficacy are 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16941 

possible with a thicker phosphor 

coating, NEMA argued that using this 

option will disproportionately increase 

lamp costs vis-a`-vis the performance 

improvement. NEMA stated that the 

opportunities for performance 

improvement using phosphors ‘‘lie in 

tailoring phosphor blends and color 

temperatures to optimize appropriate 

light sources for specific applications.’’ 

(NEMA, No. 22 at p. 7) 

While DOE agrees that thicker 

phosphor coats may increase cost, DOE 

does not consider increased costs in the 

screening analysis. DOE considers 

potential cost increases in its economic 

analyses. In addition, many higherefficiency GSFL incorporate varying 

thicknesses of rare earth phosphors, or 

blends of halophosphors and rare earth 

phosphors. These lamps, more 

efficacious than their pure 

halophosphor counterparts, show that 

using higher-efficiency phosphors is a 

valid design option that meets all of the 

screening criteria. Therefore, DOE 

believes there is room for significant 

efficacy improvement potential with 

this design option and, thus, continued 

to carry it forward in its analyses. 

c. Glass Coating 

NEMA commented that higherefficiency lamps already use glass 

coatings. NEMA also stated that while 

opportunities exist to improve this 

technology, manufacturers need to 

balance costs and performance. (NEMA, 

No. 22 at p. 7) DOE recognizes that costs 

may increase with this technology 

option, but as stated earlier, DOE does 

not consider the impacts of cost in its 

screening analysis. Therefore, DOE has 

included glass coatings as a design 

option for GSFL, where prototypes or 

commercially-available products exist. 

d. Lamp Diameter 

NEMA commented that lamp 

diameter is already used to optimize 

luminaire optics and system efficacy, 

but not to improve lamp efficacy. 

According to NEMA, further 

improvements in performance can come 

from new luminaire designs based on 

different diameter lamps, but will be 

limited by lumen packages and the 

distance between the light source and 

the luminaire surfaces. (NEMA, No. 22 

at p. 7) 

In response to this comment, DOE 

only considered lamp diameter as a 

design option in the migration from T12 

to T8 lamps. DOE’s research indicates 

that T8 lamps are common replacements 

for T12 lamps. Although the total lumen 

output of T8 lamps is often lower than 

that of T12 lamps, these differences in 

lumen outputs (on the order of 10 

percent) do not seem to be significant 

enough to affect consumer utility. 

Conversely, although the total lumen 

output of 4-foot T5 MiniBP lamps can 

be similar to 4-foot T8 MBP and 4-foot 

T12 MBP lamps, the lumen output is 

emitted from a more concentrated light 

source. DOE’s research indicates that T5 

lamps’ higher light concentrations (and 

therefore brightness) may require greater 

distances between the light source and 

illuminated surfaces. Due to this 

limitation in utility, DOE did not 

consider migration to a lamp diameter 

associated with T5 lamps to be a design 

option to improve the efficacy of T8 and 

T12 lamps. 

e. Multi-Photon Phosphors 

NEMA commented that although 

commercial multi-photon phosphors are 

theoretically possible, they have yet to 

be developed, despite 30 to 40 years of 

research. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 7) As 

explained in chapter 3 of the TSD, 

because multi-photon phosphors emit 

more than one visible photon for each 

incident ultraviolet photon, a lamp 

would be able to emit more light for the 

same amount of power, thereby 

increasing efficacy. DOE agrees that this 

technology is not sufficiently mature as 

to warrant further analysis, so DOE has 

screened out this technology option in 

the March 2008 ANOPR. 

2. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

NEMA does not believe that xenon, a 

higher-efficiency inert fill gas, should be 

considered a design option because 

there is a limited supply of this gas and 

prices are increasing rapidly. (NEMA, 

No. 22 at p. 8; Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21 at pp. 108–109) 

Although price is not considered in 

the screening criteria, DOE did conduct 

an in-depth market assessment of the 

supply of xenon, and the potential 

impact of xenon supply limitations on 

IRL standard levels. DOE determined 

that although xenon is a rare gas, its 

supply is sufficiently large to 

incorporate into all IRL and that the 

xenon supply would not affect IRL 

product availability. A more detailed 

analysis of xenon and its availability 

can be found in appendix 3B of the 

TSD. 

C. Engineering Analysis 

For each product class, the 

engineering analysis identifies potential, 

increasing efficacy levels above the level 

of the baseline model. Those 

technologies not eliminated in the 

screening analysis (design options) are 

inputs to this process. Design options 

consist of discrete technologies (e.g., 

infrared reflective coatings, rare-earth 

phosphor mixes). As detailed in the 

March 2008 ANOPR, to ensure that 

efficacy levels analyzed are 

technologically feasible, DOE 

concentrated its efforts on developing 

product efficacy levels associated with 

‘‘lamp designs,’’ based upon 

commercially-available lamps that 

incorporate a range of design options in 

the engineering analysis. 73 FR 13620, 

13645 (March 13, 2008). However, when 

necessary, DOE supplemented 

commercially available product 

information with an examination of the 

improved performance attributable to 

discrete technologies so that a substitute 

lamp at each efficacy level would be 

available for each baseline lamp. 

In energy conservation standard 

rulemakings for other products, DOE 

often develops cost-efficiency 

relationships in the engineering 

analysis. However, for this lamps 

rulemaking, DOE derived efficacy levels 

in the engineering analysis and end-user 

prices in the product price 

determination. By combining the results 

of the engineering analysis and the 

product price determination, DOE 

derived typical inputs for use in the 

LCC and NIA. See the chapter 7 of the 

TSD for further details on the product 

price determination. 

1. Approach 

For the NOPR, DOE is using the same 

methodology for the engineering 

analysis that was detailed in the March 

2008 ANOPR. 73 FR 13620, 13645–46 

(March 13, 2008). The following is a 

summary of the steps taken in the 

engineering analysis: 

• Step 1: Select Representative Product 

Classes 

• Step 2: Select Baseline Lamps 

• Step 3: Identify Lamp or Lamp-andBallast Designs 

• Step 4: Develop Efficiency Levels. 

A more detailed discussion of the 

methodology DOE followed to perform 

the engineering analysis can be found in 

the engineering analysis chapter of the 

TSD (chapter 5). 

2. Representative Product Classes 

As discussed in section 0 of this 

notice, DOE proposes establishing 

several product classes for GSFL and 

IRL. DOE proposes eight product classes 

across the range of covered GSFL based 

on utility and performance features, 

such as: (1) Physical constraints of 

lamps (i.e., lamp shape and length); (2) 

lumen package (i.e., standard versus 

high output); and (3) correlated color 

temperature. For IRL, DOE proposes 

eight product classes based on 

spectrum, lamp diameter, and rated 

16942 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

22 ‘‘Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) 

Initiative for PY2008: Title 20 Standards 

Development,’’ Analysis of Standards Options for 

Linear Fluorescent Fixtures (Prepared for PG&E by 

ACEEE, Lighting Wizards, and Energy Solutions). 

(Last modified May 14, 2008) Available at: http:// 

www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/2008rulemaking/

documents/2008-05-15_workshop/other/

PGE_CASE_Study_-_Linear_Fluorescent_

Fixtures.pdf. 

voltage. As detailed in the March 2008 

ANOPR, due to scheduling and resource 

constraints, DOE was not able to analyze 

each and every product class. 73 FR 

13620, 13646 (March 13, 2008). Instead, 

DOE carefully selected certain product 

classes to analyze, and then scaled its 

analytical findings for those 

representative product classes to other 

product classes that were not analyzed. 

73 FR 13620, 13652 (March 13, 2008). 

While DOE received several stakeholder 

comments regarding methods of scaling 

to product classes not analyzed 

(discussed in section V.C.7), DOE did 

not receive objections to the decision to 

scale to certain product classes and the 

representative product classes chosen in 

the March 2008 ANOPR. 

For the NOPR, similar to its approach 

in the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

continued to analyze 4-foot medium 

bipin, 8-foot single pin slimline, and 8- 

foot recessed double-contact high 

output GSFL product classes with CCTs 

less than or equal to 4,500K. DOE did 

not explicitly analyze U-shaped lamps, 

but instead scaled the results of the 4- 

foot medium bipin class analysis. In 

addition, DOE has decided to analyze 4- 

foot T5 miniature bipin standard output 

lamps and 4-foot T5 miniature bipin 

high output lamps with CCTs less than 

or equal to 4,500K as representative 

product classes. 

As discussed in section A.2, DOE 

chose to subdivide IRL into eight 

product classes with three subdivisions: 

(1) High versus low voltage; (2) large 

versus small diameter lamps; and (3) 

modified spectrum versus standard 

spectrum. As detailed in the March 

2008 ANOPR, DOE chose to analyze the 

standard-spectrum incandescent 

reflector product class because 

standard-spectrum lamps are more 

common than modified-spectrum 

lamps. 73 FR 13620, 13648 (March 13, 

2008). After analyzing catalog data and 

talking to industry experts, DOE found 

that lamps with a diameter greater than 

2.5 inches are more common than lamps 

of smaller diameters. Lamps with 

voltage ratings less than 125V also are 

more common than lamps with higher 

voltage ratings. Therefore, for the NOPR, 

DOE proposes to analyze the product 

class characterized by standard 

spectrum, voltage less than 125V, and 

diameter greater than 2.5 inches. For 

further information on representative 

product classes, see chapter 5 of the 

TSD. 

3. Baseline Lamps and Systems 

Once DOE identified the 

representative product classes for 

analysis, DOE selected the 

representative units for analysis (i.e., 

baseline lamps) from within each 

product class. These representative 

units are generally what DOE believes to 

be the most common, least efficacious 

lamps in their respective product 

classes. DOE chose multiple baseline 

lamps because DOE found that the 

market for each product class is 

segmented into multiple submarkets for 

lamps with slightly different consumer 

utilities. For example, the 40W T12, 

34W T12, and 32W T8 lamps are the 

most common lamps in the commercial 

four-foot medium bipin product class. 

The 34W T12 is a reduced wattage lamp 

that is not as versatile as the 40W T12, 

however, and consumers switching from 

a T12 to a T8 lamp must purchase a new 

ballast. Thus, these lamps are not 

entirely substitutable, so DOE has 

chosen to analyze them as separate 

baselines. DOE’s selection of baseline 

lamps is discussed in further detail 

below. 

a. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

As described in the March 2008 

ANOPR, DOE took a systems approach 

to its GSFL analysis. 73 FR 13620, 

13649 (March 13, 2008). In this 

approach, DOE selected typical ballasts 

(which provide current to the lamps) to 

pair with each baseline lamp and 

higher-efficacy lamp. Though DOE did 

not consider the ballast as directly 

affecting lamp efficacy, the ballast 

selection does affect the overall system 

efficacy (system input power and total 

lumen output), thereby having a 

significant impact on LCC and NIA 

results. For this reason, DOE considered 

a variety of ballast types (e.g., electronic 

and magnetic) and ballast factors in its 

analysis. 

In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

chose three baseline lamps for 4-foot 

medium bipins less than or equal to 

4,500K (installed on T8 electronic and 

T12 magnetic ballasts), three baseline 

lamps for 8-foot single pin slimlines less 

than or equal to 4,500K (installed on T8 

electronic and T12 magnetic ballasts), 

and two baseline lamps for 8-foot 

recessed double-contact HOs less than 

or equal to 4,500K (installed on T8 

magnetic and T12 magnetic ballasts). 73 

FR 13620, 13647 (March 13, 2008). DOE 

did not receive any comments on 

baseline lamps for the commercial and 

industrial sectors and thus has retained 

all baseline lamps from the March 2008 

ANOPR. However, as discussed below, 

DOE did receive comments regarding 

additional sectors to analyze and the 

ballast selected to pair with the 8-foot 

RDC HO baseline lamps. In addition, 

DOE developed baseline lamp-andballast systems for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP 

SO and HO product classes. 

Regarding GSFL operating in the 

residential sector, several stakeholders 

commented that residential T12 ballasts 

will continue to be sold past 2009 and 

that the residential applications of these 

ballasts represent a large portion of the 

remaining market for these lamps. 

(NEMA, No. 22 at pp. 20, 25; Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 21 at pp. 276– 

277) PG&E stated that T12 lamps on 

magnetic ballasts continue to exist in 

the residential sector in California. 

(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 21 at p. 

279) The Joint Comment also stated that 

residential applications need to be 

factored into the analysis, but because 

the same lamps can be used in all 

sectors, a separate analysis is not 

needed for the residential sector. (Joint 

Comment, No. 23 at p. 10) 

In response, in this NOPR, DOE has 

analyzed GSFL in the residential sector. 

In interviews with manufacturers and 

by reviewing manufacturer product 

catalogs, DOE found that a significant 

portion of T12 4-foot medium bipin 

lamps operate in the residential sector. 

DOE is maintaining the same standards 

case lamps used in the commercial and 

industrial sectors for 4-foot medium 

bipins in the residential sector because, 

as the Joint Comment stated, the same 

lamps can be used in all sectors. 

However, DOE is choosing a separate 

baseline lamp for the residential 4-foot 

medium bipin analysis. Conversations 

with industry experts and a published 

study prepared for PG&E 22 have 

revealed that residential consumers are 

more likely to buy 40W T12 lamps 

because 32W T8 lamps and 34W T12 

lamps are less common. Therefore, in 

the residential sector, DOE is only 

analyzing the 40W T12 lamp as a 

baseline lamp. In addition, reviewing 

available catalog information, DOE has 

found that the most common 40W T12 

lamp sold in the residential sector is 

different from the 40W T12 baseline 

lamp presented in the March 2008 

ANOPR for the commercial and 

industrial sectors. 73 FR 13620, 13647 

(March 13, 2008). Therefore, in the 

NOPR, DOE has chosen a 40W T12 

baseline lamp for the residential sector 

that has a slightly lower efficacy (76.8 

lm/W) and shorter lifetime (15,000 

hours) than the typical 40W T12 lamp 

sold in the commercial sector. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16943 

23 Id. 

24U.S. Department of Energy—Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy Office of Building Research 

and Standards, Technical Support Document: 

Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer 

Products: Fluorescent Lamp Ballast Proposed Rule 

(Jan. 2000). Available at: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/residential/

gs_fluorescent_0100_r.html. 

After reviewing manufacturer 

literature and the study prepared for 

PG&E on fixtures in the residential 

sector,23 DOE found that the most 

common residential sector ballast is a 

low-power-factor 2-lamp magnetic T12 

system with a ballast factor of 0.68. 

Therefore, for the NOPR, DOE paired 

the baseline lamp with this ballast for 

the residential sector analysis. 

Because DOE has decided to cover 

and analyze 4-foot T5 miniature bipin 

standard output and 4-foot T5 miniature 

bipin high output lamps in this 

rulemaking (section 0 of this notice), 

DOE established baseline lamps for 

these two product classes. NEMA and 

the Joint Comment both stated that if 

DOE does not cover T5 lamps, then less 

efficient, halophosphor T5 lamps may 

enter the market place. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21 at pp. 71–72; Joint 

Comment, No. 23 at p. 3) Because these 

less efficient halophosphor T5 lamps are 

not on the market today, DOE developed 

model T5 halophosphor lamps in its 

engineering analysis. To create these 

model T5 lamps, DOE used efficacy data 

from short halophosphor fluorescent T5 

lamps currently available and 

developed a relationship between length 

and efficacy. DOE validated this 

relationship by comparing it to previous 

industry research. DOE then used this 

relationship to determine the efficacies 

of a halophosphor 4-foot T5 miniature 

bipin standard output lamp and a 

halophosphor 4-foot halophosphor T5 

miniature bipin HO lamps. Specifically, 

the baseline 4-foot miniature bipin 

standard output lamp is 28W with an 

efficacy of 86 lm/W and a lifetime of 

20,000 hours. The baseline 4-foot 

miniature bipin high output lamp is 

54W with an efficacy of 77 lm/W and a 

lifetime of 20,000 hours. DOE used 

these lamps as baseline lamps to 

establish the economic impacts of a 

standard that would eliminate such 

lamps. For more information about 

these and other baseline lamps, see 

chapter 5 and appendix 5B of the TSD. 

In its review of manufacturer 

literature, DOE found that a range of 

ballast factors are available for the 4-foot 

T5 product classes, and the most 

common ballast is a 2-lamp electronic 

ballast. DOE attempts to compare lampand-ballast systems with similar light 

output so that consumers switching to 

more efficient systems will be able to 

preserve lumen output. In order for the 

halophosphor baseline T5 lamps to 

produce light output similar to the 

standards-case T5 lamps, they must be 

paired with the highest ballast factor 

ballasts available on the market today. 

Therefore, in the NOPR, DOE is pairing 

its baseline 4-foot T5 SO miniature 

bipin lamp with a 1.15 ballast factor 

ballast, and its baseline 4-foot T5 

miniature bipin HO lamp with a 1.0 

ballast factor ballast. For further detail 

on the baseline lamps and ballasts 

selected for the 4-foot T5 product 

classes, see chapter 5 of the TSD. 

DOE proposed in the March 2008 

ANOPR that the most common ballast in 

use for the 8-foot T12 recessed doublecontact, high-output product class is an 

electronic rapid-start ballast. (March 

2008 ANOPR TSD chapter 5). Several 

stakeholders commented at the public 

meeting that the majority of 8-foot T12 

high-output ballasts installed today are 

magnetic. (Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 21 at pp. 124–125; Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21 at p. 126) NEMA and 

the Joint Comment also commented that 

magnetic T12 high-output ballasts are 

allowed under current regulations and, 

therefore, will continue to be sold past 

2009. (Joint Comment, No. 23 at p. 7; 

NEMA, No. 22 at p. 25) Because the 

majority of the installed base is 

magnetic, DOE is revising its baseline 

T12 high-output ballast to be magnetic 

for the life-cycle cost analysis. However, 

DOE recognizes that historical 

shipments from the 2000 rulemaking on 

GSFL ballasts (hereafter ‘‘2000 Ballast 

Rule’’) (62 FR 56740 (Sept. 19, 2000)) 

indicate that T12 electronic high-output 

ballasts are also increasingly being 

shipped.24 Therefore, in the national 

impacts analysis, DOE modeled the 

installed base on magnetic ballasts, and 

forecasted shipments of T12 high-output 

lamps operating on both electronic and 

magnetic ballasts in the national 

impacts analysis. For further detail 

regarding the revised baseline lamps 

and systems for the 8-foot RDC HO 

product class, see chapter 5 of the TSD. 

DOE reviewed the remaining baseline 

lamp-and-ballast systems discussed in 

the March 2008 ANOPR and believes 

they are still appropriate, as DOE 

received no comments concerning these 

systems. Therefore, DOE maintained the 

same number of lamps per system and 

ballasts discussed in the March 2008 

ANOPR for the 4-foot medium bipin and 

8-foot single pin slimline product 

classes analyzed in the commercial and 

industrial sectors. 73 FR 13620, 13647 

(March 13, 2008). 

b. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

proposed three baseline lamps for the 

IRL representative product class. 73 FR 

13620, 13648 (March 13, 2008). These 

baseline lamps, all parabolic reflector 

(PAR) halogen baseline lamps, are 

regulated by EPCA and meet the EPCA 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)) NEMA 

commented that because BR lamps 

remain on the market due to a Federal 

exemption and because they are 

commonly used in consumer 

applications, the BR lamp should be the 

baseline lamp instead of the halogen 

PAR. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 21 

at p. 162; NEMA, No. 22 at pp. 10, 16, 

and 18) NEMA also contends that 

because DOE selected halogen PAR 

lamps as the baseline, DOE is losing the 

opportunity to show additional energy 

savings. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 16) 

In response, although BR lamps are a 

common incandescent reflector lamp on 

the market today, DOE believes they 

should not be selected as baseline lamps 

in the engineering analysis of this 

rulemaking for the reasons that follow. 

The baseline lamp should be typical of 

covered lamps within a certain product 

class. The most common BR lamp is the 

65W BR lamp, which remains on the 

market due to Federal exemptions. 

Because the 65W BR lamp is not 

covered in this rulemaking, it cannot be 

a baseline lamp. In addition, consumers 

purchasing the 65W BR lamp would not 

be affected by the amended standards 

proposed in this NOPR. Therefore, DOE 

would not be able to demonstrate 

additional energy savings for those 

consumers purchasing the 65W BR lamp 

even if it were able to select that lamp 

as a baseline lamp. 

Although certain BR lamps are 

covered in this rulemaking, DOE 

predicts that the most typical lamp sold 

on the market in 2012 will continue to 

be the halogen PAR lamp. EISA 2007 

required that all non-exempted BR 

lamps meet EPCA standards by January 

1, 2008. Because these lamps are similar 

in efficacy and price to the halogen 

PAR, the most common reflector lamps 

meeting the EPCA standard in 2007, 

DOE is continuing to choose halogen 

PAR lamps as the baseline lamp for the 

NOPR. 

NEMA commented that current PAR 

baseline lamps have higher efficacy than 

the lamps sold in 1992 (when EPACT 

1992 prescribed IRL standards), due to 

optical improvements. (NEMA, No. 22 

at p. 16) However, because DOE prefers 

that the baseline lamp be typical of 

lamps sold on the market today, DOE is 

maintaining the same 90W PAR baseline 

lamp and 75W PAR baseline lamp used 

16944 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

in the March 2008 ANOPR. 73 FR 

13620, 13648 (March 13, 2008). DOE 

now believes that the 50W PAR30 

baseline lamp with a lifetime of 3,000 

hours and an efficacy of 11.6 lm/W 

presented in the March 2008 ANOPR is 

not typical of lamps sold on the market 

today. 73 FR 13620, 13648 (March 13, 

2008). Therefore, for this notice, DOE is 

choosing a 50W PAR30 lamp with an 

efficacy of 14.2 lm/W and a lifetime of 

3,000 hours. Based on an examination of 

manufacturer product catalogs, DOE 

believes that this lamp is a highervolume product than the baseline lamp 

presented in the March 2008 ANOPR. 

The lamp choice is consistent with 

advice DOE received from GE to use 

lamps from major manufacturers in the 

IRL analysis for modified-spectrum 

lamps. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

21 at p. 170) For further detail on IRL 

baseline lamps, see chapter 5 of the 

TSD. 

4. Lamp and Lamp-and-Ballast Designs 

As described in the March 2008 

ANOPR, in the engineering analysis, 

DOE considered only ‘‘design 

options’’—technology options used to 

improve lamp efficacy that were not 

eliminated in the screening analysis. 73 

FR 13620, 13644 (March 13, 2008). 

DOE’s selection of design options 

guided its selection of lamp and lampand-ballast designs and efficacy levels. 

For example, for GSFL, DOE noted 

groupings around the types of phosphor 

used and the wall thickness of those 

phosphors. Regarding IRL, DOE 

identified natural ‘‘technology-based’’ 

divisions in the market around the type 

of incandescent technology (i.e., 

halogen or HIR) used. DOE also 

identified certain technology options 

and created model lamps to represent 

the efficacy those technology options 

could achieve. 

As described in the March 2008 

ANOPR, DOE also accounted for lumen 

output when DOE established lamp 

designs for its analyses. 73 FR 13620, 

13648 (March 13, 2008). For the LCC 

analysis, DOE considered those lamps 

(or lamp-and-ballast systems) that: (1) 

Emit lumens equal to the lumen output 

of the baseline lamp or lamp-and-ballast 

system, or below that lamp by no more 

than 10 percent; and (2) result in energy 

savings. DOE took this approach in 

order to accurately characterize the costeffectiveness of a particular efficacy 

level if a consumer makes an informed 

decision that maintains light output. 

However, as DOE recognizes that all 

consumers may not make such 

decisions, lamp or lamp-and-ballast 

designs that under-illuminate, overilluminate, or do not result in energy 

savings are considered in the NIA. 

a. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

As described in the March 2008 

ANOPR, DOE used a systems approach 

for the fluorescent lamp analysis, 

because DOE recognizes that both lamps 

and ballasts determine a system’s energy 

use and the overall system lumen 

output. 73 FR 13620, 13649 (March 13, 

2008). This approach allows DOE to 

select a variety of lamp-and-ballast 

designs that meet a given efficacy level. 

Generally, DOE chose its potential 

design options by selecting 

commercially-available fluorescent 

lamps at higher efficacies than the 

baseline lamps. These higher efficacies 

are achieved through the design options 

described in the screening analysis. 

After selecting these higher-efficacy 

lamps, DOE selected lamp-and-ballast 

combinations for the LCC that both save 

energy and maintain comparable lumen 

output. For instances when the 

consumer is replacing only the lamp, 

DOE selected a reduced-wattage, higherefficacy lamp for use on the existing 

ballast. For instances when the 

consumer is replacing both the lamp 

and the ballast, DOE was able to obtain 

energy savings and maintain 

comparable lumen output using a 

variety of lamp-and-ballast 

combinations. 

In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

stated that it was not able to identify 

any application restrictions on using 

reduced-wattage fluorescent lamps, so 

therefore, DOE included reducedwattage lamps as design options in the 

ANOPR. 73 FR 13620, 13650 (March 13, 

2008). NEMA responded that most 

manufacturers identify several 

application issues for these lamps. For 

example, NEMA stated that reducedwattage T8 lamps cannot be used with 

certain rapid-start circuits, at 

temperatures below 60 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F) (or 70 °F for the 25W 

lamp), in drafty locations, in airhandling fixtures, on low-power-factor 

ballasts, on dimming ballasts, or on an 

inverter-operated emergency lighting 

system, unless the equipment is 

specifically listed for use with the 

reduced-wattage lamp in question. 

(NEMA, No. 22 at p. 10) NEMA also 

stated that reduced-wattage T12 lamps 

cannot be used at temperatures below 

60 °F, in drafty locations, on low-powerfactor ballasts, on reduced-light-output 

ballasts, on dimming ballasts, or on 

inverter-operated emergency lighting 

systems unless the equipment is 

specifically listed for use with the 

reduced-wattage lamp in question. 

(NEMA, No. 22 at p. 11) 

In response, DOE recognizes that 

reduced-wattage lamps cannot be used 

in certain applications and that 

consumers should not be subject to any 

decrease in utility and performance due 

to an amended energy conservation 

standard. However, because consumers 

have the opportunity to purchase at 

least one full-wattage T12 or T8 lamp at 

each efficacy level, consumer utility 

will not be reduced by amending the 

existing energy conservation standard. 

There are many applications where 

reduced-wattage lamps are appropriate. 

Therefore, DOE is modeling reducedwattage lamps in the engineering 

analysis. In the NIA, DOE did not shift 

all consumers to reduced-wattage lamps 

in response to an energy conservation 

standard, because reduced-wattage 

lamps cannot be used in certain 

applications. Specifically, the majority 

of residential consumers have lowpower-factor ballasts not designed to 

operate 34W T12 lamps. These 

assumptions are displayed in the NIA 

market-share matrices described in 

chapter 10 of the TSD. 

b. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

selected lamp designs and candidate 

standard levels (CSLs) by observing 

natural efficacy divisions in the 

marketplace that correspond to the use 

of technologies (e.g., halogen capsules, 

HIR technology, and improved reflector 

coatings) to increase lamp efficacy. 73 

FR 13620, 13650 (March 13, 2008). 

CSL1, as set forth in the March 2008 

ANOPR, could be met with a halogen 

lamp using a silverized reflector coating. 

CSL2 could be met with a 3,000-hour 

halogen infrared (IR) lamp. CSL3 could 

be met with an improved 4,000-hour 

halogen infrared lamp. CSL3 could also 

be achieved by using design options like 

a silverized reflector coating with a 

halogen infrared burner, or improved 

filament placement and higher 

efficiency inert fill gases in conjunction 

with a halogen infrared burner. 

At the public meeting and through 

written comments, NEMA proposed 

several changes to the lamp designs and 

efficacy levels DOE identified for the 

IRL engineering analysis. NEMA 

suggested that DOE should analyze four 

efficacy levels, beginning with one 

slightly above EPCA and ending with 

the max-tech candidate standard level 

analyzed in the March 2008 ANOPR. 

(NEMA, No. 22 at p. 17) However, the 

efficacies of the baseline lamps chosen 

in the engineering analysis are above the 

lowest NEMA-proposed efficacy level. 

Therefore, because NEMA’s lowest 

proposed efficacy level would not raise 

the efficacies of the most common 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16945 

25 DOE notes that it would clearly be 

technologically feasible for manufacturers to adopt 

a product design that surpasses the levels specified 

in CSL1 (e.g., using technologies that meet CSL2) 

and also avoids use of the proprietary technology 

in question. However, if DOE were to adopt CSL1, 

as presented in the March 2008 ANOPR, such 

manufacturers would be at a competitive 

disadvantage as compared to manufacturers who 

are able to access the patented technology. 

26Zhao, Tianji et al., ‘‘Protected Coating for 

Energy Efficient Lamp,’’ U.S. Patent 6,773,141 

(August 10, 2004). 

reflector lamps on the market today, 

DOE did not consider it in this NOPR. 

NEMA commented that DOE should 

also consider in its NOPR an efficacy 

level that can be met with non-standard 

halogen or infrared halogen lamps. 

(NEMA, No. 22 at p. 18) This standard 

level would lie between the first efficacy 

level proposed by NEMA and the first 

candidate standard level (CSL1) 

proposed by DOE in the March 2008 

ANOPR. 73 FR 13620, 13651 (March 13, 

2008). To model the technologies that 

meet this efficacy level, DOE modeled 

an improved halogen lamp that uses 

xenon, a higher efficiency inert fill gas. 

NEMA commented that DOE should 

not analyze CSL1 presented in the 

March 2008 ANOPR because that level 

is based on the silverized reflector 

coating, a patented technology.25

(NEMA, No. 22 at pp. 16–17; Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 21 at pp. 157– 

158) Other stakeholders commented that 

DOE should research when the patent 

on the silver technology expires, 

because the standard does not go into 

effect until 2012. (Joint Comment, No. 

23 at p. 15) The Joint Comment stated 

that DOE should research viable 

alternatives that can be used to reach 

the first CSL if the silverized reflector 

coating is indeed patented. (Joint 

Comment, No. 23 at p. 15) 

In response to these stakeholder 

comments, DOE researched the 

silverized reflector technology and 

found that the patent for that technology 

expires in December 2019.26 Therefore, 

for the purpose of this rulemaking, DOE 

considers the silverized reflector coating 

a proprietary technology. As discussed 

during the Framework stage of this 

rulemaking, DOE only considers 

proprietary designs in its engineering 

analysis if there are other technology 

pathways to meet that efficacy level. 

DOE researched possible lamp designs 

for the March 2008 ANOPR’s first CSL 

and found that a halogen lamp with a 

silverized reflector coating is the only 

improved halogen technology that can 

meet the March 2008 ANOPR CSL1. 

However, a slightly lower level can be 

achieved with an HIR lamp that has a 

6,000-hour lifetime. Therefore, DOE is 

considering a slightly lower level that 

can be met by both long-life HIR lamp 

designs and silverized reflector coating 

lamp designs in the NOPR. In its 

analysis of this level, DOE considers 

both lamp designs as viable consumer 

options. 

NEMA commented that DOE should 

lower CSL2, because longer life lamps 

would be in jeopardy of being 

eliminated from the marketplace. 

Because longer life products typically 

have lower efficacies, manufacturers 

may need to reduce lamp life to meet a 

particular efficacy level. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21 at pp. 177–178; 

NEMA, No. 22 at p. 16; Joint Comment, 

No. 23 at p. 15) Although increased 

lifetime reduces a lamp’s efficacy, DOE 

believes that lifetime is a consumer 

economic issue rather than a utility 

issue. In addition, the IRL at each 

standard level can be manufactured 

with lifetimes equal to or greater than 

the lifetimes of the baseline lamp. 

Therefore, consumers who are 

purchasing the baseline lamp will 

continue to be able to purchase a lamp 

with a similar lifetime in the standards 

case. Finally, DOE has conducted an 

analysis to assess the impact of 

standards on longer lifetime lamps. 

Based on this analysis, documented in 

appendix 5D of the TSD, DOE is 

reasonably certain that even under the 

highest efficacy level analyzed in this 

NOPR, 6,000 hour lifetime lamps are 

technologically feasible. For all of these 

reasons, DOE maintained the lamp 

designs and efficacy level for CSL2 

described in the March 2008 ANOPR. 

Similar to its comments related to 

CSL1, NEMA commented that CSL3 is 

problematic because it is also based on 

the silverized reflector coating, a 

patented technology. (NEMA, No. 22 at 

p. 17; Public Meeting Transcript, No. 21 

at pp. 157–158) 

In its conversations with 

manufacturers and review of 

manufacturer catalogs, DOE found that 

CSL3 is achievable using technologies 

other than a silverized reflector coating. 

For example, other non-patented types 

of improved reflectors and higherefficiency IR coatings can be used to 

reach this level. In fact, all major 

manufacturers produce two or more 

lamps that exceed this level, some of 

which are not dependent on the 

proprietary silverized reflector. 

Therefore, because there are alternate 

technology pathways to this level, DOE 

maintained the March 2008 ANOPR 

CSL3 as efficacy level 4 in the NOPR. 

This efficacy level is consistent with 

CSL4 proposed by NEMA in its 

comment. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 17) 

Finally, DOE conducted additional 

market research and discovered that IRL 

with efficacies significantly higher than 

the ANOPR CSL3 (or NOPR EL4) are 

being sold by one major manufacturer. 

These IRL are marketed as halogen 

infrared lamps with a silverized 

reflector, improved IR coating, and a 

lifetime of 4,200 hours. Therefore, in 

order to meet the requirement to analyze 

the highest technologically feasible 

level, for the NOPR, DOE has added a 

fifth efficacy level (EL5) based on these 

high-efficacy lamps. Although, to DOE’s 

knowledge, there are no commerciallyavailable IRL that do not use the 

patented silverized reflector and are 

equivalent in efficacy, DOE’s research 

indicates that that are alternate, nonproprietary technology pathways to 

meet this efficacy level. In particular, 

DOE has extensively researched one 

particular advanced IR coating 

technology. Through interviews with 

manufacturers of this technology and 

through independent testing, DOE has 

preliminarily concluded that by using 

this advanced IR coating technology 

with a standard aluminum reflector, 

manufacturers can produce an IRL with 

an efficacy that exceeds EL5. For further 

detail on DOE’s research on this 

technology, see appendix 5D of the TSD. 

In summary, EL1 is based on an 

improved halogen lamp that uses xenon, 

a higher-efficiency inert fill gas. EL2 is 

based on a halogen infrared lamp with 

a lifetime of 6,000 hours; a halogen 

lamp using a silverized reflector coating 

could also meet this EL. EL3 is 

associated with a 3,000-hour halogen 

infrared lamp; this EL is more efficient 

than EL2 due to higher temperature 

operation of the filament. EL4 is based 

on a 4,000-hour improved halogen 

infrared lamp; improvements in the 

halogen infrared lamp could be made by 

using a double-ended halogen infrared 

burner, higher-efficiency inert fill gases, 

and efficient filament orientation. EL5 is 

based on a 4,200-hour halogen infrared 

lamps (even further improved); these 

further improvements include an 

improved reflector, IR coating, or 

filament design that produces highertemperature operation (and may reduce 

lifetime to 3,000 hours). 

5. Efficiency Levels 

a. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

i. Revisions to ANOPR Efficiency Levels 

For the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

developed CSLs for GSFL by dividing 

initial lumen output by the ANSI rated 

wattages of commercially-available 

lamps, resulting in rated lamp efficacies. 

In response to the potential GSFL 

efficacy levels presented in the March 

2008 ANOPR, NEMA commented on 

several reasons why the association 

16946 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

believes that the efficacy levels need to 

be revised. NEMA’s comments regarding 

the efficacy levels considered in the 

March 2008 ANOPR can be divided into 

five categories: (1) The appropriateness 

of using ANSI rated wattages in the 

calculation of lumens per watt; (2) 

consideration of variability in 

production of GSFL; (3) manufacturing 

process limitations related to specialty 

products; (4) consideration of 

adjustments to photometry calibrations; 

and (5) the appropriateness of 

establishing efficacy levels to the 

nearest tenth of a lumen per watt. 

(NEMA, No. 22 at p. 13–14) In 

consideration of the above issues, 

NEMA suggested revised efficacy levels 

that could achieve the same results as 

the efficacy levels considered in the 

March 2008 ANOPR. 

First, in support of lowering the 

March 2008 ANOPR efficacy levels, 

NEMA argued that ANSI rated wattages 

of GSFL are not necessarily 

representative of long-term reference 

watts. NEMA further stated that in many 

cases the actual lamp reference watts are 

greater than the ANSI designated value. 

(NEMA, No. 22 at p. 14) Second, NEMA 

commented on production variability 

and its impact on the resulting 

measured lamp efficacies. NEMA stated 

that DOE should not use nominal 

catalog initial lumen values when 

developing efficacy levels, as they do 

not reflect statistical lot-to-lot 

production variation. It also argued that 

as lamp lumens per watt is not a 

controlled process element in 

production or a product rating, larger 

tolerances may be required. NEMA 

further stated that lumens per watt is 

actually a calculation based on two 

primary process control elements: (1) 

Watts and (2) lumens. When practical 

production variation in lamp wattage 

(above ANSI-designated values) and 

lamp lumens (below catalog initial 

lumens) combine, the resulting variation 

in lumens per watt may be larger than 

expected. NEMA stated that DOE’s 

proposed efficacy levels should be 

lowered to account for these tolerances. 

(NEMA, No. 22 at p. 14) 

In consultation with the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST), DOE has investigated this issue 

thoroughly, and DOE agrees with NEMA 

on several points. By analyzing 

manufacturer compliance reports 

(submitted to DOE for existing GSFL 

energy conservation standards), DOE 

found that efficacies of lamps when 

reported for the purpose of compliance 

often vary from catalog-rated values. 

Specifically, DOE agrees that ANSI 

designated rated wattages may not be 

appropriate in calculating efficacy. In 

fact, the test procedures for GSFL 

incorporate a tolerance factor comparing 

measured lamp wattage to ANSI-rated 

wattage. DOE acknowledges that this 

tolerance factor could in fact 

significantly alter the measured efficacy 

of the lamps from the rated efficacy. In 

addition, DOE agrees that using rated 

lamp efficacy does not sufficiently 

account for lot-to-lot production 

variability. For this reason, to establish 

revised GSFL efficacy levels, DOE 

proposes to use lamp efficacy values 

submitted to DOE over the past 10 years 

for the purpose of compliance with 

existing energy conservation standards. 

Using compliance reports as a basis for 

efficacy standards should ensure that 

DOE is accurately characterizing the 

tested performance of GSFL, accounting 

for the measured wattage effects and 

wattage and lumen output variability as 

discussed above. 

Further remarking on the effects of 

production variability, NEMA argued 

that it is inappropriate to use a small 

number of test samples to calculate a 

lumen-per-watt efficacy level. NEMA 

stated that its suggested levels 

incorporate a safety factor to take into 

account manufacturer process 

variations. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 14) 

While DOE appreciates NEMA’s input, 

it disagrees that the sample size is 

inappropriate. At NEMA’s suggestion, a 

sample size of 21 lamps was originally 

established for reporting requirements 

in the 1997 test procedure rulemaking. 

62 FR 29222, 29229 (May 29, 1997). The 

reported efficacy values are obtained by 

testing at least three lamps 

manufactured each month for at least 7 

months out of a 12-month period. Upon 

receiving NEMA’s comment, DOE 

consulted with NIST and has tentatively 

concluded that the minimum of 21 

samples is sufficiently large sample size, 

assuming a normal distribution. In 

addition, by using the compliance 

report efficacies, DOE believes that it is 

accounting for statistical variations due 

to differences in production. The 

efficacy reported for compliance is 

related to the lower limit of the 95- 

percent confidence interval. This 

interval represents variation over the 

whole population of production, not 

only the sample size. 62 FR 29222, 

29230 (May 29, 1997). 

Third, NEMA commented that the 

proposed efficacy levels should be 

lowered to account for realistic 

production and manufacturing process 

limitations. NEMA argued that it may 

not be possible to apply the highest 

efficacy levels to some specialty 

products because they do not use highspeed production methods. (NEMA, No. 

22 at p. 14) DOE is unaware of specialty 

products that meet the definition of 

GSFL and would be unable to meet the 

proposed standards. Therefore, DOE 

cannot appropriately quantify the 

reduction in efficacy level necessary if 

such situation in fact exists. DOE 

requests further comment and detail on 

this topic. 

Fourth, NEMA claims that because 

the National Voluntary Laboratory 

Accreditation Program (NVLAP) has 

made adjustments to photometry 

calibrations since 1997, the lumens for 

some products have actually been 

reduced. These adjustments would 

thereby merit a reduction in DOE’s 

GSFL efficacy levels. (NEMA, No. 22 at 

p. 14) In response, DOE consulted with 

NIST, which is unaware of any such 

adjustments in photometry calibrations 

since 1997. The lumen scale has not 

changed more than 0.2 percent as a 

result of changes to calibration systems. 

Furthermore, the formula used in the 

compliance reports contains a 2-percent 

de-rate factor to allow for testing 

variations. Therefore, DOE disagrees 

with NEMA’s assertion that the efficacy 

levels should be further lowered to 

account for these adjustments. 

Finally, NEMA maintained that if 

DOE uses lumens per watt as the 

efficacy level measurement, then the 

numbers should be rounded to the 

nearest whole number, rather than 

carried out to the tenths decimal place. 

In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

considered efficacy levels that were 

specified to the nearest tenths lumen 

per watt. NEMA asserts that lamp 

testing and production variation does 

not allow for establishing minimum 

lumens per watt levels to the tenth 

place. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 12) While 

DOE appreciates NEMA’s comment, 

after consulting with NIST, DOE 

disagrees that lamp production variation 

would prohibit the regulation of GSFL 

to the nearest tenth decimal place of 

lumens per watt. If DOE were able to set 

minimum efficacy requirements to the 

nearest tenth of a decimal place, the 

higher-accuracy measurements and 

compliance could result in increased 

energy savings. However, in 

consideration of DOE’s approach to 

establish efficacy levels and conduct 

subsequent analyses based on 

certification and compliance reports 

submitted by manufacturers, DOE now 

believes that maintaining the current 

rounding procedure (i.e., to the nearest 

whole lumen per watt) is more 

appropriate. Because manufacturer 

compliance reports round numbers to 

the nearest lumen per watt, DOE 

believes that the data would not support 

establishment of an energy conservation 

standard for GSFL to the nearest tenth 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16947 

of a lumen per watt. Therefore, in this 

NOPR, DOE is proposing to establish 

efficacy levels as whole lumen per watt 

numbers. 

DOE presents revised GSFL efficacy 

levels in section VI.A.1 of this NOPR. 

ii. Four-Foot T5 Miniature Bipin 

Efficiency Levels 

Because DOE proposes to cover 4-foot 

T5 miniature bipin lamps and 4-foot T5 

miniature bipin HO lamps, DOE 

developed efficacy levels for these two 

product classes. In its review of 

manufacturer literature, DOE identified 

the most common 4-foot T5 miniature 

bipin standard output lamps on the 

market (which based on product 

catalogs, DOE believes accounts for the 

majority of the 4-foot T5 SO market). 

The first efficacy level for this product 

class is based on these lamps, which use 

800-series phosphors and have a rated 

catalog efficacy (initial lamp lumens 

divided by ANSI rated wattage) of 104 

lm/W. In its research, DOE also noted 

higher efficacy 4-foot T5 miniature 

bipin standard output lamps that use 

improved 800-series phosphors. 

Specifically, there is a reduced-wattage 

(26W) 4-foot T5 miniature bipin lamp 

(with a rated efficacy of 112 lm/w) and 

a full-wattage (28W) lamp (with a rated 

efficacy of 110 lm/w). EL2, the second 

efficacy level for this product class, is 

based on these higher-efficacy lamps. 

Therefore, DOE analyzed two efficacy 

levels for this product class. The first 

efficacy level prevents the introduction 

of less-efficacious halophosphor lamps 

on the market, while the second efficacy 

level raises the efficacy of the current 

highest volume 4-foot T5 miniature 

bipin lamps on the market. In order to 

account for manufacturer variation, DOE 

used the average reductions in efficacy 

values due to manufacturer variation 

calculated for the highest efficacy 4-foot 

T8 medium bipin lamps, and applied 

those same reductions to the 4-foot 

miniature bipin rated efficacy values. 

For the 4-foot T5 miniature bipin HO 

product class, DOE found that higherefficacy full-wattage lamps do not exist 

on the market today. DOE did identify 

a higher-efficacy reduced-wattage lamp 

for this product class. However, because 

reduced-wattage lamps have a limited 

utility, DOE is choosing to base its 

efficacy levels on full-wattage lamps. In 

this way, consumers are not forced to 

purchase a lamp with limited utility 

under energy conservation standards. 

Therefore, for this product class, DOE is 

analyzing one efficacy level, which 

prevents the introduction of lessefficacious halophosphor lamps on the 

market. For more information on GSFL 

efficacy levels, see chapter 5 of the TSD. 

b. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

As wattage increases for incandescent 

lamps, efficacy generally increases. 

Therefore, so that the efficacy levels 

reflected the performance of these 

lamps, DOE proposed in the ANOPR 

that the efficacy requirement for IRL 

vary according to the following 

equation: a*P0.27, where ‘‘a’’ is a 

constant specifying the technology level 

and ‘‘P’’ is the wattage of the lamp. 73 

FR 13620, 13645 (March 13, 2008). At 

the public meeting, NEMA commented 

that the smooth form of the candidate 

standard levels for IRL was appropriate. 

(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 21 at 

pp. 100–101, 156) Several other 

stakeholders also commented that they 

support the continuous function for IRL. 

These stakeholders noted that 

continuous functions more closely 

follow theoretical equations predicting 

the level of efficacy possible for any 

given desired level of light output and 

thus maximize energy savings. (Joint 

Comment, No. 23 at p. 15) DOE agrees 

with these comments and is proposing 

to maintain the continuous function for 

IRL in the same equation form proposed 

in the ANOPR. 

As described in section V.C.4.b, DOE 

is proposing five efficacy levels in this 

NOPR. EL1 is based on an improved 

halogen lamp that uses xenon, a higherefficiency inert fill gas. EL2 is based on 

a halogen infrared lamp with a lifetime 

of 6,000 hours. A halogen lamp using a 

silverized reflector coating also meets 

this EL. EL3 is based on the 3,000-hour 

HIR lamp. EL4 is based on a 4,000-hour 

improved HIR lamp. EL5 is based on a 

4,200-hour improved HIR lamp. 

6. Engineering Analysis Results 

a. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

In chapter 5 of the March 2008 

ANOPR TSD, DOE presented lifetime, 

rated wattage, and rated efficacy results 

for all lamp-and-ballast designs. NEMA 

commented that the lifetime rating for 

the reduced-wattage 30W T8 lamp 

should be 20,000 hours instead of 

18,000 hours. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 18) 

DOE reviewed catalog data and agrees 

that 20,000 hours is the appropriate 

lifetime for the 30W T8 lamp. DOE also 

reviewed catalog data for other reducedwattage lamps. DOE found several 25W 

T8 lamps that were introduced on the 

market after it completed the ANOPR 

GSFL engineering analysis. Therefore, 

DOE updated the 25W T8 reducedwattage lamp to have a slightly higher 

lumen output and longer lifetime to 

reflect the more common 25W T8 lamps 

sold on the market today. 

Through interviews with lamp 

manufacturers, DOE found that several 

of the rated wattages DOE used in its 

ANOPR for the 4-foot medium bipin 

product class were not accurate. For the 

NOPR, DOE updated the rated wattage 

of the nominally 40W T12 from 40 to 41 

watts. DOE also updated the rated 

wattage of the 30W T8, 28W T8, and 

25W T8 lamp from 30 to 30.4 watts, 28 

to 28.4 watts, and 25 to 26.6 watts, 

respectively. Due to these updates (and 

because the rated wattage affects the 

rated lamp efficacy), two 40W T12 

lamps and the 25W T8 lamp have lower 

efficiencies than as they were analyzed 

in the March 2008 ANOPR. For further 

detail associated with these revisions, 

see chapter 5 of the TSD. 

In addition to updating lamp efficacy, 

DOE revised the 8-foot T12 high output 

engineering analysis to reflect the 

purchase of a magnetic ballast in both 

the base case and standards case. As 

discussed in section V.C.4.a of this 

notice, DOE recognizes that a typical 8- 

foot T12 high output system uses a 

magnetic ballast. In addition, as the 

2000 ballast rule does not require that 

these systems be electronic, consumers 

will be able to purchase a magnetic 8- 

foot T12 high output system in the 

future. 

DOE also created a separate 

residential engineering analysis. In this 

engineering analysis, DOE assumes that 

the most typical installed fluorescent 

system in a residential household is a 

40W T12 magnetic system. However, 

DOE recognizes that T8 systems are 

gaining in market share in the 

residential market. Therefore, DOE 

assumes that the majority of fluorescent 

systems installed for new construction 

and renovation in the residential sector 

are T8 systems. DOE discusses this 

assumption further in section V.D and 

V.E, as it primarily affects the LCC and 

NIA. 

In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

considered using two low ballast factor 

(BF) ballasts for 4-foot T8s, a 0.75 BF 

and a 0.78 BF. ACEEE stated that 

manufacturers are now selling ballasts 

for 4-foot T8 lamps with a ballast factor 

between 0.68–0.7 and that DOE should 

consider this ballast in the engineering 

analysis. (Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 21 at p. 262) After reviewing catalog 

data for fluorescent lamp ballasts, DOE 

decided to add a ballast with a 0.71 BF 

in its engineering analysis as a system 

option that attains energy savings while 

maintaining light output. By including 

this low-BF ballast, DOE is able to more 

thoroughly characterize all consumer 

purchase options in the LCC and NIA. 

b. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE also 

presented engineering analysis results 

16948 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

for IRL. NEMA generally agreed with 

the efficacy values in the table. (NEMA, 

No. 22 at p. 18) Thus, DOE is 

maintaining this approach with one 

exception. Specifically, DOE is revising 

the efficacy values it used for the 50W 

PAR30 baseline lamps and is creating 

several additional model lamps for the 

efficacy levels not analyzed in the 

March 2008 ANOPR. Because the 

revised baseline model exhibits a 

slightly different lumen package than 

the baseline model analyzed in the 

March 2008 ANOPR, DOE has created 

several additional model lamps in order 

to match the lumen package of the 

baseline lamp. For more information on 

the revised baseline model, see section 

V.C.3.b. For more information about 

lamp designs used in the IRL 

engineering analysis, see chapter 5 of 

the TSD. 

7. Scaling to Product Classes Not 

Analyzed 

As discussed above, DOE identified 

and selected certain product classes as 

‘‘representative’’ product classes where 

DOE would concentrate its analytical 

effort. DOE chose these representative 

product classes primarily because of 

their high market volumes. The 

following section discusses how DOE 

scaled efficacy standards from those 

product classes it analyzed to those it 

did not. 

a. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

In the engineering analysis for GSFL, 

DOE decided not to analyze the 2-foot 

U-shaped product class and the product 

classes with a CCT greater than 4,500K, 

due to the small market share of these 

classes. Instead, DOE is scaling the 

efficacy standards for the product 

classes analyzed to these product 

classes. The following sections discuss 

DOE’s approaches to scaling to product 

classes not directly analyzed. 

i. Correlated Color Temperature 

Regarding the CCT product class 

division, DOE found in the March 2008 

ANOPR that the reduction in efficacy 

between 4,100K and 6,500K lamps was 

between 4 percent and 7 percent. To 

avoid subjecting certain products to 

inappropriately high standards, DOE 

considered a single 7-percent reduction 

(from the efficacy levels for lamps with 

CCT less than or equal to 4,500K (low 

CCT)) for product classes greater than 

4,500K (high CCT). 73 FR 13620, 13653 

(March 13, 2008). 

NEMA disagreed with DOE’s use of a 

single 7-percent reduction for all GSFL 

lamps with a CCT greater than 4,500K. 

(NEMA, No. 22 at p. 18) NEMA 

submitted a written comment 

recommending an individualized 

reduction for each efficacy level and 

each product class for products with a 

CCT between 4,500K and 7,000K. 

NEMA’s reductions ranged from 2.6 

percent to 7.2 percent, depending on the 

efficacy level and product class. 

(NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 4, 6–7) 

The Joint Comment also disagreed 

with the 7-percent reduction DOE 

employed. Looking at catalog data for 

the greater-than-4,500K product classes, 

the Joint Comment noted that the 

reduction in efficacy when moving from 

low-CCT to high-CCT lamps or from 4- 

foot MBP to 2-foot U-shaped lamps 

varies by efficacy level. For example, at 

CSL1 in the 4-foot medium bipin 

product class, the Joint Comment found 

that no reduction in the efficacy 

standard was necessary because highCCT and 2-foot U-shaped T8 lamps are 

able to meet that level. At CSL3, the 

Joint Comment found a 5-percent 

reduction was appropriate; at CSL4 and 

CSL5, the Joint Comment found a 3- 

percent reduction was appropriate. 

Based on this data, the Joint Comment 

stated that the commenters would 

accept a 5-percent reduction for both the 

2-foot U-shaped and greater-than-4,500K 

product classes. (Joint Comment, No. 23 

at pp. 9–10) 

Through an examination of the 

comments and a further inspection of 

manufacturer catalog data, DOE now 

recognizes that a single efficacy 

reduction of 7 percent for each efficacy 

level and each product class is not 

always appropriate when trying to 

establish efficacy levels for lamps with 

greater than 4,500K CCT. Therefore, for 

this NOPR, DOE proposes to establish a 

separate scaling factor for each EL and 

product class. DOE’s intention in 

developing scaling factors for this NOPR 

was to establish high-CCT efficacy 

levels that mimic the same 

technological effects as the low-CCT 

efficacy levels. For example, if EL3 for 

the low-CCT 4-foot MBP product class 

eliminates all but the highest-efficacy, 

low-CCT T12 lamps, DOE established a 

high-CCT EL3 that attempted to 

eliminate all but the highest-efficacy, 

high-CCT, T12 lamps as well. Because 

the NEMA technical committee 

analyzed all efficacy levels for all 

product classes with a similar intention 

and because DOE found that this range 

is consistent with the range of 

reductions found in manufacturer 

literature, DOE proposes to adopt the 

percentage reduction for each EL 

suggested by NEMA. In order to 

establish efficacy levels for high CCT 

lamps, DOE then applied these 

percentage reductions to the efficacy 

levels (discussed in sectionV.C.5.a) for 

the representative product classes. For 

more information on the efficacy levels 

for product classes with a CCT greater 

than 4,500K, see chapter 5 of the TSD. 

ii. U-Shaped Lamps 

Regarding the 2-foot U-shaped 

product classes, in March 2008 ANOPR, 

DOE found that when comparing catalog 

efficacies of 2-foot U-shaped lamps to 4- 

foot MBP lamps, efficacy scaling factors 

varied depending on whether one was 

comparing T12 lamps or T8 lamps. 

Specifically, DOE had initially 

determined that a 3-percent reduction 

was appropriate for T8 lamps, and a 6- 

percent reduction was appropriate for 

T12 lamps. To avoid subjecting certain 

products to inappropriately high 

standards, DOE stated that it was 

considering to apply a single 6-percent 

reduction from the five 4-foot medium 

bipin efficacy levels to obtain five 2-foot 

U-shaped efficacy levels. 73 FR 13620, 

13653 (March 13, 2008). 

In response to the ANOPR, NEMA 

commented that only three ELs for the 

2-foot U-shaped product class were 

appropriate. These ELs recommended 

by NEMA were based on the same 

technology options for the 4-foot 

medium bipin product class: (1) 

NEMA’s EL1 would remove all 

halophosphor T12 lamps; (2) NEMA’s 

EL2 would remove all 700-series T12 Ulamps; and (3) NEMA’s EL3 would 

remove all T12 U-lamps. (NEMA, No. 22 

at p. 15) Each EL recommended by 

NEMA represented an approximately 9- 

percent to 10-percent reduction from 

ELs in the 4-foot medium bipin product 

class. As discussed above, the Joint 

Comment recommended that DOE use a 

single 5-percent reduction when scaling 

from the 4-foot medium bipin product 

class to the 2-foot U-shaped product 

class. However, the Joint Comment also 

found that the reduction varied by CSL. 

(Joint Comment, No. 23 at pp. 9–10) 

Similar to its analysis regarding 

scaling to high-CCT product classes, 

DOE recognizes that a single reduction 

in efficacy may not be appropriate for 

all efficacy levels for the U-shaped 

product classes. Therefore, similar to 

NEMA’s suggestion, DOE is proposing a 

separate reduction for each efficacy 

level based on similar technology steps 

seen for the 4-foot medium bipin 

product class. However, after examining 

commercially-available product DOE 

believes that five, not three, efficacy 

levels are appropriate for the 2-foot Ushaped product class. DOE assessed 

manufacturer catalogs containing 

commercially-available U-shaped lamps 

to develop standard levels with a 

similar technology impact at each EL as 

4-foot linear medium bipin lamps. DOE 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16949 

supplemented this analysis with 

compliance report data for U-shaped 

lamps to verify that the established 

efficacy levels coincide with the 

technological goals and actual 

performance of products on the market. 

For specific scaling factors for the 

proposed 2-foot U-shaped efficacy levels 

and a more detailed discussion of DOE’s 

methodology, see chapter 5 of the TSD. 

b. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

i. Modified-Spectrum IRL 

At the ANOPR public meeting, DOE 

stated that the average reduction in 

efficacy of modified-spectrum lamps (as 

compared to standard spectrum lamps) 

was between 2 percent and 25 percent, 

with an average reduction of 15 percent. 

DOE acknowledged the range of 

spectrum modification and its effects on 

utility, and aimed to establish a 

standard that would not eliminate 

modified-spectrum lamps. Therefore, in 

the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

considered a minimum efficacy 

requirement for each modified-spectrum 

lamp that would be dependent on the 

testing of a equivalent standardspectrum lamp. More specifically, the 

efficacy requirement for the modifiedspectrum lamp would be determined on 

a per-lamp basis by measuring the 

lumen output of both the modifiedspectrum lamp and the equivalent 

standard-spectrum reference lamp; 

manufacturers would then multiply the 

ratio of lumen outputs (i.e., the lumen 

output of the modified-spectrum lamp 

divided by the lumen output of the 

standard-spectrum reference lamp) by 

the efficacy requirement for the 

standard-spectrum reference lamp to 

obtain the efficacy requirement for that 

modified-spectrum lamp. 73 FR 

13620,13653 (March 13, 2008). 

GE commented that this approach 

may be reasonable as long as DOE gave 

this reduction to true modifiedspectrum lamps, rather than lamps 

marketed as having modified spectrums, 

but which in fact do not meet the 

requirements of that term. (Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 21 at p. 168) 

NEMA commented that DOE’s proposal 

for establishing an efficacy standard for 

modified-spectrum IRL is complicated, 

difficult to enforce, and non-verifiable. 

(NEMA, No. 22 at p. 19) In addition, 

NEMA expressed concern that the 

responsibility of establishing the 

efficacy for the equivalent standardspectrum lamp would fall on the 

manufacturer. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21 at pp. 100–101) Also, 

the Joint Comment disagreed with an 

approach that would allow modifiedspectrum technologies a variable 

reduction in efficacy (depending on 

their degree of spectrum modification 

and the method with which it is 

reached). (Joint Comment, No. 23 at p. 

16) In response to those comments, DOE 

recognizes the drawbacks to the 

approach considered in the ANOPR and 

instead in the NOPR is proposing a 

single efficacy requirement (irrespective 

of the degree or method of spectrum 

modification) for each modifiedspectrum IRL product class. 

GE and NEMA suggested that the 25- 

percent reduction for A-line modifiedspectrum lamps enacted by EISA 2007 

standards for general service 

incandescent lamps (GSIL) and 

modified-spectrum GSIL may be 

appropriate for modified-spectrum IRL. 

(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 21 at 

pp. 169–170; NEMA, No. 22 at p. 19) 

The Joint Comment expressed an 

opposing viewpoint, arguing that the 25- 

percent reduction specified in EISA 

2007 was based on a political 

compromise, not technical research. The 

Joint Comment also mentions that Ecos 

Consulting, on behalf of PG&E, tested a 

variety of modified-spectrum general 

service incandescent lamps. Their 

researchers estimated a total light 

output reduction of 11 to 18 percent due 

to the modified spectrum. (Joint 

Comment, No. 23 at p. 16) 

DOE agrees with the Joint Comment 

that the reduction in efficacy for general 

service incandescent lamps used in 

EISA 2007 may not be appropriate for 

IRL. Instead, DOE based its reduction 

for the modified-spectrum product 

classes on independent testing and 

research of commercially-available 

modified-spectrum and standardspectrum IRL. 

Several stakeholders commented that 

the range of lumen reduction (2 percent 

to 29 percent) found among 

commercially-available modifiedspectrum IRL may be attributable to 

lamps that do not meet the statutory 

definition of ‘‘modified spectrum,’’ 

which would make the stated average 

too high. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 19; Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 21 at pp. 164– 

167) These stakeholders suggested that 

DOE should only use lamps that meet 

the definition of ‘‘modified spectrum’’ 

when determining an appropriate 

scaling factor. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21 at p. 167–168) GE 

suggested that lamps sold by major 

manufacturers will meet the statutory 

definition of ‘‘modified spectrum’’ 

because NEMA manufacturers offered 

input into the legislative process that 

created this definition. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21 at p. 171) 

In addition, the Joint Comment noted 

that when determining the modifiedspectrum scaling factor, DOE should 

base its analysis on HIR IRL sources 

rather than conventional incandescent 

or conventional halogen IRL. The Joint 

Comment further stated that the spectral 

distribution of the HIR sources have 

reduced output in the red region of the 

spectrum compared to conventional 

incandescent lamp. The comment 

argued because this red region is the 

portion of the spectrum modifiedspectrum lamps are often trying to 

suppress, a lower and more accurate 

scaling factor could be calculated by 

considering only HIR lamps. (Joint 

Comment, No. 23 at p. 16) 

DOE agrees with stakeholders 

regarding the need to determine 

appropriate scaling factors and tested 

several modified-spectrum lamps from 

major manufacturers to determine 

whether they qualify as modified 

spectrum under the statutory definition. 

DOE only used the IRL that qualify as 

modified spectrum under the statutory 

definition to determine an appropriate 

scaling factor. In addition, DOE 

acknowledges that the spectral power 

distributions of incandescent (nonhalogen), halogen, and HIR IRL are 

different over the electromagnetic 

spectrum. However, DOE does not 

believe that the reduced light output in 

the red region of the spectrum of HIR 

sources significantly affects the 

resulting scaling factor. This high 

wavelength red region of the spectrum 

is not weighted heavily when 

calculating the lumens emitted by the 

lamp. Therefore, any spectral 

differences in the infrared regions 

between the halogen IRL compared to 

the halogen infrared IRL would produce 

only minor differences in the reduction 

in efficacy for modified-spectrum 

lamps. Therefore, DOE tested both HIR 

and conventional halogen lamps in 

determining an appropriate scaling 

factor for modified spectrum. 

However, as non-halogen (or 

conventional incandescent) IRL have 

significantly different radiation spectra 

over wavelengths contributing to the 

calculation of lumens (in general their 

light outputs are shifted toward lower 

wavelengths), it is likely that the 

resulting scaling factor based on these 

lamps would be significantly different 

than for halogen sources. Because nonhalogen IRL (representing the IRL lamp 

types exempted from standards) are not 

regulated in this rulemaking, DOE 

believes that it would be inappropriate 

to include such lamps in its scaling 

factor analysis. Therefore, DOE 

considered only halogen and HIR IRL 

for the computation of the modifiedspectrum IRL scaling factor. 

16950 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

27Rea, M. S., ed., The IESNA Lighting Handbook: 

Reference and Application, 9th Edition. New York: 

Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. 

IESNA (2000). 

28Monte Carlo simulations model uncertainty by 

utilizing probability distributions instead of single 

values for certain inputs and variables. 

29Fuller, 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) (Feb. 1996). Available at: http:// 

fire.nist.gov/fire/firedocs/build96/PDF/b96121.pdf. 

To determine the scaling factor, DOE 

tested seven pairs (each pair consisting 

of one standard-spectrum lamp and one 

lamp marketed as modified-spectrum or 

a similar designation) of halogen IRL 

and one pair of HIR IRL made by major 

manufacturers. Though many of the 

lamps did not qualify as modifiedspectrum under the statutory definition, 

for those that did qualify, DOE 

determined that the difference in light 

output and efficacy due to the modifiedspectrum coating was 19 percent for 

both the halogen and IR halogen lamps. 

Therefore, DOE proposes to use a 19 

percent reduction as the scaling factor 

for modified-spectrum IRL. For further 

details on scaling to modified-spectrum 

lamps, see chapter 5 and appendix 5C 

of the TSD. 

ii. Lamp Diameter 

As discussed in section V.A.2.c, in 

this NOPR, DOE has established 

separate product classes for IRL with a 

diameter of 2.5 inches or less based on 

their decreased efficacy associated with 

the unique utility that they provide (e.g., 

ability of reduced diameter lamps to be 

installed in smaller fixtures). NEMA 

commented that a percentage reduction 

should be applied to the PAR30/PAR38 

CSL so as not to eliminate PAR20 lamps 

(with diameters of 2.5 inches) at the 

highest CSLs set forth in the ANOPR. 

(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 21 at 

pp. 158–159) NEMA explained that the 

PAR20 lamp optical system is 

inherently less efficient than the PAR30 

and PAR38 optical systems. In addition, 

it is difficult to implement the most 

efficient double-ended HIR burner in 

the PAR20 lamps. Therefore, NEMA 

suggests a reduction in the lumen per 

watt standards by 12 percent. (NEMA, 

No. 22 at pp. 17–18) In the Joint 

Comment, stakeholders stated that they 

were not opposed to a reduction in the 

efficacy standard as long as data 

supports manufacturer claims. (Joint 

Comment, No. 23 at p. 15–16) 

DOE understands that PAR20 lamps 

are inherently less efficient than PAR30 

and PAR38 lamps. To determine an 

appropriate scaling factor, DOE 

examined the inherent efficacy 

differences between the PAR20 lamp 

and its PAR30 or PAR38 counterpart by 

comparing catalog efficacy data of each 

lamp type from several lamp 

manufacturers. In general, DOE’s 

analysis is consistent with NEMA’s 

suggestion. Therefore, DOE proposes 

applying a 12-percent reduction from 

the efficacy requirement of the PAR30/ 

PAR38 product class to determine the 

efficacy requirement for the PAR20 

product class. For further details 

regarding the scaling to smaller lamp 

diameters, see chapter 5 of the TSD. 

iii. Voltage 

DOE also conducted an analysis to 

determine how to scale from the less 

than 125 volt product class to the 

greater or equal to 125 volt product 

class. NEMA commented that lamps 

rated at 130V are almost always used by 

customers to achieve ‘‘double life’’ by 

operating them at 120V, which results 

in performance below EPACT 1992 

efficacy levels. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 16) 

In consideration of the different test 

procedures for IRL rated at 130V than 

those rated at 120V, and by using 

equations from the IESNA Lighting 

Handbook,27 DOE derived an efficacy 

scaling factor which would result in 

equivalent performance of both classes 

of IRL when operating under the same 

voltage conditions (as NEMA suggests 

they most often are). DOE determined 

that a higher standard for lamps equal 

to or greater than 125V would result in 

similar technological requirements and 

operational efficacies for lamps rated at 

all voltages. Using published 

manufacturer literature and the IESNA 

Lighting Handbook, DOE determined 

that there should be a 15-percent 

increase in the efficacy standard for 

lamps rated at 125V or greater. See 

chapter 5 of the TSD for details of the 

results and methodology used in the 

scaling analysis and other aspects of the 

engineering analysis. 

D. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

This section describes the LCC and 

payback period analyses and the 

spreadsheet model DOE used for 

analyzing the economic impacts of 

possible standards on individual 

consumers. Details of the spreadsheet 

model, and of all the inputs to the LCC 

and PBP analyses, are contained in 

chapter 8 and appendix 8A of the TSD. 

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 LCC and PBP model 

generates a Monte Carlo simulation 28 to 

perform the analysis by incorporating 

uncertainty and variability 

considerations. 

The LCC analysis estimates the 

impact of a standard on consumers by 

calculating the net cost of a lamp (or 

lamp-and-ballast system) under a basecase scenario (in which no new energy 

conservation standard is in effect) and 

under a standards-case scenario (in 

which the proposed energy conservation 

regulation is applied). As detailed in the 

March 2008 ANOPR, the life-cycle cost 

of a particular lamp design is composed 

of the total installed cost (which 

includes manufacturer selling price, 

sales taxes, distribution chain mark-ups, 

and any installation cost), operating 

expenses (energy, repair, and 

maintenance costs), product lifetime, 

and discount rate. 73 FR 13620, 13659 

(March 13, 2008). As noted in the March 

2008 ANOPR, DOE also incorporated a 

residual value calculation to account for 

any remaining lifetime of lamps (or 

ballasts) at the end of the analysis 

period. 73 FR 13620, 13659 (March 13, 

2008). The residual value is an estimate 

of the product’s value to the consumer 

at the end of the life-cycle cost analysis 

period. In addition, this residual value 

must recognize that a lamp system 

continues 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.29

The payback period is the change in 

purchase expense due to an increased 

energy conservation standard, divided 

by the change in annual operating cost 

that results from the standard. Stated 

more simply, the payback period is the 

time period it takes to recoup the 

increased purchase cost (including 

installation) of a more-efficient product 

through energy savings. DOE expresses 

this period in years. 

The Joint Comment stated that given 

the inherent uncertainty in the LCC 

methodology, DOE should recognize 

that LCC results within a certain range 

can be considered essentially 

equivalent. The Joint Comment 

emphasized that recognizing this 

uncertainty is especially important if 

other aspects of the analysis (e.g., energy 

savings) show large differences for 

standard levels with LCC results that, 

given uncertainty in the analysis, are 

essentially the same. (Joint Comment, 

No. 23 at p. 22) DOE agrees that there 

are inherent sources of uncertainty in 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16951 

the results of the LCC analysis due to 

the need to forecast certain inputs (e.g., 

future electricity prices). In addition, 

DOE recognizes that inputs such as sales 

tax, operating hours, and discount rates 

may introduce variability in LCC 

results. However, as explained below, 

DOE’s analyses are structured so as to 

address such uncertainties. As stated 

earlier, to properly characterize the LCC 

results, DOE performed probability 

analyses via Monte Carlo simulations by 

utilizing Microsoft Excel in combination 

with Crystal Ball. The Monte Carlo 

approach allowed DOE to determine 

average LCC savings and payback 

periods, as well as the proportion of 

lamp installations achieving LCC 

savings or attaining certain payback 

values. To fully consider the range of 

LCC results that may occur due to a 

standard, DOE also performed several 

sensitivity analyses on inputs such as 

operating hours, electricity price 

forecasts, and product prices. Based on 

these analyses, DOE believes that it can 

characterize the LCC and PBP for these 

products with a reasonable degree of 

certainty. See the TSD appendix 8B for 

further details, where probable ranges of 

LCC results are presented. 

Table V.2 summarizes the approach 

and data that DOE used to derive the 

inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations 

for the March 2008 ANOPR and the 

changes made for today’s proposed rule. 

The following sections discuss these 

inputs and comments DOE received 

regarding its presentation of the LCC 

and PBP analyses in the March 2008 

ANOPR, as well as DOE’s responses 

thereto. 

TABLE V.2—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE ANOPR AND NOPR LCC ANALYSES

Inputs March 2008 ANOPR Changes for the Proposed Rule 

Consumer Product ...............

Price .....................................

Applied discounts to manufacturer catalog (‘‘bluebook’’) pricing in order to represent low, medium, and 

high prices for all lamp categories. Discounts were 

also applied to develop a price for ballasts.

Used same methodology from March 2008 ANOPR to 

derive additional prices for new lamps and ballasts 

incorporated into the engineering analysis. 

Sales Tax ............................. Derived weighted-average tax values for each Census 

division and large State from data provided by the 

Sales Tax Clearinghouse.1

Updated the sales tax using the latest information from 

the Sales Tax Clearinghouse.2

Installation Cost ................... Derived costs using the RS Means Electrical Cost 

Data, 2007 3 to obtain average labor times for installation, as well as labor rates for electricians and helpers based on wage rates, benefits, and training costs.

IRL and GSFL: Updated lamp replacement and lamp 

and ballast replacement labor rates from 2006$ to 

2007$. 

GSFL: Added 2.5 minutes of installation time to the 

new construction, major retrofit, and renovation 

events in the commercial and industrial sectors to 

capture the time needed to install luminaire disconnects. 

Disposal Cost ....................... Not included .................................................................... GSFL: Included a recycling cost of 10 cents per linear 

foot in the commercial and industrial sectors. 

IRL: No change. 

Annual Operating Hours ...... Determined operating hours by associating buildingtype-specific operating hours data with regional distributions of various building types using the 2002 

U.S. Lighting Market Characterization 4 and the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) 2003 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey 

(CBECS),5 2001 Residential Energy Consumption 

Survey,6 and 2002 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey.7

GSFL: Added residential GSFL to LCC analysis and 

used methodology developed in the March 2008 

ANOPR to derive residential operating hours for 

GSFL based on data in the 2002 U.S. Lighting Market Characterization and the EIA’s 2001 Residential 

Energy Consumption Survey. 

IRL: Removed industrial sector analysis due to the low 

prevalence of IRL in that sector. 

Product Energy Consumption Rate.Determined lamp input power (or lamp-and-ballast system input power for GSFL) based on published manufacturer literature. Used a linear fit of GSFL system 

power on several different ballasts with varying ballast factors in order to derive GSFL system power for 

all of the ballasts used in the analysis.

Updated 4-foot T8 lamp-and-ballast system input power 

based on additional published manufacturer literature. Developed new system input powers for 8- 

foot T12 HO systems, 4-foot T12 residential systems, 

and 4-foot T5 systems. 

Electricity Prices ................... Price: Based on EIA’s 2005 Form EIA–861 data ...........

Variability: Regional energy prices determined for 13 

regions.

Price: Updated using EIA’s 2006 Form EIA 861 data.8

Variability: No change. 

Electricity Price Trends ........ Forecasted with EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 

2007.9

Updated with EIA’s AEO2008.10

Lifetime ................................. Ballast lifetime based on average ballast life of 49,054 

from 2000 Ballast Rule.11 Lamp lifetime based on 

published manufacturer literature where available. 

DOE assumed a lamp operating time of 3 hours per 

start. Where manufacturer literature was not available, DOE derived lamp lifetimes as part of the engineering analysis.

Ballasts: No change in commercial and industrial sector. Developed separate ballast lifetime estimate for 

the residential sector. 

Residential GSFL: 4-foot medium bipin lamp lifetime is 

dependent on the fixture lifetime (i.e., the fixture 

reaches end of life before the lamp reaches end of 

life.). 

Commercial and industrial GSFL: No change. 

IRL: No change. 

16952 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.2—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE ANOPR AND NOPR LCC ANALYSES— 

Continued 

Inputs March 2008 ANOPR Changes for the Proposed Rule 

Discount Rate ...................... Residential: Approach based on 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 12 for 1989, 

1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, and 2004.

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,13 Damodaran Online,14 Ibbotson’s Associates,15 the 2007 Value Line Investment survey,16 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. 

A–94,17 2008 State and local bond interest rates,18

and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.19

DOE updated the commercial and industrial discount 

rates using the latest versions of the sources used in 

the March 2008 ANOPR. 

Analysis Period .................... Based on the longest baseline lamp life in a product 

class divided by the annual operating hours of that 

lamp.

Commercial and industrial GSFL: No Change. 

Residential GSFL: Analysis period is based on the useful lifetime of the baseline lamp. 

IRL: No Change. 

Lamp Purchasing Events ..... DOE assessed five events: Lamp failure, standards-induced retrofit, ballast failure (GSFL only), ballast retrofit (GSFL only), and new construction/renovation.GSFL: DOE assumed that HO lamps used magnetic 

ballasts in the base case. DOE added lamp failure, 

ballast failure/fixture failure, and new construction 

events for 4-foot medium bipin systems in the residential sector, where DOE also assumed the usage 

of magnetic ballasts in the base case. 

IRL: No change. 

1The four large States are New York, California, Texas, and Florida. 

2Sales Tax Clearinghouse, Aggregate State Tax Rates (2008)(Last accessed May 30, 2008). Available at: http://thestc.com/STrates.stm. The 

May 30, 2008 material from this Web site is available in Docket # EE–2006–STD–0131. For more information, contact Brenda Edwards at (202) 

586–2945. 3 R. S. Means Company, Inc., 2007 RS Means Electrical Cost Data (2007). 

4 U.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). Available at: 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/info/documents/pdfs/lmc_vol1_final.pdf. 5 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey: Micro-level data, file 2 

Building Activities, Special Measures of Size, and Multi-building Facilities (2003). Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/public_use.html. 6 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey: File 1: Housing Unit Characteristic 

(2006). Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/publicuse2001.html. 7 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey, Table 1.4: Number of Establishments by First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel) (2002). Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/mecs2002/data02/ 

shelltables.html. 8 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Form EIA–861 for 2006 (2006). Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/ 

electricity/page/eia861.html. 9 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2007 with Projections to 2030 (Feb. 2007). Available 

at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html. 

10 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2008 with Projections to 2030 (June 2008). Available 

at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/excel/aeotab_3.xls. 11 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Building Research and Standards, Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer Products: Fluorescent Lamps Ballast Final Rule (Sept. 2000). Available at: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/gs_fluorescent_0100_r.html. 12The Federal Reserve Board, Survey of Consumer Finances. Available at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/PUBS/oss/oss2/scfindex.html. 13 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (2003). Available at: http:// 

www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/. 14 Damodaran Online, The Data Page: Historical Returns on Stocks, Bonds, and Bills—United States (2006). Available at: http:// 

pages.stern.nyu.edu/adamodar. (Last accessed Sept. 12, 2007.) The September 12, 2007 material from this Web site is available in Docket # 

EE–2006–STD–0131. For more information, contact Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945. 15 Ibbotson’s Associates, Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation, Valuation Edition, 2001 Yearbook (2001). 16Value Line, Value Line Investment Survey (2007). Available at: http://www.valueline.com. 17 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Circular No. A–94 Appendix C (2008). Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a094/ 

a94_appx-c.html. 18Federal Reserve Board, Statistics: Releases and Historical Data—Selected Interest Rates—State and Local Bonds (2008). Available at: 

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data/Monthly/H15_SL_Y20.txt. 19 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Table 1.1.9 Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product (2008). Available at: http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=N. 

1. Consumer Product Price 

As in the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

used a variety of sources to develop 

consumer equipment prices, including 

lamp and ballast prices in 

manufacturers’ suggested retail price 

lists (‘‘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. 

For the NOPR, DOE added several 

new lamps and ballasts to its analyses. 

Accordingly, DOE developed prices for 

4-foot medium bipin GSFL systems in 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16953 

30 DOE used the information in the following 

article to obtain the price of xenon: Betzendahl, 

Richard, ‘‘The Rare Gets More Rare: The Rare Gases 

Market Update,’’ CryoGas International (June 2008) 

26. 

31Sales Tax Clearinghouse, ‘‘Aggregate State Tax 

Rates’’ (2007) (Last accessed May 30, 2008). 

Available at: http://thestc.com/STrates.stm. The 

May 30, 2008, material from this Web site is 

available in Docket #EE–2006–STD–0131. For more 

information, contact Brenda Edwards at (202) 586– 

2945. 

32U.S. Census Bureau, ‘‘Population Change: April 

1, 2000 to July 1, 2007’’ (July 2007). Available at: 

http://www.census.gov/popest/states/files/NSTEST2007-popchg2000-2007.csv. 

33R. S. Means Company, Inc., 2007 RS Means 

Electrical Cost Data (2007). 

34U.S. Department of Energy, ‘‘Appendix A: 

Engineering Analysis Support Documentation, 2000 

Ballast Rule’’ (2000) (Last accessed June 20, 2008). 

Available at: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/appendix_

a.pdf. 

the residential sector, the 8-foot HO 

magnetic ballast, and commerciallyavailable 4-foot T5 miniature bipin 

standard output and high-output lamps 

and ballasts using the same 

methodology applied in the March 2008 

ANOPR. However, not all lamps 

assessed for this rulemaking are 

commercially available. In particular, 

DOE developed model halophosphor T5 

standard-output and high-output lamps 

as baselines for these product classes. 

To establish prices for these baseline 

lamps, DOE calculated the price 

differential between a halophosphor 4- 

foot MBP lamp and the highest-efficacy 

32W 4-foot MBP lamp. DOE then used 

this relationship to scale prices from the 

commercially-available T5 standardoutput and high-output lamps to 

establish the halophosphor lamp prices. 

DOE also developed a model IRL for 

EL1 based on the incorporation of xenon 

gas into the lamps. To determine the 

price of these lamps, DOE interviewed 

manufacturers and conducted its own 

research on the cost of xenon 30 to 

develop a manufacturer cost increase 

over the baseline lamp in a product 

class, and then applied a markup to 

represent consumer prices. See the 

engineering analysis in section V.C.4.b 

for further information on the model IRL 

lamp. 

DOE also developed a price for the 

6,000-hour HIR IRL for the NOPR. After 

reviewing data in manufacturer catalogs 

and interviewing manufacturers, DOE 

determined that the manufacturing costs 

for the 6,000-hour HIR lamp are the 

same as the manufacturing costs for the 

3,000-hour HIR lamps that meet EL3. 

Therefore, for the NOPR, the 

commoditized retail prices for the longlife HIR lamps are the same as for the 

IRL that meet EL3. 

Lastly, because DOE did not have 

manufacturer suggested retail price list 

data for the EL5 (HIR Plus) IRL, DOE 

used prices offered by Internet retailers 

to establish prices for these lamps. 

Specifically, DOE calculated individual 

retailers’ discounts on blue book prices 

for EL4 (Improved HIR) lamps. DOE 

applied these same discounts to 

establish average blue book prices for 

EL5 lamps across all Internet retailers 

found to sell both EL4 and EL5 lamps. 

Using these approximate blue-book 

prices, DOE then followed the same 

methodology applied in the March 2008 

ANOPR to establish low, medium and 

high lamp prices. 

2. Sales Tax 

As in the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

obtained State and local sales tax data 

from the Sales Tax Clearinghouse. 

(March 2008 ANOPR TSD chapter 7) 

The data represented weighted averages 

that include 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). For the NOPR, DOE retained 

this methodology and used updated 

sales tax data from the Sales Tax 

Clearinghouse 31 and updated 

population estimates from the U.S. 

Census Bureau.32

3. Installation Costs 

As detailed in the ANOPR, 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. 73 

FR 13620, 13660 (March 13, 2008). For 

the commercial and industrial sectors, 

DOE assumed an installation cost that 

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 the installation of a lamp 

and ballast system. Therefore, the 

installation cost assumed was the 

product of the average labor rate and the 

time needed to install the lamp and 

ballast system. However, DOE assumed 

that consumers would install their own 

replacement lamps and, thus, would 

incur no installation cost when 

replacing their own lamp. 

DOE received multiple comments on 

the average labor rates DOE used in the 

March 2008 ANOPR: $65.35 per hour 

for an electrician and $42.40 per hour 

for an electrician’s helper. (March 2008 

ANOPR TSD chapter 8). DOE assumed 

that the lamp-and-ballast hourly labor 

rate is 50 percent of an electrician’s rate 

and 50 percent of the helper’s rate, for 

a total labor rate of $53.88 based on ‘‘RS 

Means Electrical Cost Data, 2007’’ (RS 

Means).33 NEMA commented that 

$53.88 per hour is approximately 10 

percent lower than the current labor rate 

including benefits, while the Joint 

Comment stated that $54 per hour for 

ballast change-outs is reasonable only 

for residential and small commercial 

customers, and is too high for large 

commercial customers, who will have a 

full-time electrician or non-electrician 

maintenance person on staff for 

installations. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 22; 

Joint Comment, No. 23 at p. 10) ACEEE 

also commented that large companies 

may have electricians on staff and 

encouraged DOE to research labor rates 

for these workers. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21 at pp. 216–217) 

DOE understands that there may be a 

range of labor rates in the market for 

installations and also clarifies that the 

March 2008 ANOPR labor rate of $53.88 

per hour is for the installation of lamps 

and ballasts, not only ballasts, as stated 

in the Joint Comment. ACEEE and the 

Joint Comment requested that DOE 

lower the labor rate, while NEMA 

commented that DOE should raise the 

labor rate; none of the comments 

provided DOE with supporting 

references. DOE uses ‘‘RS Means 

Electrical Cost Data, 2007,’’ because 

labor costs in RS Means are based on 

labor union agreements and 

construction wages, as well as actual 

working conditions in 30 major U.S. 

cities. Productivity data in RS Means 

represents an extended period of 

observations. For this reason, DOE 

chose to retain for the NOPR the RS 

Means methodology used for the March 

2008 ANOPR. Based on inflation 

estimates derived from consumer price 

index data from the U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, DOE estimated that this 

rate in 2007 dollars is $55.41 per hour. 

DOE also updated the lamp replacement 

labor rate to be $15.94 per hour in 2007 

dollars. 

In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE used 

several installation times for lamps and 

ballasts in the commercial and 

industrial sector analyses, such as the 

lower bound installation time of 30 

minutes for 2-lamp 4-foot medium bipin 

fixtures, and the upper bound 

installation time of 60 minutes for 2- 

lamp 8-foot recessed double contact 

high-output fixtures. (March 2008 

ANOPR TSD chapter 8) These times 

were obtained from the 2000 Ballast 

Rule TSD.34

DOE received several comments 

addressing these installation times. GE 

commented that the 2005 National 

Electric Code requirements for 

disconnecting luminaires before they 

are serviced for lamp or ballast 

16954 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

35Environmental Health and Safety Online’s 

fluorescent lights and lighting disposal and 

recycling Web page—Recycling Costs. Available at: 

http://www.ehso.com/fluoresc.php (Last accessed 

Dec. 8, 2008). 

36Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers, 

‘‘National Mercury-Lamp Recycling Rate and 

Availability of Lamp Recycling Services in the 

U.S.’’ (Nov. 2004). 

37U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, ‘‘U.S. Lighting 

Market Characterization. Volume I: National 

Lighting Inventory and Energy Consumption 

Estimate (2002).’’ Available at: http:// 

www.netl.doe.gov/ssl/PDFs/lmc_vol1_final.pdf. 

38U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Agency, ‘‘Commercial Building Energy 

Consumption Survey: Micro-Level Data, File 2 

Building Activities, Special Measures of Size, and 

Multi-building Facilities (2003).’’ Available at: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/ 

public_use.html. 

39U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Agency, ‘‘Residential Energy Consumption Survey: 

File 1: Housing Unit Characteristic (2006).’’ 

Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/

recs2001/publicuse2001.html. 

40U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Agency, ‘‘Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, Table 1.4: Number of Establishments by 

First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and 

Nonfuel) (2002).’’ Available at: http:// 

www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/mecs2002/data02/

shelltables.html. 

replacements and installing luminaire 

disconnects for new construction or 

major retrofits will necessitate 

additional labor time. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21 at pp. 218–219; 

NEMA, No. 22 at p. 22) NEMA 

recommended that DOE use an 

installation time of approximately 2 to 

3 minutes for luminaire disconnects. 

Industrial Ecology commented on 

average installation times during the 

recent relamping of a school in Atlantic 

City, NJ, in which an electrician 

changed ballasts and lamps for 4-lamp 

and 2-lamp fixtures at the rate of 

approximately 3 fixtures per hour. 

(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 21 at p. 

220) 

DOE agrees that extra time will be 

needed when a luminaire disconnect 

must be installed. Because DOE has not 

received detailed data on other 

installation times apart from the ones 

used in the 2000 Ballast Rule, DOE 

revised the ANOPR installation times 

specifically to address the time added 

by the installation of luminaire 

disconnects. For the NOPR analysis, 

DOE added 2.5 minutes to the ANOPR 

installation times for new construction, 

major retrofits, and renovation, events 

in which DOE assumed that a luminaire 

disconnect must be installed. 

Additional details on installation costs 

are available in chapter 8 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

4. Disposal Costs 

DOE did not consider disposal costs 

in the March 2008 ANOPR. Industrial 

Ecology commented that recycling costs 

should be considered in the LCC 

analysis for GSFL and that such costs 

range from 5 cents to 10 cents per foot. 

(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 21 at p. 

212) In response, DOE researched 

recycling costs for GSFL and found an 

average cost of 10 cents per linear foot.35

DOE also explored the prevalence of 

recycling in the commercial, industrial, 

and residential sectors. A report 

released by the Association of Lighting 

and Mercury Recyclers in 2004 noted 

that approximately 30 percent of lamps 

used by businesses and 2 percent of 

lamps in the residential sector are 

recycled nationwide.36 DOE considers 

the 30 percent commercial and 

industrial recycling rate to be significant 

and, thus, incorporates recycling costs 

into its main analysis. DOE applied a 

cost of 10 cents per linear foot in the 

commercial and industrial sectors every 

time a lamp is replaced during the LCC 

analysis period. Due to discounting, the 

inclusion of recycling costs affects the 

LCC savings of lamps with different 

lifetimes than the baseline lamps that 

they are compared to. The recycling cost 

also affects the residual value of lamps 

that operate beyond the end of the 

analysis period. In the Monte Carlo 

analysis, DOE assumes that commercial 

and industrial consumers pay recycling 

costs in approximately 30 percent of 

lamp failures. DOE does not expect the 

2 percent residential recycling rate to 

affect the residential sector LCC 

substantially, however, and thus did not 

apply the recycling costs to this sector. 

5. Annual Operating Hours 

DOE developed annual operating 

hours for IRL and GSFL in the March 

2008 ANOPR by combining building 

type-specific operating hours data in the 

2002 U.S. Lighting Market 

Characterization (LMC) 37 with data in 

the 2003 Commercial Building Energy 

Consumption Survey (CBECS),38 the 

2001 Residential Energy Consumption 

Survey (RECS),39 and the 2002 

Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey (MECS),40 which describe the 

probability that a particular building 

type exists in a particular region. (March 

2008 ANOPR TSD chapter 6) DOE 

received comments on three areas 

related to the operating hours used for 

the LCC analysis: (1) Sectors analyzed; 

(2) regional variations; and (3) building 

types. These comments are discussed 

below. For further details regarding the 

annual operating hours used in the 

analyses, see chapter 6 of the TSD. 

a. Sectors Analyzed 

In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

analyzed GSFL in the commercial and 

industrial sectors; DOE did not analyze 

the usage of GSFL in the residential 

sector because it believed it was a 

relatively small portion of GSFL sales. 

The Joint Comment requested that DOE 

perform an LCC analysis of GSFL in the 

residential sector, because lamps in the 

residential sector are replaced 

infrequently due to lower operating 

hours compared to the commercial and 

industrial sectors. (Joint Comment, No. 

23 at p. 10) Similarly, NEMA 

commented that DOE should assess 

GSFL in the residential sector, because 

certain ELs may eliminate T12 lamp 

types, requiring many residential 

consumers to install new lamp fixtures. 

(NEMA, No. 22 at p. 32) 

In response, DOE assessed the 

installed stock of lamps using the LMC, 

which stated that approximately 25 

percent of linear fluorescent lamps exist 

in the residential sector. DOE considers 

this proportion to be significant and, 

thus, supports the recommendation to 

perform a residential LCC analysis of 

GSFL. DOE developed residential 

operating hours for GSFL by using data 

in the 2002 LMC and the 2001 RECS. 

However, DOE only performed an LCC 

analysis of 4-foot medium bipin lamps 

in the residential sector, because 

marketing literature indicates that 8-foot 

single pin slimline lamps and 8-foot 

recessed double contact HO lamps are 

not prevalent in residential settings. 

In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

analyzed IRL in the commercial, 

residential, and industrial sectors. 

(March 2008 ANOPR TSD chapter 6) 

NEMA commented that IRL should be 

removed from the industrial sector LCC 

analysis because they are rarely used in 

industrial settings. The Joint Comment 

emphasized the importance of analyzing 

IRL in the residential sector due to 

lower operating hours and higher 

electricity prices for residences 

compared to prices in the commercial 

sector. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 20; Joint 

Comment, No. 23 at p. 17) 

The LMC indicates that less than 1 

percent of IRL were found in the 

industrial sector. Based on this data, 

DOE agrees with both comments and 

has removed IRL from the industrial 

sector in terms of its analyses. 

Consistent with the March 2008 ANORP 

LCC analysis, DOE also continued to 

perform a residential sector LCC 

analysis of IRL for the NOPR. 

b. Regional Variation 

At the public meeting for the March 

2008 ANOPR, the Alliance to Save 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16955 

41E. Vine, D. Fielding, ‘‘An Evaluation of 

Residential CFL Hours-of-Use Methodologies and 

Estimates: Recommendations for Evaluators and 

Program Managers,’’ Energy and Buildings 38 

(2006), 1388–1394. 

42Energy Information Administration, Form EIA– 

861 Final Data File for 2006 (2006) (Last accessed 

June 20, 2008). Available at: http:// 

www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/ 

eia861.html. 

43U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2007 with 

Projections to 2030 (Feb. 2007). Available at: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo07/ 

index.html. 

Energy commented that the LMC, which 

DOE used during the LCC analysis, may 

underestimate energy usage in the 

residential sector because operating 

hours may vary regionally (e.g., by 

latitude), even for the same building 

types. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

21 at pp. 197–198) In contrast, the 

Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council responded that there was a 

variation of a tenth of an hour per day 

in operating hours between a study 

completed in Tacoma, Washington, and 

a study of California. Therefore, the 

Council suggested that differences in 

latitude and weather do not 

significantly affect operating hours. 

(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 21 at p. 

199) 

DOE found no conclusive evidence 

that would suggest that geographic 

location has a significant impact on 

operating hours for a given building 

type. However, DOE found evidence of 

regional differences in the proportions 

of different building types (e.g., number 

of mobile homes versus number of 

multi-family dwellings) as the probable 

source of regional variation in operating 

hours.41 As detailed in the March 2008 

ANOPR, DOE captured this regional 

variation by using the RECS, CBECS, 

and MECS to determine the probability 

that a particular building type exists in 

a particular region. 73 FR 13620, 13654 

(March 13, 2008). For this reason, DOE 

has not revised its analysis for the 

NOPR to specifically address latitude, 

weather, or other regional factors apart 

from building type proportions. 

c. Building Type 

NEMA requested a confirmation that 

DOE has included retail facilities in its 

consideration of operating hours, 

because retail facilities have more 

operating hours compared to other 

commercial facilities. (NEMA, No. 22 at 

p. 20) DOE is aware that different 

commercial building types have 

different average operating hours and, 

thus, considered a variety of commercial 

building types, including retail 

facilities, in its analysis. Operating 

hours were determined using the LMC 

study. DOE assessed the operating hours 

for retail facilities for the March 2008 

ANOPR (ANOPR chapter 6 of the TSD) 

and retained the assessment of 

commercial retail facility operating 

hours for the NOPR analysis. 

6. Product Energy Consumption Rate 

As in the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

determined lamp input power (or lampand-ballast system input power for 

GSFL) based on published manufacturer 

literature. (March 2008 ANOPR TSD 

chapter 5) For GSFL, DOE assessed a 

variety of lamp-and-ballast 

combinations by establishing a 

correlation between ballast factor and 

system input power. This allowed DOE 

to derive GSFL system power (in watts) 

for all of the lamp and ballast 

combinations used in the analysis. The 

rated system power was then multiplied 

by the annual operating hours of the 

system to determine the annual energy 

consumption. DOE retained this 

methodology for this notice. 

For this NOPR, DOE updated system 

input power ratings for certain lampand-ballast combinations, and 

developed new system-input powers for 

other lamp-and-ballast combinations not 

considered in the March 2008 ANOPR. 

Specifically, DOE obtained additional 

system power ratings for 4-foot T8 

ballasts from recently released 

manufacturer literature and updated 

these system input power ratings for the 

NOPR. DOE also developed new system 

input power ratings for magnetic 

residential 4-foot T12 systems, magnetic 

8-foot HO systems, 4-foot T5 miniature 

bipin systems, and 4-foot T5 miniature 

bipin HO systems. 

7. Electricity Prices 

DOE determined energy prices by 

deriving regional average prices for 13 

geographic areas consisting of the nine 

U.S. Census divisions, with four large 

states (New York, Florida, Texas, and 

California) treated separately. The 

derivation of prices was based on data 

in EIA’s Form EIA–861. DOE received 

three comments on the regional 

electricity prices that it used for the 

ANOPR LCC. PG&E commented that the 

California residential electricity price of 

9.9 cents per kWh (ANOPR TSD chapter 

8) was lower than what appears to be an 

average of 14 cents per kWh in the State. 

ACEEE and the Joint Comment 

recommended that DOE use EIA’s 

publication ‘‘Electric Power Monthly’’— 

as a source of recent electricity prices 

instead of Form EIA–861. (Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 21 at pp. 223– 

224; Joint Comment, No. 23 at p. 18) 

In response, DOE notes that it uses 

Form EIA–861 for two reasons. First, it 

allows for the creation of regional 

average electricity prices weighted by 

the number of customers each electric 

utility serves. DOE prefers to use 

customer-weighted average electricity 

prices so that prices are not skewed by 

utilities serving small numbers of very 

large electricity consumers. Electricity 

sales are not well correlated with the 

number of consumers in the commercial 

sector, and the usage of customerweighted averages more heavily weights 

the utilities that serve larger numbers of 

consumers. Second, ‘‘Electric Power 

Monthly’’ does not report customerweighted prices. DOE appreciates the 

comments related to electricity prices, 

and for the NOPR analysis, DOE 

updated its electricity prices by using 

the latest version of Form EIA–861 

(2006).42 DOE notes that the latest 

Form’s updated residential electricity 

price for California is 14.7 cents per 

kWh which is consistent with PG&E’s 

assessment that the average residential 

electricity price in California is around 

14 cents per kWh. 

8. Electricity Price Trends 

To project electricity prices to the end 

of the LCC analysis period in the March 

2008 ANOPR, DOE used the reference, 

low-economic-growth, and higheconomic-growth projections in EIA’s 

AEO2007.43 73 FR 13620, 13660 (March 

13, 2008). DOE received several 

comments on the resulting electricity 

price trends that it used in the LCC 

calculation. PG&E commented that 

DOE’s forecasted electricity prices do 

not increase in real terms in the next 20 

years, which the commenter argued is 

unrealistic. ACEEE and the Joint 

Comment both stated that DOE should 

use the most recent AEO forecasts along 

with a collection of other electricity 

price forecasts. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21 at pp. 224–225; Joint 

Comment, No. 23 at p. 18) 

DOE supports the suggestion that it 

should use the most recent electricity 

price forecasts. DOE uses EIA’s AEO 

because it is publicly available and has 

been widely reviewed. The latest AEO 

contains a table of comparisons to three 

other electricity forecasts; the only 

forecast that included prices (from 

Global Insight, Inc.) showed electricity 

prices very similar to the prices in the 

AEO2008 reference case. Also, a 

conversion of the AEO2008 forecast into 

real dollars reveals that AEO’s 

forecasted electricity prices do increase 

in real terms. For these reasons, DOE 

chose to continue using the AEO and 

16956 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

44U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2008 with 

Projections to 2030 (June 2008). Available at: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/excel/aeotab_3.xls. 

45 GDS Associates, Inc., Engineers and 

Consultants, Measure Life Report: Residential and 

Commercial/Industrial Lighting and HVAC 

Measures (The New England State Program 

Working Group) (2007). 

46Economic Research Associates, Inc., and 

Quantec, LLC., Revised/Updated EULs Based on 

Retention and Persistence Studies Results 

(Southern California Edison) (2005). 

47U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, ‘‘Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer Products: 

Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency 

Standards for Consumer Products: Fluorescent 

Lamp Ballast Proposed Rule: Appendix A’’ (Jan. 

2000) A–19. 

the reference case in AEO2008.44 DOE 

also presents LCC and PBP results for 

the low-economic-growth and higheconomic-growth scenarios from 

AEO2008 in appendix 8B of the TSD. 

9. Lifetime 

a. Ballast Lifetime 

In chapter 8 of the March 2008 

ANOPR TSD, DOE stated that it used 

49,054 hours as the estimated ballast 

lifetime based on findings in the 2000 

Ballast Rule. The Joint Comment 

suggested three reasons why ballast 

lifetimes are actually longer than the 

lifetime used in the 2000 Ballast Rule. 

The Joint Comment stated that, on 

average, ballasts operate below their life 

rating temperature. In addition, 

manufacturer estimates exceed the DOE 

lifetime even at rated conditions. The 

commenter also argued that market data 

of historical shipments of ballasts sold 

to new construction versus retrofit and 

replacement suggest that the average 

ballast life is longer than suggested. The 

Joint Comment contends that, in 

addition to considering the above points 

generally, DOE should specifically 

study these shipments to establish 

ballast lifetime. (Joint Comment, No. 23 

at pp. 7–9) 

Based on the Joint Comment’s 

suggestions, DOE investigated several 

different ways of measuring a ballast’s 

useful lifetime in commercial and 

residential buildings. DOE does not 

believe that using the rated temperature 

of ballasts is an appropriate way to 

measure a ballast’s lifetime. For 

example, a building renovation or a 

lighting retrofit may cause buildings or 

homeowners to replace a ballast before 

it fails. DOE also believes that 

examining historical sales data of 

ballasts sold to new construction versus 

replacement and retrofit to estimate 

ballast lifetime would involve too many 

assumptions to provide a useful 

measure of lifetime. For example, DOE 

would need to estimate an appropriate 

distribution of ballast lifetimes in the 

field because ballasts are replaced at 

various points in their useful life due to 

different operating hours, failure rates, 

and time periods between initial 

building construction and the first 

lighting retrofit. 

In its investigation of ballast lifetime, 

DOE encountered several studies that 

establish the ‘‘measure life’’ (i.e., the 

true service life of a ballast in the field) 

of ballasts in both the commercial and 

residential sectors. One study 

comparing the results of several 

‘‘measure life’’ reports found that the 

average ballast lifetime after a retrofit in 

the commercial sector is 13 years, and 

the average ballast lifetime after new 

construction is 15 years.45 Using DOE’s 

estimate of 49,054 hours and average 

operating hours for GSFL in the 

commercial sector, the lifetime of an 

average ballast is approximately 14.2 

years. Because this lifetime is consistent 

with several measure life reports, DOE 

maintains the same ballast lifetime of 

49,054 hours in its NOPR analysis. DOE 

also found in a separate measure life 

report that the average fixture and 

ballast in the residential sector lasts for 

15 years. Therefore, in its residential 

sector analysis for GSFL, DOE 

established 15 years as the average 

ballast lifetime in the residential 

sector,46 and an average annual 

operating lifetime of 789 hours. The 

ballast’s average hours of operation over 

its service lifetime is therefore 11,835 

hours in the residential sector. 

b. Lamp Lifetime 

When possible, DOE used 

manufacturer literature to measure lamp 

lifetimes, as in the March 2008 ANOPR. 

73 FR 13620, 13662 (March 13, 2008). 

When published manufacturer literature 

was not available (as for some IRL), DOE 

derived lamp lifetimes as part of the 

engineering analysis (section V.C.4.b). 

DOE based its calculations of GSFL 

lifetime for the base and standards cases 

on lamp operating times of 3 hours per 

start in the March 2008 ANOPR LCC 

analysis. 73 FR 13620, 13662 (March 13, 

2008). In comments, NEMA supported 

the 3 hours per start operating time for 

both the base and standards cases, but 

also argued that while lamps are started 

every 12 hours in commercial and 

industrial applications, the increasing 

use of occupancy sensors is leading to 

shorter start cycles. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 

23) DOE did not receive any other 

comments about using a GSFL operating 

time of 3 hours per start. Therefore, DOE 

retained the assumption of 3 hours per 

start in the NOPR LCC analysis for both 

the base and standards cases. In 

addition, DOE researched the impact of 

occupancy sensors on start cycle 

lengths. However, DOE was unable to 

obtain significant information with 

which it could quantify this effect. 

As in the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

also considered in the NOPR analysis 

the impact of group re-lamping practices 

on GSFL lifetime in the commercial and 

industrial sectors. 73 FR 13620, 13662 

(March 13, 2008). DOE assumed that a 

lamp subject to group re-lamping 

operates for 75 percent of its rated 

lifetime, an estimate obtained from the 

2000 Ballast Rule.47 By considering 

lamp rated lifetimes and the prevalence 

of group versus spot re-lamping 

practices, DOE derived an average 

lifetime for a GSFL. This ranged from 91 

percent of rated lifetime for 8-foot single 

pin slimline lamps to 94 percent of 

rated lifetime for 4-foot medium bipin 

lamps. See chapter 8 of the TSD for 

further details. 

As stated above, DOE is using 15 

years as the estimated fixture and ballast 

lifetime in the residential sector for 

purposes of its analyses. If one 

calculates the lifetime of the baseline 

GSFL lamp in the residential sector by 

dividing the life in hours by the average 

operating hours of a GSFL in the 

residential sector (789 hours), one finds 

that the baseline lamp should live for 19 

years. Because the lifetime of the 

baseline lamp is longer than the average 

lifetime of a fixture and ballast, DOE 

assumes that the ballast or fixture 

lifetime limits the lifetime of an average 

lamp in the residential sector. DOE is 

aware that there are certain rooms in 

residential buildings where GSFL are 

operated for much longer than 789 

hours per year; in particular, GSFL are 

operated for approximately 1,210 hours 

per year in kitchens of single-family 

detached households. Therefore, DOE 

has conducted the residential sector 

analysis under average operating hours 

and high operating hours. Under 

average operating hours (789 hours per 

year), DOE assumes that lamp lifetime 

of the baseline-case and standards-case 

lamps is limited to 11,835 hours or 15 

years, due to a ballast or fixture failure. 

Thus, in this situation, the lamp failure 

event does not occur; only the ballast 

failure event occurs. See section V.D.14 

for a description of lamp purchase 

events. 

DOE recognizes that although some 

consumers do not experience a lamp 

failure in the residential sector, 

consumers whose operating hours yield 

a lamp lifetime that is shorter than that 

of the fixture or ballast do need to 

replace their lamp occasionally. DOE 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16957 

48http://www.federalreserve.gov/PUBS/oss/oss2/ 

2007/scf2007home_modify.html. 

assumes the shortest lifetime of the 

baseline lamp, using the highest 

operating hours for GSFL in the LMC of 

1,210 hours per year (as in kitchens), is 

approximately 12.5 years. When a 

baseline lamp is replaced at 12.5 years, 

the fixture and ballast have another 2.5 

years of life remaining. DOE assumes 

that when fixtures or ballasts are 

discarded, their associated lamps are 

also discarded at the same time. 

Therefore, for GSFL in the residential 

sector, the longest useful life of the 

baseline replacement lamp would be 2.5 

years or 1,972 hours. At the end of this 

lifetime, the ballast and fixture are 

replaced. Therefore, for the lamp 

replacement event for a GSFL in the 

residential sector in a high operating 

hours scenario (1,210 hours per year), 

the lifetime of the baseline lamp is 

assumed to be 1,972 hours or 2.5 years, 

and DOE assumes that the ballast failure 

event does not occur. DOE requests 

comment on the typical service life of a 

GSFL in the residential sector. 

10. Discount Rates 

In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

derived residential discount rates by 

identifying all possible debt or asset 

classes that might be used to purchase 

replacement products, including 

household assets that might be affected 

indirectly. 73 FR 13620, 13663 (March 

13, 2008). DOE estimated the average 

shares of the various debt and equity 

classes in the average U.S. household 

equity and debt portfolios using data 

from the SCFs from 1989 to 2004. DOE 

used the mean share of each class across 

the six sample years as a basis for 

estimating the effective financing rate 

for replacement equipment. DOE 

estimated interest or return rates 

associated with each type of equity and 

debt using SCF data and other sources. 

The mean real effective rate across the 

classes of household debt and equity, 

weighted by the shares of each class, is 

5.6 percent. 

For the commercial sector and 

industrial sector, DOE derived the 

discount rate from the cost of capital of 

publicly-traded firms in the sectors that 

purchase lamps. To obtain an average 

discount rate value for the commercial 

sector, DOE used data from CBECS 

2003, which provides market-share data 

by type of owner. Weighting each 

ownership type by its market share, 

DOE estimated the average discount rate 

for the commercial sector to be 6.2 

percent. Similarly, the industrial sector 

discount rate was derived to be 7.5 

percent. 73 FR 13620, 13663 (March 13, 

2008). 

The Joint Comment stated that, in the 

past, NRDC has argued that a 2 to 3 

percent real discount rate should be 

used in the LCC. (Joint Comment, No. 23 

at p. 22) It also stated that ACEEE and 

others have supported the weighted 

average cost of capital approach. In 

general, the Joint Comment stated that if 

DOE continues with using the weighted 

cost of capital approach, the agency 

should make sure its calculations are 

updated, as current economic 

conditions will influence agency 

estimates for discount rates over the 

analysis period. (Joint Comment, No. 23 

at p. 22) In consideration of the above 

comments (and absent any evidence to 

the contrary), DOE agrees with ACEEE 

and others in the Joint Comment that 

the weighted average cost of capital 

approach described above is the most 

accurate way of establishing an 

appropriate consumer discount rate for 

the LCC analysis. For this NOPR, DOE 

was not able to use the most up-to-date 

information to update the residential 

discount rate, because the 2007 SCF 

survey was not available at the time of 

publication. However, because the rates 

for various forms of credit carried by 

households in these years were 

established over a range of time, DOE 

believes they are representative of rates 

that may be in effect in 2012. DOE is not 

aware of any other nationally 

representative data source that provides 

interest rates from a statistically valid 

sample. Therefore, DOE continued to 

use the above approach and results for 

today’s proposed rule. According to the 

Federal Reserve Board Web site, the 

2007 SCF survey may be available in the 

first quarter of 2009.48 Contingent on 

this data’s release in a timely manner, 

DOE will attempt to incorporate the 

2007 SCF survey in the final rule of this 

rulemaking. 

Despite the limitations associated 

with its residential analysis, DOE was 

able to update certain sources used to 

compute the commercial and industrial 

sector discount rates. Specifically, DOE 

applied the 2008 Damodaran Online 

Data, the 2008 implicit price deflators 

from the U.S. Department of Commerce, 

the 2007 Value Line Investment Survey 

data, information from the 2008 OMB 

Circular No. A–94, and 2008 State and 

local bond interest rates. However, DOE 

continued to use data from CBECS 2003, 

which provides market-share data by 

type of owner to obtain an average 

discount rate value for the commercial 

sector. DOE is not aware of any other 

nationally representative data source 

that provides market-share data by type 

of owner and, therefore, is continuing to 

use this source of data in today’s 

proposed rule. DOE computed the new 

discount rates to be 7.0 percent in the 

commercial sector and 7.6 percent in 

the industrial sector. For further details 

on discount rates, see chapter 8 and 

appendix 8C of the TSD. 

11. Analysis Period 

The analysis period is the span of 

time over which the LCC is calculated. 

For the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE used 

the longest baseline lamp life in a 

product class divided by the annual 

operating hours of that lamp as the 

analysis period. 73 FR 13620, 13663 

(March 13, 2008). 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 the NOPR analysis, 

DOE retained this methodology for IRL 

and GSFL in the commercial and 

industrial sectors. However, for GSFL in 

the residential sector, the analysis 

period is based on the useful life of the 

baseline lamp for a specific event. 

Specifically, for the lamp replacement 

event, the analysis period is 2.5 years, 

and for the lamp and ballast 

replacement and new construction 

event, the analysis period is 15 years. 

DOE requests comment on the analysis 

period used for the residential sector 

analysis. See section V.D.9.a of this 

notice for more information on the 

useful life of the baseline lamp in all 

residential sector purchase events. 

12. Effective Date 

For purposes of DOE’s analyses, the 

effective date is the date when a new 

standard becomes operative. DOE 

intends to publish the final rule for this 

rulemaking in June 2009. 73 FR 13620, 

13663 (March 13, 2008). In accordance 

with sections 325(i)(3) and (i)(5) of 

EPCA, the effective date of any new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

for these lamps shall be 3 years after the 

final rule is published, which would be 

June 2012 for this rulemaking. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(i)(3) and (i)(5)) DOE 

performed its LCC analysis based upon 

an assumption that each consumer 

would purchase a new product in the 

year that the standard takes effect. 

13. Payback Period Inputs 

The payback period (PBP) is the 

amount of time a consumer needs to 

recover the assumed additional costs of 

a more-efficient product through lower 

operating costs. As in the March 2008 

ANOPR, DOE used a ‘‘simple’’ PBP for 

the NOPR, because the PBP does not 

take into account other changes in 

operating expenses over time or the time 

value of money. 73 FR 13620, 13663 

16958 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(March 13, 2008). 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 the 

standard takes effect (2012 in this case) 

are needed. 73 FR 13620, 13663 (March 

13, 2008). 

14. Lamp Purchase Events 

In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

described five types of events that 

would prompt a consumer to purchase 

a lamp. 73 FR 13620, 13664 (March 13, 

2008). These events are described below 

along with changes for the NOPR 

analysis. Of particular note, DOE 

conducted a number of new analyses for 

the NOPR which assessed lamp failure, 

ballast failure, and new construction 

events for residential sector GSFL. In 

addition, though described primarily in 

the context of GSFL, lamp purchase 

events can be applied to IRL as well. 

However, considering that IRL are 

generally not used with a ballast the 

only lamp purchase events applicable 

are lamp failure (event I) and new 

construction and renovation (event V). 

• Lamp Failure (Event I): This event 

reflects a scenario in which a lamp has 

failed (spot relamping) or is about to fail 

(group re-lamping). 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. When a standardscompliant lamp for that ballast is not 

available, the consumer purchases a 

new lamp and ballast. For the NOPR, 

DOE added a residential sector GSFL 

lamp failure event. 

• Standards-Induced Retrofit (Event 

II): This event occurs when a consumer 

realizes that its T12 lamp will fail in the 

near future and installs a standardscompliant lamp and ballast. In the base 

case, the consumer would have installed 

only a new lamp. This event applies 

only to T12 commercial and industrial 

users because there are certain lamp 

standard levels that a T12 cannot meet. 

This event does not apply to T12 

residential users because these users 

would not proactively replace their T12 

system before the T12 lamp fails. 

• Ballast Failure (Event III): In the 

March 2008 ANOPR, DOE assumed that 

failed ballasts would be replaced with 

electronic ballasts because standards set 

by the 2000 Ballast Rule and EPACT 

2005 ban the sale of magnetic 4-foot 

medium bipin and 8-foot single pin 

slimline ballasts beginning in 2010. 73 

FR 13620, 13664 (March 13, 2008). 

NEMA commented that the 2000 Ballast 

Rule allows the continued sale of 

residential magnetic ballasts as well as 

magnetic cold-temperature ballasts, 

which operate a large portion of the 

installed base of T12 recessed double 

contact high-output lamps. (NEMA, No. 

22 at p. 20) In response, DOE has 

assumed that failed magnetic HO 

ballasts would be replaced with 

magnetic ballasts in the base case for the 

NOPR analysis. DOE also assumed that 

magnetic ballasts would be purchased 

in the event of a ballast or fixture failure 

in the residential sector base case for the 

NOPR analysis because residential 

systems are commonly T12 magnetic 

systems currently. In addition, 

standards established in the 2000 

Ballast Rule and the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005 (EPACT 2005, Pub. L. 109–58) 

will allow magnetic ballasts to continue 

to be sold in the residential sector after 

2010. See the engineering analysis 

(section V.C) for further details. 

• Ballast Retrofit (Event IV): This 

event applies only to T12 users because, 

according to industry experts, the 

majority of ballast retrofits occur for 

consumers with T12 systems. 

Consumers retrofitting their ballasts 

commonly do so to save energy, and T8 

systems are generally more efficacious 

than T12 systems. 

• New Construction and Renovation 

(Event V): This event encompasses all 

fixture installations where the lighting 

design will be completely new or can be 

completely changed. The scenario 

applies only to baseline lamps that are 

usually used in new construction and 

renovation (4-foot T8 lamps, 4-foot T12 

lamps in the residential sector, 8-foot 

single pin slimline T8 lamps, and 8-foot 

recessed double contact HO T12 lamps). 

For the NOPR analysis, DOE assumed 

that 4-foot T8 lamps with electronic 

ballasts would be chosen during the 

new construction and renovation event 

for the 4-foot T12 residential baseline. 

E. National Impact Analysis—National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

Analysis 

1. General 

DOE’s NIA assesses the national 

energy savings (NES) and the national 

net present value (NPV) of total 

customer costs and savings that would 

be expected to result from new 

standards at specific efficacy levels. 

DOE uses the NIA spreadsheets to 

calculate energy savings and NPV based 

on the annual energy consumption and 

total installed cost data employed in the 

LCC analysis. DOE forecasts the energy 

savings, energy cost savings, equipment 

costs, and NPV for each product class 

from 2012 through 2042. The forecasts 

provide annual and cumulative values 

for all four output parameters. DOE also 

examines impact sensitivities by 

analyzing various lamp shipment 

scenarios (such as Roll-up and Shift). 

DOE develops a base-case forecast for 

each analyzed lamp type which 

characterizes energy use and consumer 

costs (lamp purchase and operation) in 

the absence of new or revised energy 

conservation standards. To evaluate the 

impacts of such standards on these 

lamps, DOE compares the estimated 

base-case projection with projections 

characterizing the market if DOE did 

promulgate new or amended standards 

(i.e., the standards case). In 

characterizing the base and standards 

cases, DOE considers historical 

shipments, the mix of efficacies sold in 

the absence of any new standards, and 

how that mix might change over time. 

Inputs and issues associated with the 

NIA are discussed immediately below. 

a. Overview of NIA Changes in This 

Notice 

Based on the comments it received on 

the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE made a 

number of changes to the NIA. Table V.3 

summarizes the approach and data DOE 

used to derive the inputs to the NES and 

NPV analyses for the March 2008 

ANOPR, as well as the changes it made 

for this notice. Following the table, DOE 

details those inputs and the changes, 

and summarizes and responds to each of 

the NIA-related comments it received. 

See TSD chapters 10 and 11 for further 

details. 

TABLE V.3—APPROACH AND DATA USED TO DERIVE THE INPUTS TO THE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND NET PRESENT

VALUE ANALYSES

Inputs 2008 ANOPR description Changes for the proposed rule 

Shipments ............................ Annual shipments from shipments model ....................... See Table V.4 and Table V.5. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16959 

TABLE V.3—APPROACH AND DATA USED TO DERIVE THE INPUTS TO THE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND NET PRESENT

VALUE ANALYSES—Continued 

Inputs 2008 ANOPR description Changes for the proposed rule 

Stock of lamps ..................... Established based on the projected 2011 lamp stock, 

the service life of lamps and/or ballasts, and the annual shipments. The 2011 stock is based on historical shipments and projected shipments from 2006 to 

2011. (See ANOPR TSD chapter 10, shipments analysis.).

Established based on 2005 lamp stock, rather than 

2011. Considered market penetration of emerging 

technologies. See Table V.4 and Table V.5 for additional detail. 

Effective date of standard .... 2012 ................................................................................ No change. 

Analysis period ..................... 2012 to 2042 ................................................................... No change. 

Unit energy consumption 

(kWh/yr).

Established in the energy-use characterization, ANOPR 

TSD chapter 6, by lamp or lamp-and-ballast design 

and sector.

No change. 

Total installed cost ............... Established in the product price determination, ANOPR 

TSD chapter 7 and the LCC analysis, ANOPR chapter 8, by lamp-and-ballast designs.

Added costs of retrofit kit and labor for replacing a 8- 

foot SP slimline system with two 4-foot MBP systems. 

Electricity price forecast ....... AEO2007 forecasts (to 2030) and extrapolation for beyond 2030. (See ANOPR TSD chapter 8.).Updated for AEO2008. 

Energy site-to-source conversion.Conversion varies yearly and is generated by AEO2007 

forecasts (to 2030) of electricity generation and electricity-related losses. Conversion factors for beyond 

2030 are extrapolated.

Conversion varies yearly and is now generated by 

DOE/EIA’s NEMS program (a time-series conversion 

factor; includes electric generation, transmission, and 

distribution losses). 

Conversion factors for beyond 2030 are held constant. 

HVAC interaction savings .... 6.25 percent of total energy savings in the commercial 

sector.

No change. 

Rebound effect ..................... 1 percent of total energy savings in the commercial and 

industrial sectors.

8.5 percent of total energy savings in the residential 

sector.

No change. 

Discount rate ........................ 3 and 7 percent real ........................................................ No change. 

Present year ......................... Future costs and savings are discounted to 2007 ......... No change. 

2. Shipments Analysis 

Lamp shipments are an important 

input to the NIA. In the March 2008 

ANOPR, DOE followed a four-step 

approach to forecast shipments for 

GSFL and IRL. 73 FR 13620, 13668 

(March 13, 2008). First, DOE used 

NEMA’s historical shipment data from 

2001 to 2005 to estimate total historical 

(NEMA members and non-NEMA 

members) shipments of each analyzed 

lamp type in the commercial, industrial, 

and residential sectors. Second, using 

these historical shipments, DOE linearly 

extrapolated shipments to 2011. Then, 

based on average service lifetimes, DOE 

estimated a stock of lamps in 2011 for 

each lamp type. Next, DOE forecasted 

lamp (and ballast for GSFL) shipments 

from 2012 to 2042 (the NIA analysis 

period) based on four market events: (1) 

New construction; (2) ballast failure 

(GSFL only); (3) lamp replacement; and 

(4) standards-induced retrofit (for the 

standards case). Lastly, because these 

shipments depend on lamp and lampsystem properties (e.g., lifetime and 

lumen output), DOE developed basecase and standards-case market-share 

matrices. These matrices determine the 

forecasted technology mixes in the lamp 

stock and shipments. 

Table V.4 and Table V.5 summarize 

the approach and data DOE used for 

GSFL and IRL, respectively, to derive 

the inputs to the shipments analysis for 

the March 2008 ANOPR, as well as the 

changes DOE made for the NOPR. A 

discussion of the inputs and the changes 

follows. 

TABLE V.4—APPROACH AND DATA USED TO DERIVE THE INPUTS TO GSFL SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS

Inputs 2008 ANOPR description Changes for the proposed rule 

Historical shipments ............. 2001–2005 shipment data provided publicly by NEMA. 

Assumed NEMA data represented 90 percent of 

GSFL shipments.

Calibrated 2006–2007 forecasted shipments based on 

confidential historical shipment data NEMA provided 

for those years. 

Lamp inventory .................... Calculated lamp inventory in 2011 by linearly projecting 

NEMA’s 2001–2005 historical shipment data. Then 

used growth and shipment assumptions to establish 

lamp inventory from 2012 to 2042.

Did not use linear projections; calculated stock in 2005. 

Then used growth, emerging technologies, and shipment assumptions to establish lamp inventory from 

2006 to 2042. 

Growth .................................. Shipment growth driven by lumen demand. Lumen demand projected from historical CBECS commercial 

floor space growth.

Based commercial and residential growth on AEO2008 

estimates for future floor space growth. For the residential sector, modeled variations in number of lamps 

per new home. For the industrial sector, projected 

floor space growth using MECS. 

T5 lamps .............................. Not included .................................................................... Shipments modeled by assuming T5 lamps used in 

new construction and in conversions from 4-foot medium bipin, 8-foot SP slimline, and 8-foot RDC HO. 

16960 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.4—APPROACH AND DATA USED TO DERIVE THE INPUTS TO GSFL SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS—Continued 

Inputs 2008 ANOPR description Changes for the proposed rule 

T12 ballasts .......................... Assumed no T12 magnetic ballasts shipped after 2009 

for 8-foot SP slimline and 4-foot MBP lamps. Did not 

consider T12 electronic ballasts for 8-foot SP slimline 

and 4-foot MBP lamps.

Assumed no T12 magnetic ballasts shipped after 2010 

for commercial 4-foot MBP and 8-foot SP slimline. 

Also assumed 4-foot MBP and 8-foot SP slimline 

electronic T12 ballasts shipped through 2042. For 8- 

foot T12 RDC HO and residential 4-foot T12 MBP, 

assumed magnetic ballasts are shipped through 

2042. 

Sectors analyzed ................. Commercial and industrial .............................................. Included residential sector in analysis. 

Base-case emerging technologies.None included ................................................................. Developed two base-case scenarios, one of which 

modeled the market penetration of LEDs based on 

projected payback period. 

Market share matrices ......... Developed product distributions based on interviews 

and catalog data.

Revised product distributions based on comments, subsequent interviews, and further catalog research. 

Standards case scenarios ... Shift and Roll-up scenarios analyzed. Assumed all consumers will attempt to maintain lumen output by either moving to lower ballast factors or reduced-wattage lamps in the standards case.Revised the Shift and Roll-up scenarios. Developed a 

standards-case scenario (Market Segment-Based 

Lighting Expertise scenario) to characterize consumers who, based on lighting expertise, will not migrate to lower ballast factors or reduced-wattage 

lamps to maintain lumen output. 

TABLE V.5—APPROACH AND DATA USED TO DERIVE THE INPUTS TO IRL SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS

Inputs 2008 ANOPR description Changes for the proposed rule 

Historical shipments ............. 2001–2005 shipment data provided publicly by NEMA. 

Assumed NEMA data represented 85 percent of IRL 

shipments.

Calibrated 2006–2007 projected shipments based on 

confidential historical shipment data NEMA provided 

for those years. 

Lamp inventory .................... Calculated stock in 2011 by linearly projecting NEMA’s 

2001–2005 historical shipment data. Then used 

growth assumptions to establish lamp inventory from 

2012 to 2042.

Did not use linear projections; calculated stock in 2005. 

Then used growth and emerging technologies assumptions to establish lamp inventory from 2006 to 

2042. 

Growth .................................. Shipment growth driven by socket growth. Socket 

growth projected from historical CBECS commercial 

floor space and RECS residential building growth.

Based growth on AEO2008 estimates for future commercial floor space and residential buildings. 

Also accounted for trend of increasing sockets per 

home. 

Sectors analyzed ................. Commercial and residential ............................................ No change. 

Base case reflector compact 

fluorescent lamps (R– 

CFL) and emerging technologies.

Assumed 0 percent stock penetration in 2012 and 50 

percent stock penetration in 2042.

Developed two base-case scenarios modeling the market penetration of LED, CMH, and R–CFL based on 

projected payback period. 

Market share matrices ......... Considered mix of technologies consumers select in 

the base case and standards case, as well as each 

of the scenarios analyzed.

Revised market-share matrices to reflect its changes in 

the scenarios analyzed and engineering analyses. 

Standards-case scenarios ... Modeled the Roll-up scenario. ........................................

Analyzed two standards-case sensitivity scenarios: One 

modeling consumer movement to exempted BR 

lamps and another modeling a 10 percent increase in 

lumen output. Did not consider additional migration to 

R–CFL in the standards case.

Modeled both Roll-up and Shift scenarios. 

Revised BR lamp sensitivity scenario, creating two new 

standards-case scenarios also accounting for additional migration to R–CFL: ‘‘Product Substitution’’ and 

‘‘No Product Substitution.’’ 

a. Lamp Inventory 

In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

linearly extrapolated NEMA’s historical 

lamp shipments from 2005 to 2011 to 

establish a 2011 installed stock of GSFL 

and IRL using each lamp’s average 

service lifetime. In its written 

comments, NEMA argued that DOE’s 

linear extrapolation approach does not 

account for market dynamics and is 

vulnerable to certain temporal biases 

inherent in NEMA’s historical data. For 

example, if a new product was 

introduced and rapidly gained market 

share during this historical shipment 

period, a linear extrapolation based on 

this data could exaggerate the growth 

rate of this product in future years. 

Likewise, any new products introduced 

would be excluded from the future 

results. For example, Philips noted at 

the public meeting that because DOE 

extrapolated shipment data from 2001 to 

2005 to establish its lamp stocks, it may 

have discounted migration to T5 lamps, 

which have only started to grow in the 

last couple of years. Thus, the 

commenter argued that DOE may have 

overstated the 2011 stock of some types 

of lamps (e.g., T8 lamps), while 

understating others (e.g., T5 lamps). 

(NEMA, No. 22 at pp. 23–25, 31; Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 21 at p. 246) 

On the other hand, NEMA suggested 

that a linear extrapolation is sometimes 

appropriate for lamps with small and 

stable market shares, such as 8-foot T8 

recessed double contact HO lamps. 

However, for large and variable product 

classes, NEMA urged DOE to model 

lamp types against specific economic 

factors and technical relationships. 

(NEMA, No. 22 at p. 24) 

DOE agrees that a linear extrapolation 

may generally be too limited in its 

application, and that lamp shipment 

forecasts from 2006 to 2011 should 

incorporate both market dynamics and 

macroeconomic factors. Therefore, DOE 

is no longer using a linear extrapolation 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16961 

49RLW Analytics, Inc., ‘‘California Statewide 

Residential Lighting and Appliance Efficiency 

Saturation Survey’’ (August 2005) (Last accessed on 

Sept. 29, 2008). Available at: http:// 

www.calresest.com/docs/2005CLASSREPORT.pdf. 50U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing and 

Construction Division, ‘‘New Privately Owned 

Housing Unit Starts’’ (2008) (Last accessed on Sept. 

29, 2008). Available at: http://www.census.gov/ 

const/startsan.pdf. 

from historical data. Instead, for this 

NOPR, DOE calculated an installed 

stock of lamps in 2005 and applied 

growth, replacement rate, and emerging 

technologies assumptions to develop 

shipments estimates from 2006 to 2042. 

In addition, DOE received confidential 

shipment information from NEMA for 

2006 and 2007, and, when possible, 

calibrated the shipments model to 

match that information. The 

assumptions used to develop shipment 

forecasts are discussed in the following 

sections. 

b. Shipments Growth 

To develop the shipments models for 

both GSFL and IRL, DOE applied 

several growth rate assumptions. In the 

March 2008 ANOPR, DOE modeled 

GSFL shipments from 2012 to 2042 by 

projecting lumen growth based on 

lumen demand serviced by each lamp 

type in the commercial and industrial 

sectors. For IRL, DOE projected 

shipments through 2042 based on 

growth in the number of sockets using 

IRL in the commercial and residential 

sectors. DOE based forecasted lumen 

and socket growth for GSFL and IRL on 

historical residential building growth 

from RECS and historical commercial 

and industrial floor space growth from 

CBECS and MECS. 

DOE received a number of comments 

in response to its growth rate 

methodology. The majority of these 

comments fell into three categories: (1) 

The limits of basing lamp stock growth 

on historical floor space growth; (2) the 

increasing number of lamps per 

household; and (3) the wider spacing of 

more-efficient light fixtures. Below is a 

discussion of those comments. For 

further details regarding GSFL and IRL 

growth rate assumptions, see TSD 

chapter 10. 

i. Floor Space and Building Growth 

NEMA stated that the commercial and 

residential growth rates DOE used in the 

March 2008 ANOPR (based on total 

floor space from CBECS in RECS) have 

likely led to an overstatement of lamp 

shipments and stock, given the 

deteriorating economy. (NEMA, No. 22 

at pp. 23–24) DOE understands NEMA’s 

concerns and no longer establishes its 

commercial and residential growth from 

historical floor space growth. Instead, 

for this NOPR, DOE modeled 

commercial floor space and residential 

buildings growth based on AEO2008, 

which estimates year-to-year 

commercial floor space and residential 

building growth. Because AEO2008 

takes into account future trends in 

economic growth, DOE was able to 

incorporate forecasts of macroeconomic 

conditions in its growth forecast. 

However, because AEO does not 

provide industrial floor space forecasts, 

DOE used historical MECS floor space 

values to establish a growth rate for the 

industrial sector. 

ii. Lamps per Household 

The Joint Comment stated that DOE’s 

growth forecasts omitted an important 

factor driving IRL sales: a trend toward 

an increasing number of recessed 

fixtures per home in new construction 

and existing home renovation. Because 

this trend is excluded from DOE’s 

analysis, which assumed growth based 

on floor space growth, the Joint 

Comment argued that IRL shipments are 

likely understated. NEMA also stated 

that it has seen a trend toward 

increasing light points per home. To 

address this development, the Joint 

Comment recommended DOE obtain 

additional data on sales trends of these 

lamps and not assume recessed socket 

growth was directly proportional to 

floor space growth. The Joint Comment, 

PG&E, and ACEEE cited several studies 

supporting this claim. (Joint Comment, 

No. 23 at p. 17; Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21 at pp. 287–288; 

NEMA, No. 22 at p. 31) 

DOE agrees with the Joint Comment 

that the increasing popularity of 

recessed fixtures in new homes will 

drive IRL sales growth faster in the 

residential sector. New homes are likely 

to install more IRL than those installed 

in older homes, and older homes may be 

renovated to include more recessed cans 

and, thus, more reflector lamps. 

Therefore, DOE conducted an analysis 

that estimated the average number of 

recessed cans in homes between 2005 

and 2042. Using California data 49 on 

recessed cans per home broken out by 

home age, DOE assumed new homes 

constructed after 2005 would install the 

same number of recessed cans as homes 

constructed between 2001 and 2005. 

DOE also assumed that half of the 

homes constructed before 2001 would 

be renovated by 2042 to have an equal 

number of recessed cans as newly 

constructed homes. DOE estimated the 

distribution of homes by age using U.S. 

Census data 50 on new building starts in 

the residential sector. DOE estimated 

new construction and the number of 

future homes constructed in each year 

from AEO2008. Using this data, DOE 

estimated that the average number of 

recessed cans per home in 2005 was 

4.82, and the average number of 

recessed cans per home in 2042 will be 

8.52. As noted above, DOE also agrees 

with NEMA that growth rates should 

include forecasts of economic 

conditions. Therefore, to estimate the 

growth rate in each year, DOE 

multiplied the number of recessed cans 

in homes by the projected stock of 

homes according to AEO2008. 

Combining these two sources, DOE 

predicts an average growth rate of 

sockets of 2.6 percent between 2006 and 

2042, compared to the 1.6 percent DOE 

estimated in the March 2008 ANOPR. 

DOE estimated the GSFL growth rate 

in the residential sector using a 

methodology similar to that which it 

employed for IRL in the residential 

sector. Instead of using the number of 

recessed cans per home by home age, 

DOE used the number of T8 and T12 

lamps by home age. Again, DOE 

assumed that the same number of T8 

and T12 lamps per home would be 

installed in new homes as those 

installed between 2001 and 2005, and 

that half of homes built before 2001 

would be renovated by 2042 to have the 

same number of T8 and T12 lamps as 

newly constructed homes. DOE 

estimated that the average number of T8 

and T12 lamps per home in 2005 was 

4.5, and the average number in 2042 

will be 4.7. Combining this growth 

estimate with AEO2008’s projected 

growth in the residential home stock 

yields an average growth rate of 1 

percent between 2006 and 2042 for 

GSFL in the residential sector. 

Compared to IRL, the lower GSFL 

growth rate reflects the lower growth 

rate of T8 and T12 lamps per home 

versus recessed cans. (In the March 

2008 ANOPR, DOE did not consider the 

residential sector for GSFL.) 

iii. Wider Spacing of More-Efficient 

Fixtures 

In its written comments, NEMA 

suggested that DOE should assume a 

slower growth rate in the commercial 

building IRL socket base to account for 

wider spacing of lighting fixtures and/ 

or greater use of high-output systems. 

(NEMA, No. 22 at p. 31) While DOE 

appreciates NEMA’s comment, it was 

unable to find (and the commenter did 

not provide) any information related to 

wider spacing between fixtures, and, 

therefore, DOE did not change growth 

estimates to account for this potential 

effect. 

16962 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

c. Base-Case Scenarios: Emerging 

Technologies and Existing Technologies 

In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

estimated that by 2042 R–CFL and 

emerging technologies, (e.g., such as 

LED lamps, and ceramic metal halide 

(CMH) lamps) would compose 50 

percent of IRL sockets in the installed 

base. 73 FR 13620, 13670 (March 13, 

2008). For IRL, DOE accounted for the 

impact of emerging technologies by 

deducting their market share in each 

year over the analysis period from the 

installed base of lamps, effectively 

reducing the size of the market affected 

by the standards proposed in this 

rulemaking. In the March 2008 ANOPR, 

DOE did not account for any penetration 

of emerging technologies into the GSFL 

market, and requested comment on if 

and how it should incorporate their 

effects into its analyses. 

DOE received several comments on its 

consideration of emerging technologies. 

NEMA argued that the performance 

improvements of CMH will drive the 

technology’s market penetration into the 

GSFL market. NEMA also asserted that 

LED lamps could displace GSFL 

shipments to some extent by 2042. 

(NEMA, No. 22 at pp. 24–26) As for 

emerging technologies in the IRL 

market, NEMA commented that LED 

lamps could also displace shipments of 

IRL to some extent by 2042, particularly 

in the residential sector. NEMA stated 

that the shift from halogen IRL to CMH 

is already occurring in the retail market. 

Industrial Ecology stated that an 

integrated PAR CMH lamp would be 

expected to replace other IRL PAR 

lamps in the commercial retail market. 

(NEMA, No. 22 at pp. 24–26; Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 21 at pp. 307– 

309) NEMA argued that these emerging 

technologies will significantly affect 

future lamp shipments and reduce the 

NPV results of standards for both GSFL 

and IRL. To more accurately forecast the 

impact of emerging technologies, NEMA 

suggested that DOE should examine 

historical price and performance points 

of R–CFL, as well as product cycles for 

other advanced technology equipment. 

(NEMA, No. 22 at pp. 24–26) Industrial 

Ecology suggested that DOE should use 

semiconductor industry data to assess 

the manufacturing capacity for solid 

state lamps. (Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 21 at p. 311–312) 

DOE agrees that emerging 

technologies could penetrate GSFL and 

IRL markets and significantly affect 

shipment forecasts and NIA results. 

Therefore, for the NOPR, DOE has 

revised its analysis of emerging 

technologies within the IRL market and 

now accounts for emerging technologies 

within the GSFL market as well. These 

emerging technologies already are, or 

eventually will likely be, significantly 

more efficacious and longer lasting than 

the lamps they replace. However, to 

calculate the energy savings and NPV 

benefits due to the penetration of an 

emerging technology, DOE must 

accurately forecast the anticipated price 

and performance points of the 

individual technologies—a difficult and 

highly speculative task. Forecasts 

related to emerging technologies are 

inherently uncertain because they 

depend upon assumptions about future 

price, efficacy, and utility, none of 

which can be verified. Therefore, for the 

NOPR, DOE has chosen to analyze two 

base-case scenarios for both GSFL and 

IRL: (1) Existing Technologies, and (2) 

Emerging Technologies. DOE believes 

evaluating two base-case scenarios more 

completely characterizes the inherent 

uncertainty of the market penetration of 

the technologies and the consequent 

impact on NPV and NES. Incorporating 

emerging technologies in the base case 

does not affect the relative benefits of 

each TSL and prevents uncertain 

projections of market share, price, or 

performance from obscuring the benefits 

derived from more-efficient GSFL and 

IRL alone. 

For these base-case scenarios, DOE 

estimated the market penetration of 

three specific technologies into the 

projected installed stock: (1) LED lamps; 

(2) CMH lamps; and (3) reflector CFL. In 

general, the Existing Technologies 

scenario only considers the market 

penetration of technologies that are 

currently readily available and have 

reached maturation in terms of price 

and efficacy. Specifically, DOE 

considers R–CFL in the Existing 

Technologies scenario within the IRL 

market. For GSFL, no technologies other 

than those covered by this rulemaking 

were analyzed in the Existing 

Technologies scenario. (DOE considers 

the migration to T5 lamps, a covered 

product, separately, as discussed in 

section V.E.2.d.) 

In the Emerging Technologies 

scenario, DOE attempts to forecast the 

market penetration of mature 

technologies and those technologies that 

are still undergoing significant changes 

in price and efficacy. Specifically, DOE 

considered the market penetration of R– 

CFL, LED lamps, and CMH lamps in the 

Emerging Technologies scenario. 

DOE generally followed a 5-step 

process for each scenario to estimate the 

market penetration of the analyzed 

technologies and account for their 

impact on NES and NPV. (Sector- and 

technology-specific aspects of DOE’s 

methodology are described below and in 

TSD chapter 10.) 

First, DOE developed price, 

performance, and efficacy forecasts for 

each of the analyzed technologies. 

DOE’s methodology in generating these 

forecasts for each analyzed technology 

is described below. Second, using those 

estimates, DOE calculated the payback 

period (PBP) of each technology in the 

relevant sector using the difference 

between its purchase price, annual 

electricity cost, and annual lamp 

replacement cost relative to the lamp it 

replaces. (See TSD chapter 10 for further 

details.) Third, DOE used a relationship 

between PBP and market penetration to 

predict the market penetration of each 

technology in the relevant sector in 

every year from 2006 to 2042. Generally, 

lower PBP of a given lamp technology 

results in a greater predicted market 

penetration of that technology. DOE 

used a 5-year average of the market 

penetrations predicted by the 

relationship as its final market 

penetration. The 5-year average 

represents the time DOE assumed it 

takes products with lower PBPs to 

penetrate the market. Fourth, when 

necessary, DOE applied a scaling factor 

to the predicted market penetration to 

account for observed market trends. 

Fifth, DOE reduced the projected 

installed stock of covered products in 

each year by the value that 

corresponded to the highest level of 

market penetration achieved in each 

year by one of the analyzed 

technologies. Thus, the inclusion of R– 

CFL and other lamps using emerging 

technologies in the base case have the 

effect of lowering the energy savings of 

a potential new standard. For those 

covered lamps remaining, the costeffectiveness of LCC savings and, thus, 

the relative cost effectiveness of each 

TSL is not affected. 

Because the lamps employing 

emerging technologies are beyond the 

scope of the rulemaking, they are not 

considered design options to improving 

IRL or GSFL efficacy, but rather they 

may substitutes for the lamps covered in 

this rulemaking. In the Emerging 

Technologies base case, DOE uses its 

prices projections effectively as inputs 

into its shipments forecasts of its 

covered products, rather than forecasts 

of shipments of lamps employing the 

emerging technologies themselves. In 

this way, the price projections of the 

analyzed lamps using emerging 

technologies indirectly affect the NPV of 

the present rulemaking, despite not 

being a direct input into equipment 

prices. As stated previously, to 

acknowledge the uncertainty of price 

forecasts for lamps using emerging 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16963 

51 Multi-Year Program Plan FY’09 to FY’14: SolidState Lighting Research and Development (March 

2008). Available at: http://www.netl.doe.gov/ssl/ 

PDFs/SSLMYPP2008_web.pdf. 

52Because they are based on an existing LED 

retrofit kit, DOE’s projections did not consider 

innovations in form factor on OLED tyechnology 

which could improve the possible payback period 

for solid-state lighting technologies. 

technologies, DOE models two base-case 

scenarios. 

i. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

For the Existing Technologies 

scenario, DOE believes that no mature 

technologies in the current market show 

the potential to significantly penetrate 

the GSFL market. (T5 lamps, previously 

considered an emerging technology, are 

now a covered product class.) Therefore, 

for the Existing Technologies scenario, 

DOE considered only the fluorescent 

technologies already covered by this 

rulemaking. Thus, except for the 

addition of T5 lamps, the Existing 

Technologies base case in this NOPR is 

the same as the base case in the March 

2008 ANOPR. 

In the GSFL Emerging Technology 

scenario, however, DOE separately 

considered the potential market 

penetration of two technologies: (1) 

LEDs (into the commercial, residential, 

and industrial sectors); and (2) CMH 

(into the commercial and industrial 

sectors). 

For its analysis of LED market 

penetration, DOE found a commerciallyavailable retrofit kit that included a LED 

replacement for a 4-foot medium bipin 

system. DOE used the retrofit kit as a 

current baseline from which to project 

future cost, efficacy, and price points. 

DOE interviewed an integrated circuit 

manufacturer to develop cost estimates 

for LED driver circuits. For cost 

estimates of other components, DOE 

used prices of existing LED products 

already on the market, which it 

modified in accordance with cost data 

and efficacy projections from DOE’s 

Solid State Lighting Multi-Year Program 

Plan.51 Lastly, using markup based on 

currently-available LED lamps, DOE was 

able to develop price and efficacy 

projections for the LED luminaire in the 

retrofit kit.52 Following the 5-step 

process described above, DOE 

calculated a 41 percent market 

penetration rate of LED lamps into the 

4-foot GSFL commercial sector by 2042. 

DOE assumed LED lamps penetrated 

only the new construction, renovation, 

and fixture replacement markets 

because these lamps would require their 

own specific fixtures. In the residential 

sector, the LED option did not have a 

low enough payback period to result in 

any market penetration. 

DOE also analyzed the potential 

penetration of CMH into the GSFL 

market. DOE first estimated current 

CMH prices using a methodology 

similar to the methodology it used to 

estimate GSFL and IRL prices, as 

described in the product price 

determination. (See TSD chapter 7.) 

Industry experts informed DOE that 

CMH efficacies and lifetimes would 

increase over the next several years 

while prices would remain constant. 

Applying these lifetime and efficacy 

projections DOE compared CMH 

replacements to GSFL systems. As a 

result, DOE assumed no market 

penetration of CMH because it found 

that T5 lamp systems (standard output 

and high output) would always be less 

costly and more efficacious than 

projected CMH replacements. Given this 

information, DOE believes that it is 

likely that migration to CMH (from the 

GSFL market) will be dominated by the 

migration to standard-output and highoutput T5 lamps. 

ii. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

As with GSFL, DOE considered two 

base case scenarios for IRL: Existing 

Technologies and Emerging 

Technologies. Because DOE believes 

that R–CFL is a mature technology with 

relatively stable price points and 

efficacies, DOE considered R–CFL 

penetration into the residential market 

in the Existing Technologies scenario. In 

contrast, for the Emerging Technologies 

scenario, DOE considered the market 

penetration of R–CFL, LED, and CMH 

lamps in both the residential and 

commercial sectors. DOE separately 

calculated the penetration of each 

technology into the IRL stock by using 

the 5-step process described above. 

For R–CFL, DOE developed price 

forecasts based on historical pricing 

trends of CFL and R–CFL, using a 

methodology similar to the methodology 

DOE used to estimate GSFL and IRL 

prices, as described in the product price 

determination. (See TSD chapter 7.) 

DOE assumed no future change in 

efficacy. Using this data, DOE found the 

market penetration predicted by the PBP 

relationship. However, PG&E argued 

that R–CFL are not always suitable 

substitutes for IRL because they lack 

dimming capabilities and their beam 

width is too broad. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21 at pp. 289, 321) 

Industrial Ecology commented that 

dimmable R–CFL do in fact exist, while 

PG&E noted that these lamps have little 

market share. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21 at pp. 291, 321) DOE 

agrees that R–CFL may not always be 

appropriate substitutes for IRL, due to 

differences in form factor, beam spread, 

color quality, size and dimming 

capability. DOE observed that the actual 

market penetration of CFL replacements 

for A-line incandescent lamps thus far 

has been approximately 40 percent of 

the penetration predicted by the PBPpenetration relationship. Therefore, 

DOE applied these same scaling-factor 

reductions of 40 percent and 36 percent 

in calculating the market penetration of 

R–CFL into the IRL market for the 

residential and commercial sectors, 

respectively. 

For LED and CMH lamps in the IRL 

market, DOE developed price and 

efficacy forecasts using a methodology 

similar to the one described above for 

GSFL. DOE did not apply the scaling 

factor reduction to the predicted LED 

and CMH market penetration rates that 

it used for the R–CFL analysis. DOE 

believes the substitutability problems 

that arise when R–CFL replace IRL do 

not apply when LED and CMH replace 

IRL. 

By the methodology described, DOE 

arrived at market penetration values 

(and market size reductions) for each 

base-case scenario. For the Existing 

Technology scenario, 2042 R–CFL 

penetration reached 38 percent in the 

residential sector and 20 percent in the 

commercial sector. (This was the 

highest market penetration because it 

was the only technology analyzed for 

the scenario.) For the Emerging 

Technology scenario, LED reached the 

highest market penetration of any 

analyzed technology in both the 

residential sector and the commercial 

sector. DOE’s analysis found LED lamps 

could penetrate 40 percent and 82 

percent of the IRL installed stock by 

2042 in the residential and commercial 

sector, respectively. DOE’s results 

support a comment by Industrial 

Ecology stating that emerging 

technologies will enter the commercial 

market first. (Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 21 at p. 308) This effect occurs 

because there are higher installation and 

operating costs in the commercial sector 

relative to the residential sector, 

resulting in lower PBPs and faster 

migration to emerging technologies. 

Again, DOE used these results to 

effectively reduce the size of the IRL 

market for its analysis. 

d. Fluorescent Market Sectors Analyzed 

In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

modeled both the commercial and 

industrial market sectors to generate 

GSFL shipments forecasts. DOE 

received several comments on its 

decision not to model the residential 

sector. 

16964 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

GE commented that DOE should 

model the residential sector because it 

makes substantial use of less-efficacious 

T12 lamps, which could be effectively 

eliminated by new standards. GE 

estimated that by 2012, roughly 20 

percent of GSFL shipments will be T12 

lamps, and more than half of those will 

go to residential consumers. PG&E 

stated that California codes only 

recently required higher-efficacy lamps 

in new construction; therefore, 4-foot 

T12 lamps with magnetic ballasts 

remain a large part of the residential 

installed stock. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21 at pp. 276–279) 

The Joint Comment asserted that a 

separate analysis for the residential 

sector is unnecessary; however, the Joint 

Comment recommended that residential 

applications should be accounted for in 

DOE’s LCC analysis based on the 

proportion of lamp sales, operating 

hours, and electric rates. The Joint 

Comment stated DOE should use 

caution in apportioning all sales 

through do-it-yourself (DIY) stores, such 

as Home Depot and Lowe’s, to the 

residential sector. (Joint Comment, No. 

23 at p. 10) PG&E and NEMA 

commented that approximately 20 

percent of DIY business is commercial. 

(NEMA, No. 22 at p. 30; Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21 at p. 290) 

DOE agrees that it should model the 

residential sector to more accurately 

capture overall consumer behavior and 

the market impact of standards. DOE 

calculated the initial residential stock of 

4-foot medium bipin T12 lamps using 

the lamps sold through the DIY 

distribution chain, which accounted for 

approximately 25 percent of NEMA’s 

historical shipments. Next, DOE 

assumed 20 percent of those DIY sales 

went to small commercial consumers, 

with the remaining 80 percent 

apportioned to the residential sector. As 

a result, DOE assumed 20 percent of all 

4-foot medium bipin shipments went to 

the residential sector and all of those 

were T12 lamps. 

From those shipments, DOE 

calculated the residential installed stock 

and then modeled new construction, 

renovation, and fixture/ballast 

replacement in the same manner 

described in section 0. DOE assumed 

that in the base case, a portion of 

consumers will continue to purchase 4- 

foot T12 magnetic systems, while the 

remaining consumers will choose to 

purchase higher-efficacy 4-foot T8 and 

4-foot T12 electronic systems. Overall, 

the number of 4-foot T12 systems 

installed in the residential sectors is 

relatively constant over the analysis 

period. For more details regarding 

DOE’s assumptions in the residential 

sector, please see chapter 10 of the TSD. 

e. GSFL Product Migration 

DOE received many comments on its 

assumptions characterizing how 

consumers will migrate among different 

GSFL products. These comments were 

primarily focused on the movement 

away from T12 systems and the 

migration toward T5 systems, topics 

discussed in detail below. 

i. Ballast Rule Effective Start Date 

NEMA commented that the 2000 

Ballast Rule does not ban T12 magnetic 

ballasts in the commercial sector until 

June 2010. This means these ballasts 

will be available through the end of 

2010, and not 2009 as DOE’s model had 

assumed, because some T12s will 

remain in the distribution chain for a 

period of months after the rule takes 

effect. Therefore, NEMA argued, DOE 

should expect T12 lamps to continue to 

be shipped beyond 2022, the year DOE 

projected the lamps will phase out. 

(NEMA, No. 22 at p. 25, 28) DOE agrees 

with NEMA that commercial sector 

magnetic ballasts will continue to be 

available through 2010 and has revised 

its model accordingly to better reflect 

the timing of the 2000 Ballast Rule’s 

effective start date of amended 

standards. According to the revised 

model, DOE estimates that the majority 

of banned magnetic T12 ballasts will be 

eliminated from the installed stock by 

2025. However, as discussed below, the 

inclusion of T12 electronic ballasts 

results in T12 lamps being shipped 

throughout the analysis period. 

ii. Four-Foot Medium Bipin T12 Lamp 

Replacements 

In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

assumed that 100 percent of 4-foot T12 

systems would be replaced by 4-foot T8 

systems upon ballast failure. This 

assumption was made in consideration 

of the 2000 Ballast Rule, which 

effectively banned most 4-foot T12 

medium bipin magnetic ballasts. 10 CFR 

part 430.32(m)(5) DOE received several 

comments related to this assumption 

and the implications for DOE’s GSFL 

shipments analysis. 

Stakeholders generally agreed that 

DOE’s base-case assumption was too 

optimistic in terms of the migration 

from 4-foot T12 to 4-foot T8 systems. 

The comments provided two reasons 

why consumers would be expected to 

maintain T12 electronic ballasts and not 

migrate to T8 lamps. First, because the 

installed stock is dominated by T12 

lamps, it is unlikely all consumers 

would switch to T8 lamps upon 

repurchase, especially when spot reballasting. Some commercial sector 

consumers would be expected to use 

another T12 lamp and ballast to 

maintain visual consistency with other 

lamps in a room. Second, the Joint 

Comment noted that residential lowpower-factor ballasts are not subject to 

the 2000 Ballast Rule, meaning legal 

ballasts compatible with T12 lamps will 

continue to exist. 10 CFR part 

430.32(m)(7)(iii). Similarly, Osram 

Sylvania made the same point and 

commented that 4-foot T12 medium 

bipin magnetic ballast systems are 

common in the residential sector. Osram 

Sylvania added that some fixtures 

include electronic ballasts and are 

marketed as being capable of operating 

T12 lamps, which could perpetuate T12 

usage. NEMA added that cold 

temperature ballasts for 8-foot T12 RDC 

high output lamps are still allowed 

under the rule as well. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21 at pp. 248–251, 276, 

281; NEMA, No. at pp. 25, 28; Joint 

Comment, No. 23 at p. 7) 

The stakeholders did differ slightly on 

the appropriate replacement rates that 

DOE should assume. The Joint 

Comment recommended DOE assume 5 

to 10 percent of the commercial market 

and a higher proportion of the 

residential market will purchase T12 

lamp and ballast systems upon ballast 

failure, with the remainder migrating to 

T8 systems. (Joint Comment, No. 23 at 

p. 7) GE estimated that about 20 percent 

of the currently installed base of T12 

lamps will be replaced by T12 lamps, 

while the other 80 percent will migrate 

to T8 lamps. (Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 21 at pp. 250–252) NEMA suggested 

that DOE should assume that in 2022, 

T12 lamps will compose at least 10 

percent of the 4-foot lamp market, 40 

percent of the 8-foot single pin slimline 

market, and over 90 percent of the RDC 

HO market. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 28) 

After careful consideration of these 

comments, DOE has decided to modify 

its assumption regarding the rate of 

migration from T12 to T8 lamps. 

Accordingly, DOE is using NEMA’s 

estimates to recalibrate its shipment 

forecasts. DOE now agrees that not all 4- 

foot T12 lamps would be replaced by T8 

systems upon ballast failure. Thus, for 

this NOPR, DOE assumed 90 percent 

(down from 100 percent) of 4-foot T12 

systems will be replaced with T8 

systems and 10 percent with T12 

systems. According to DOE’s estimates 

in 2022, T12 lamps will comprise nearly 

20 percent of the 4-foot medium bipin 

market, 25 percent of the 8-foot single 

pin slimline market, and 93 percent of 

the 8-foot recessed double contact HO 

market. (See TSD chapter 10.) DOE 

notes that these estimates do not exactly 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16965 

53As discussed earlier, DOE models two basecase shipment scenarios: Existing Technologies and 

Emerging Technologies. Because the Emerging 

Technologies scenario models the potential 

substitution of GSFL systems with lamps that 

incorporate emerging technologies (such as LED), 

the Emerging Technologies scenario generally 

results in fewer shipments of GSFL. However, based 

on price and technology advancement projections, 

DOE estimated that these emerging technologies 

will not likely significantly penetrate the GSFL 

market until after 2012. 

54U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, ‘‘Energy 

Conservation Program for Commercial and 

Industrial Equipment: High-Intensity Discharge 

Lamps Analysis of Potential Energy Savings’’ (Dec. 

2004). Available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/pdfs/ 

hid_energy_savings_report.pdf. 

align with NEMA’s suggestions, because 

they incorporate several other 

phenomena in addition to the migration 

to T12 electronic systems (e.g., growth 

rate, emerging technologies, T5 

penetration, 8-foot SP slimline to 4-foot 

MBP conversions). 

iii. Eight-Foot Single Pin Slimline T12 

Lamp Replacements 

For its shipments forecasts in the 

March 2008 ANOPR, DOE assumed that 

90 percent of the 8-foot T12 single pin 

systems would be replaced with two 4- 

foot T8 systems, and 10 percent would 

be replaced by 8-foot single pin T8 

systems. In its written comments, 

NEMA generally agreed with DOE’s 

assumption but provided slightly 

different replacement rate: NEMA 

suggested that DOE should assume 80 

percent of the 8-foot T12 single pin 

lamps would be replaced by two 4-foot 

T8 lamps and 20 percent by 8-foot T8 

lamps. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 28) ACEEE 

and the Joint Comment argued that 

DOE’s assumption that 90 percent of the 

8-foot market would switch to 4-foot 

lamps is much too high, particularly 

because the current stock is dominated 

by T12. The Joint Comment also stated 

that DOE should include some 

electronic T12 system ballast purchases, 

as in the case of 4-foot T12 lamps. 

(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 21 at 

pp. 254–255; Joint Comment, No. 23 at 

p. 7) 

Based on its consideration of the 

above comments, DOE revised its 

estimated conversion rates for 8-foot 

single pin slimline systems in this 

NOPR. In line with the Joint Comment 

and NEMA’s recommendations, DOE 

lowered its conversion rates to 4-foot 

MBP systems. In addition, consistent 

with NEMA’s suggestion, DOE has 

included a conversion to electronic 8- 

foot T12 SP slimline systems. DOE now 

assumes 80 percent of the 8-foot T12 

single pin lamps would be replaced by 

two 4-foot MBP T8 systems, with the 

remaining 20 percent split evenly 

between 8-foot T8 and electronic 8-foot 

T12 SP slimline systems. 

iv. Four-Foot T5 Lamps 

In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE did 

not analyze 4-foot miniature bipin T5 

standard output (SO) and high output 

(HO) lamps as covered product classes. 

As discussed in section A.1.b above, for 

this NOPR, DOE is proposing to cover 

both T5 SO and T5 HO lamps as 

additional, distinct product classes. The 

following describes the methodology 

DOE used to generate shipments of 

these lamps. 

To establish the 2005 installed stock 

of T5 lamps, DOE first estimated 2001- 

to-2005 shipments based on 

assumptions derived from its market 

research and supported by manufacturer 

interviews. Market literature indicated 

that T5 lamps represented 2 percent of 

the 2004 GSFL market, a figure DOE 

assumed for its analysis. DOE’s research 

also indicated that the combined market 

share of T5 SO and HO lamps was 

growing as a percentage of the overall 

GSFL market. Additionally, in 

interviews, manufacturers provided 

insight on the proportions of T5 lamp 

sales that are standard output and high 

output. Using these assumptions, DOE 

generated historical shipment estimates 

for 2001 to 2005, which it used to 

calculate the initial stock of SO and HO 

lamps in the same manner it does for all 

other GSFL product classes. Finally, 

DOE received confidential aggregated 

(both SO and HO) T5 lamp shipment 

data from NEMA for 2001 to 2007. DOE 

used this data to validate its installed 

stock estimates. 

In general, after establishing the 2005 

T5 SO and HO installed stocks, DOE 

modeled shipment growth based on a 

migration from other product classes. 

For T5 SO lamps specifically, DOE’s 

research indicated that shipment growth 

of these lamps is primarily driven by a 

migration from the 4-foot MBP market. 

In addition, because 4-foot T5 MiniBP 

SO systems require a different fixture 

than 4-foot MBP systems, T5 systems 

would be unlikely to penetrate the 

ballast-only replacement market. 

Therefore, to establish T5 standard 

output shipments, DOE allotted a 

portion of the 4-foot MBP fixture 

replacement, renovation, and new 

construction markets to 4-foot T5 

MiniBP systems. To do this, DOE first 

calculated the size of this potential 

market for new T5 SO systems in each 

year. DOE then determined the portion 

of this market that would actually be 

serviced by T5 SO lamps by calculating 

the share that resulted in T5 shipments 

consistent with 2006 and 2007 historical 

data. DOE held the resulting percentage 

(approximately 12.5 percent) constant 

throughout the analysis period. As a 

result of the inclusion of 4-foot T5 

MiniBP lamps eroding part of the 4-foot 

MBP market, estimates of total 4-foot 

MBP lamp shipments are lower in the 

NOPR than in the ANOPR. Using this 

methodology, in the base case Emerging 

Technologies scenario, DOE forecasts T5 

SO shipments of 15.0 million in 2008, 

24.2 million in 2012, and 47.4 million 

in 2025 (56.2 million in 2025 in the 

base-case Existing Technologies 

scenario).53

For T5 HO lamps, after establishing 

the installed stock in 2005 in the same 

manner as with T5 SO lamps, DOE 

developed 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO lamp 

shipments by modeling a migration 

from two different lighting markets. 

Marketing literature indicated, similar 

to 8-foot RDC HO systems, a large 

portion of 4-foot MiniBP T5 HO systems 

serve high-bay (ceilings higher than 20- 

feet high) applications due to their 

highly-concentrated light output. 

Historical shipment data for 8-foot RDC 

HO lamps showed substantial declines 

in 2006 and 2007, indicating T5 HO 

lamps may be rapidly displacing them. 

In addition, DOE’s research indicated 

that a significant portion of 4-foot T5 

HO growth can be attributed to a 

penetration into the high intensity 

discharge (HID) lamp high-bay and lowbay markets. Therefore, to calculate the 

growth in 4-foot MiniBP T5 HO lamp 

shipments, DOE assumed that these 

systems were penetrating both the 8-foot 

RDC HO and HID markets. Similar to its 

analysis for T5 SO systems, DOE 

established that the fixture replacement, 

renovation, and new construction 

market segments represent the available 

market for T5 HO systems. DOE 

obtained HID shipment data from the 

2004 HID determination,54 from which 

DOE calculated the total lumens 

servicing low-bay and high-bay 

applications. Then, consistent with 

historical T5 and 8-foot RDC HO 

shipments, DOE assumed T5 HO would 

fully penetrate the 8-foot RDC HO new 

construction, renovation, and fixture 

replacement markets, as well as the HID 

new construction and renovation 

market. Using this methodology, DOE 

forecasts T5 HO shipments of 14.0 

million in 2008, 23.6 million in 2012, 

and 46.1 million in 2025. 

For further details on shipment 

forecasts of 4-foot T5 lamps, see chapter 

10 of the TSD. DOE seeks public 

comment on its analysis of the 4-foot T5 

SO and HO markets, as well as its 

shipment results. 

16966 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

3. Base-Case Market-Share Matrices 

DOE’s market-share matrices are 

another important input into the 

shipments analysis and NIA. Within 

each product class, DOE considers the 

mix of technologies from which 

consumers can choose. These choices 

are represented in market-share 

matrices, which apportion market share 

for lamp stocks (in 2012) or lamp 

shipments (after 2012). Because 

shipments depend on lamp lifetime and 

system lumen output assumptions, 

among other inputs, DOE allocated 

market shares to each of the lamp 

technologies for the base case and 

standards case. The matrices enable the 

shipment model to capture a migration 

to different lamps, or, for GSFL, lampand-ballast designs, over time in both 

the base and standards cases. Issues 

related to these market-share matrices 

are discussed below. 

a. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

A ballast factor measures the actual 

lumen output of a lamp-and-ballast 

system relative to a reference system. A 

lower ballast factor will, all else equal, 

lead to lower lumen output, and 

proportionally less energy consumption 

than the reference system. ACEEE 

commented that the ballast factor of 

0.75 that DOE used in the market 

matrices is fairly uncommon and that 

manufacturers are now marketing lower 

ballast factors, including 0.7, 0.69, and 

0.68. Therefore, ACEEE expects a bigger 

jump from normal to low ballast factor 

than the 0.78–0.75 jump that DOE 

assumes in its market-share matrices 

presented in the ANOPR. The Joint 

Comment noted that 0.71 represents the 

mid-point of very low ballast factors on 

the market. (Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 21 at pp. 262–263; Joint Comment, 

No. 21 at p. 10) Consistent with changes 

incorporated in the engineering 

analysis, DOE incorporated a 0.71 

ballast factor ballast option in the NIA. 

In sum, DOE attempts to match as 

closely as possible the lumen output of 

the retiring system and the replacement 

system. To the extent that a lower 

ballast factor can achieve the 

appropriate lumen output, it is 

incorporated into the technology 

choices facing consumers. 

Regarding the base-case 4-foot T8 

medium bipin market-share matrix, 

Industrial Ecology commented that DOE 

was incorrect to assume 0 percent 

market share for the 25W lamp in 2012. 

Because thousands of these lamps are 

being sold in 2008, that estimate should 

be much greater than zero. (Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 21 at p. 261) 

The Joint Comment stated that 30W 

lamps are being displaced by 25W and 

28W options. Therefore, DOE’s 30W 

market share assumptions—4 percent in 

2012 and 15 percent in 2042—are too 

large. The Joint Comment suggested that 

DOE should substantially reduce the 

market share of 30W lamps and split 

those sales between 25W and 28W 

lamps. (Joint Comment, No. 23 at p. 10) 

NEMA commented on the same 

market-share matrix, stating that the 

market share for T8 lamps in the 2042 

base case should be less than 30 percent 

for 32W lamps and greater than 30 

percent for 25W lamps, with the rest of 

the market composed of 28W and 30W 

lamps. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 28) 

DOE considered the submitted 

comments and modified its base-case 4- 

foot T8 medium bipin market-share 

matrix accordingly. Based on a 

confidential NEMA survey of market 

shares of 4-foot medium bipin lamps, in 

2012, DOE allocated 4 percent, 4 

percent, and 2 percent of the 4-foot T8 

market share to 25W, 28W, and 30W 

lamps, respectively, for the revised 

NOPR base-case market-share matrices. 

In 2042, DOE allocated 32 percent, 27 

percent, and 14 percent market to 25W, 

28W, and 30W lamps, respectively. See 

chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD for the full 

market-share matrices in 2012 and 2042. 

b. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

presented market-share matrices for 

both residential and commercial IRL. 

For the commercial sector, the base-case 

IRL market-share matrix apportioned 

market share of the stock to only 

halogen and the standard HIR (currently 

EL2) lamps. Although DOE received no 

comments from stakeholders, DOE 

modified these matrices for the NOPR to 

reflect changes made in the engineering 

analysis. For the NOPR, the base case 

market-share matrix for commercial IRL 

now allocates market share to all 

currently commercially-available lamp 

technologies, including improved 

halogen, long-life HIR, and the 

silverized reflector technology. DOE 

believes this revised distribution better 

reflects product availability and 

consumer purchasing trends because 

they include all covered lamp 

technologies currently being sold. 

4. GSFL Standards-Case Shipment 

Scenarios and Forecasts 

In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

modified its base-case market-share 

matrices to account for two standardscase scenarios and to generate shipment 

forecasts. DOE considered a Roll-up 

scenario and a Shift scenario, described 

below. DOE also introduced voluntary 

standards-induced retrofits in the 

standards case. DOE received several 

comments on the scenarios it analyzed 

and its rate of voluntary retrofits. In 

response to those and related comments, 

DOE is modifying its Shift and Roll-up 

scenarios and introducing new 

standards-case scenarios. These 

scenarios are discussed in detail below 

and in TSD chapter 10. 

a. Shift/Roll-Up Scenarios 

In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

modeled lower-bound and upper-bound 

energy conservation scenarios for the 

GSFL standards-case NIA to 

characterize the range of energy savings 

that may result from standards. 73 FR 

13620, 13671 (March 13, 2008). In the 

standards-case NIA for GSFL and 

commercial IRL, DOE first modeled a 

lower-bound energy conservation 

scenario called the Roll-up scenario. 73 

FR 13620, 13671 (March 13, 2008). This 

scenario assumes that consumers 

owning lamps or systems that do not 

meet the new standards will ‘‘roll up’’ 

to the lowest first-cost option available 

(preserving lumen output if possible) 

when purchasing standards-compliant 

lamps. (March 2008 ANOPR TSD 

chapter 9) The Roll-up scenario also 

assumes that consumers already owning 

standards-compliant lamps or systems 

will continue to purchase those lamps 

or systems. 

DOE also modeled a Shift scenario in 

the March 2008 ANOPR for the GSFL 

NIA, in which DOE assumed that 

consumers are driven by both lamps 

cost and energy savings. In this case, 

consumers may purchase a variety of 

lamps or systems that are more 

efficacious than their base case systems. 

(73 FR 13620, 13671 (March 13, 2008); 

March 2008 ANOPR TSD chapter 9) 

Specifically, consumers who purchase 

products in the base case at aboveminimum standard levels will ‘‘shift 

up’’ to even higher efficacy standard 

levels in the Shift scenario. DOE used 

this scenario to illustrate upper-bound 

energy savings. 

The Joint Comment argued that both 

the Roll-up and Shift scenarios 

understate standards-case energy 

savings, but the Roll-up scenario is more 

unrealistic because standards change 

the relative economics of more-efficient 

products. (Joint Comment, No. 23 at p. 

11) In other words, standards would 

eliminate the least-efficacious lamps 

(which usually have the lowest first 

costs), thereby reducing the cost 

premium of high-efficacy lamps relative 

to the lowest first-cost available lamp. 

According to the commenter, that would 

encourage some consumers to purchase 

lamps above the standards. The Joint 

Comment also argued that new 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16967 

standards would encourage 

manufacturers to promote more 

efficacious products, a market dynamic 

not sufficiently captured by either 

scenario. (Joint Comment, No. 23 at p. 

11) 

The Joint Comment further stated that 

the Shift scenario reflects a more 

realistic consumer response to standards 

than the Roll-up scenario. Historically, 

for example, some consumers have 

purchased systems that are more 

efficacious than minimum standards. 

Still, the Joint Comment argued, the 

Shift scenario does not fully capture the 

spread of efficiencies in a standardscompliant market and fails to 

characterize manufacturer efforts to 

hasten development of more-efficient 

lamps and systems. The Joint Comment 

argued that DOE’s scenarios should 

anticipate voluntary programs and 

manufacturer interest in establishing 

more-efficient product lines in the 

standards case. (Joint Comment, No. 23 

at pp. 11, 22) 

Regarding the comment about the 

relative economics of lamp purchases, 

DOE agrees that the relative first-costs 

change in the standards case (i.e., the 

up-front cost differential between the 

least-cost, standards-compliant lamp 

and a more-efficient lamp) is less than 

in the base case. This effect is one of the 

reasons DOE models a Shift scenario. 

Still, DOE does not believe that this 

effect implies that the Shift scenario is 

necessarily more viable than the Roll-up 

scenario. Although the relative up-front 

economics change between cost and 

efficacy, they may not change between 

cost and income, meaning some 

consumers—particularly those not 

concerned about energy savings—may 

focus on the absolute costs at the time 

of purchase. A consumer’s lighting 

budget, for example, will not necessarily 

increase simply because there is a 

smaller cost premium for a moreefficacious lamp. In sum, DOE cannot be 

certain which scenario is more likely, 

and, thus, continues to model both 

scenarios. 

However, DOE agrees that revisions to 

the Shift scenario may better capture the 

spread of efficiencies in the market. 

Therefore, DOE revised its Shift 

scenario for the NOPR to more closely 

retain the existing (baseline) efficacy 

distribution in the standards case. (See 

TSD chapter 11 for the revised Shift 

scenario efficacy distribution results.) 

However, as the standard becomes more 

stringent, DOE has maintained its 

approach of incrementally accumulating 

market share of the lamp stock at TSL5 

and not projecting some to move beyond 

what now characterizes the maximum 

technologically feasible standard level 

(‘‘max-tech’’). It is not possible for DOE 

to model a spread of efficiencies above 

max-tech levels. DOE has interviewed 

manufacturers and concluded it cannot 

reasonably predict future price and 

performance points of technologies yet 

to be developed for the market. DOE 

seeks comment and supporting data on 

whether the Roll-up or Shift scenario is 

more appropriate. 

b. Lighting Expertise Scenarios 

In its written comments, NEMA stated 

that it considers the Shift scenario 

implausible because the scenario 

assumes consumers will ‘‘aggressively’’ 

migrate to lower-ballast-factor ballasts. 

NEMA strongly disagreed with DOE’s 

assumption that more-stringent efficacy 

standards are significantly correlated 

with lower GSFL ballast factors 

(particularly at CSLs 3, 4, and 5), and 

NEMA argued that it had seen no direct 

and demonstrated causal relationship 

between them in its experience. Further, 

NEMA argued that there is no proven 

correlation between new potential GSFL 

standards and the future mix of ballast 

factor values that will occur; therefore, 

NEMA reasoned that DOE should not 

apply such a correlation in its 

standards-case market-share matrices. 

NEMA also commented that new 

standards-compliant GSFL and their 

ballasts would have to be interoperable 

across manufacturers and with a wide 

range of existing ballasts and 

luminaires. Therefore, more-stringent 

efficacy standards would mostly yield 

greater lumen output, rather than 

decreasing lamp wattage. As such, 

NEMA argued, DOE has overreached in 

building a case for standards set at 

higher efficacy levels by inappropriately 

and arbitrarily assuming a strong 

correlation between increasing efficacy 

and decreasing ballast factor views. 

(NEMA, No. 22 at p. 26, 27) 

NEMA also commented that the most 

direct way to use the efficacy 

improvements imposed by the standards 

is to use fewer luminaires to attain the 

same delivered light level on the work 

surface while reducing the total wattage. 

However, NEMA maintains that this is 

not a practical possibility because, even 

for new construction or major 

renovation projects, the spacing of 

luminaires is dictated by a building and 

ceiling system grid. Thus, there is no 

opportunity to take advantage of 

additional lumens that might result 

from standards by re-spacing existing 

luminaires, which must continue to 

operate on high-volume ballast designs. 

(NEMA, No. 22 at p. 26) Based on these 

arguments, NEMA strongly asserted that 

moving beyond CSL1 and CSL2 for a 

lamp-only rulemaking is ill-advised. 

(NEMA, No. 22 at p. 26, 27) 

DOE has carefully considered 

NEMA’s comments on DOE’s 

assumption of a general trend toward 

lower-BF ballasts over the analysis 

period. In response, DOE undertook an 

extensive literature review and 

analysis—discussed below—to better 

characterize the likelihood of consumers 

migrating to lower-BF ballast systems if 

higher efficacy standards are required. 

DOE assessed the lighting expertise of 

groups of consumers, described below, 

who make lighting purchase decisions. 

DOE assumes that consumers with 

‘‘high’’ lighting expertise will be 

sufficiently educated about ballast 

factors and lamp efficacy to migrate to 

lower-ballast-factor ballasts when lower 

wattage lamps are not available in the 

standards case. That is, these consumers 

will seek to maintain light output in the 

replacement purchase. 

To analyze this issue, DOE first 

characterized the lighting market supply 

chain in the commercial and residential 

sectors and identified the decision 

makers within each one (e.g., 

contractors, homeowners). DOE broke 

down each sector by the principal 

events that prompt lamp purchases: (1) 

Ballast failure; (2) retrofit; (3) fixture 

replacement; (4) renovation; and (5) new 

construction. DOE assigned 

probabilities reflecting each decision 

maker’s likelihood of making the 

lighting purchase decision given the 

purchase event. For example, in 

purchase events driven by new 

construction, DOE assumed lighting 

designers, architects, and electrical 

engineers make 70 percent of the 

decisions, owners make 20 percent, and 

electrical contractors make the 

remaining 10 percent. DOE then 

analyzed the likelihood of each decision 

maker choosing to run a lamp on a 

lower BF ballast if forced by standards 

to purchase a more-efficacious lamp. 

DOE described that likelihood with a 

probability that was based on the 

technical expertise and motivation of 

the decision maker. Within each 

purchase event, DOE multiplied the 

likelihood of each market actor making 

the decision by the likelihood of that 

actor choosing a lower-BF ballast. In 

this way, DOE derived an estimate for 

the likelihood of a lower-BF ballast 

being selected for each event in each 

sector in the standards case. 

DOE assumed the commercial and 

industrial sectors behave similarly with 

respect to ballast factor choices, and no 

distinction was made between them in 

this analysis. Additionally, decision 

makers in the large-commercial sector 

can be different agents making different 

16968 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

decisions than those in the smallcommercial sector. In the market 

segments (purchase events) where DOE 

found consumer behavior to be 

substantially different between these 

subsectors, DOE weighted the relative 

impact of each subsector when 

characterizing the overall commercial 

market. Table V.6 presents the results of 

DOE’s analysis for the commercial and 

residential sectors. The values depict 

the probability that lamps purchased in 

each event will be matched with lowerballast-factor ballasts, if necessary, to 

maintain lumen output. For example, 78 

percent of lamps purchased in new 

construction in the commercial sector 

will be paired with lower-ballast-factor 

ballasts, if no reduced-wattage lamps are 

available in the standards case, 

TABLE V.6—MARKET SEGMENT-BASED LIKELIHOOD OF HIGH LIGHTING EXPERTISE

Lamp purchase event 

Probability 

Commercial 

(in percent) 

Residential 

(in percent) 

Renovation ............................................................................................................................................................... 69 48 

New Construction .................................................................................................................................................... 78 61 

Retrofit ..................................................................................................................................................................... 92 0 

Ballast Replacement ................................................................................................................................................ 8 0 

Fixture Replacement ................................................................................................................................................ 34 0 

In light of NEMA’s comments and 

DOE’s analysis, DOE used these results 

to add a second set of standards-case 

scenarios to characterize ballast factor 

migration in the GSFL NIA. DOE now 

also analyzes a High Lighting Expertise 

scenario and a Market Segment-Based 

Lighting Expertise scenario. These 

scenarios characterize consumers’ 

decisions (or lack thereof) when 

purchasing a more-efficient lamp to 

either maintain previous lumen output 

or accept higher lighting levels. For its 

part, the High Lighting Expertise 

scenario uses the same methodology as 

DOE used in the ANOPR. The High 

Lighting Expertise scenario generally 

characterizes more sophisticated 

lighting decisions in which consistent 

lighting levels and/or energy savings 

play a determining role in consumer 

behavior. In this scenario, consumers 

are more likely to choose a lowerballast-factor ballast to pair with higherefficacy lamps. Conversely, in the 

Market Segment-Based scenario, DOE 

assumed consumers often accept higher 

lighting levels as a consequence of 

higher-efficacy lamps. As a 

consequence, these consumers do not 

achieve the same energy savings as 

would be possible by migrating to 

lower-ballast-factor ballasts. DOE used 

this analysis, and the results shown in 

Table V.6, to characterize the Market 

Segment-Based expertise scenario. On 

the other hand, in the High Lighting 

Expertise scenario, DOE assumes all 

consumers (100 percent) migrate to 

lower-ballast-factor ballasts when 

appropriate. Please see TSD appendix 

10B for more details. 

c. Voluntary Retrofits 

In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

assumed that more-stringent efficacy 

standards would lead to higher T12 

lamp prices, and, in turn, higher rates of 

voluntary retrofits from T12 to moreefficacious T8 lamps. For example, DOE 

assumed that CSL1 would drive an 

additional 10 percent of the T12 market 

to voluntarily migrate to T8 lamps, that 

CSL2 would drive an additional 20 

percent, that CSL3 would drive an 

additional 30 percent, and so on. These 

commercial standards-induced retrofits 

involve consumers voluntarily 

discarding their functioning T12 

ballasts, and purchasing new T8 ballasts 

in the standards case. In contrast, in the 

base case, these consumers would have 

utilized the entirety of their T12 ballast 

lifetime. 

At the public meeting, ACEEE agreed 

with DOE’s assumption that standards 

will accelerate voluntary retrofits, but 

argued that DOE’s retrofit rate was too 

aggressive. ACEEE specifically stated 

that the 50-percent retrofit rate per year 

at CSL5 was too high and suggested a 

rate of roughly half that level. (Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 21 at p. 282) GE 

agreed that DOE’s retrofit rates were too 

high, suggesting that 10 percent at CSL1 

is an appropriate starting point, but 25 

percent should probably be the 

maximum assumed retrofit rate at CSL5. 

Using those rates as the minimum and 

maximum, GE said DOE could scale the 

rate for the other CSLs. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21 at pp. 282–283) In its 

written comments, NEMA similarly 

stated that DOE’s conversion rate for 

consumers voluntarily retrofitting from 

T12 to T8 systems is likely overstated. 

NEMA suggested that DOE should use a 

voluntary retrofit rate of 20 to 25 

percent for CSL5 and recommended that 

other rates be adjusted based on that 

percentage. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 28) 

At the public meeting, Philips also 

commented that it would expect 

utilities to be more aggressive with their 

rebate programs in the standards case 

than they would be in the base case. 

PG&E stated that voluntary retrofits are 

driven by many factors, including 

attention to global climate change, 

increased product availability, and other 

factors, not necessarily utility rebate 

programs. (Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 21 at pp. 273–275) 

DOE considered these comments and 

maintains that these standards-induced 

retrofits are a likely phenomenon and 

important to model in the NIA. DOE 

agrees that its initial retrofit 

assumptions were likely too high, 

particularly for the higher efficacy 

levels. For the NOPR, consistent with 

comments received, in the commercial 

sector DOE continued to assume that 

EL1 would drive an additional 10 

percent of the T12 market per year to 

voluntary retrofit to T8 lamps. DOE also 

assumed a 25-percent retrofit rate at EL4 

and EL5, levels at which all T12 lamps 

are effectively eliminated from the 

market. For TSL1, TSL2, and TSL3, DOE 

changed the standards-induced retrofit 

rates to 10 percent, 15 percent, and 20 

percent, respectively. 

Similar to DOE’s approach in the 

commercial sector, DOE also included 

increased migration of residential 

consumers from 4-foot medium bipin 

T12 systems to T8 systems. As 

discussed in chapter 10 of TSD, DOE 

assumed in the base case that residential 

consumers replacing their T12 fixture 

(either due to fixture failure or ballast 

failure) would purchase another T12 

system. In contrast, in the commercial 

sector, DOE assumes 90 percent of 4- 

foot MBP consumer replace their T12 

ballasts with T8 ballast upon fixture or 

ballast failure in the base case. In 

addition, while in the commercial sector 

DOE assumed, under amended energy 

conservation standards, some 

consumers would retrofit their working 

T12 ballast systems before end of ballast 

life, DOE assumed residential 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16969 

consumers never do so. Instead, in the 

residential sector, DOE incorporated an 

additional migration to T8 lamps only 

when the consumer is confronted with 

a ballast or fixture failure. In such 

situations DOE assumed that a certain 

percentage residential consumers, who 

in the base case would purchase a new 

T12 system, would instead, in the 

standards case, elect to purchase a T8 

system—despite the availability of T12 

options. Specifically, based on 

manufacturer interviews, DOE shifts 25 

percent, 35 percent, and 65 percent of 

these consumers to T8 systems at TSL1, 

TSL2, and TSL3, respectively (thereby 

reflecting increased cost of T12 lamps). 

At TSL4 and TSL5, all residential 

consumers migrate to T8 systems 

because T12 lamps would be effectively 

eliminated from the market. 

5. IRL—Standards-Case Shipment 

Scenarios and Forecasts 

In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

modified its market-share matrices to 

account for standards-case scenarios 

and generate shipment forecasts for IRL. 

DOE created one main shipment 

scenario and two sensitivity scenarios to 

characterize how IRL consumers would 

be expected to react to standards in the 

commercial and residential sectors. The 

sensitivity scenarios were called the 

‘‘65W BR Lamp Substitution’’ scenario 

and the ‘‘10-Percent Lumen Increase’’ 

scenario. For all three standards-case 

scenarios in these sectors, DOE assumed 

that consumers whose base-case lamp 

purchase has an efficacy lower than that 

of the standard would roll up to the 

least efficacious lamp design available. 

Any IRL consumer whose base-case 

lamp purchase meets the efficacy 

standard would remain unaffected. 

In the main shipment scenario, DOE 

made two assumptions: (1) Consumers 

who purchase covered IRL technology 

in the base case continue to purchase 

covered IRL technology in the standards 

case (i.e., the total number of installed 

covered IRL in the base case is the same 

as that in the standards case throughout 

the analysis period); and (2) in the 

standards case, consumers purchase 

higher-efficacy lamp designs with 

equivalent lumen output as their basecase lamps. 

The remaining sensitivity scenarios 

modeled two situations—one in which 

consumers may migrate from regulated 

IRL toward the exempt 65W BR lamps 

in the standards case (termed ‘‘65 Watt 

BR lamp substitution’’), and another in 

which a portion of residential 

consumers of IRL buy a more-efficacious 

lamp at the same wattage as in the base 

case (termed ‘‘10-percent lumen 

increase’’). This sensitivity scenario 

assumed consumers would, on average, 

purchase 10 percent more lumens in the 

standards case. As explained below, 

DOE received several comments on the 

March 2008 ANOPR standards-case IRL 

shipments. In response to those and 

related comments, DOE is modifying 

and introducing new standards-case 

scenarios, discussed in detail below and 

in TSD chapter 10. 

i. Shift/Roll-Up Scenarios 

For commercial sector IRL, DOE chose 

to model a Roll-up scenario in the 

March 2008 ANOPR. The Joint 

Comment encouraged DOE to also 

model a Shift scenario for commercial 

IRL because of the variety of existing 

and emerging efficiency options 

available. The Joint Comment argued a 

Shift scenario would better capture both 

the improved cost competitiveness of 

higher-efficacy options and greater 

manufacturer investment in developing 

higher-efficacy products. (Joint 

Comment, No. 23 at p. 18) 

DOE agrees that some commercial 

consumers may continue to purchase 

products above the minimum standard 

level. Therefore, similar to the Shift 

scenario in GSFL, DOE created a Shift 

scenario for IRL that captures the same 

spread of efficiencies in the standards 

case as in the base case. To model this, 

DOE compiled a distribution of IRL in 

the commercial sector with different 

efficacies using the revised efficacy 

standard levels for this notice. Based on 

this distribution, DOE then created a 

Shift scenario for the NOPR IRL national 

impact analysis. 

In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE’s 

residential standards-case market-share 

matrix assumed that the entire 

residential market purchases the leastcost standards-compliant lamp at each 

efficacy level. Because all residential 

consumers purchase baseline lamps, the 

Shift and Roll-up scenarios lead to 

equivalent results. For example, at 

CSL1, DOE assumed the entire 

residential market would choose 

improved halogen lamps; at CSL3, the 

market would choose improved HIR. 

NEMA commented that residential 

consumers do not necessarily purchase 

lamps that meet only one efficacy level. 

(NEMA, No. 22 at p. 31) NEMA 

contended that consumers could opt to 

buy lamps that meet a higher CSL than 

the one imposed by DOE. 

Based on NEMA’s comment, DOE 

reconsidered its assumption that 

consumers in the residential market 

purchase lamps at only the lowest 

efficacy level. However, DOE believes 

that its assumption that consumers buy 

lamps at the lowest first-cost standardscompliant efficacy level correctly 

characterizes residential consumer 

behavior in general. For example, 

although lamps using HIR technology 

are available today, consumers generally 

do not buy them because of their high 

initial cost. DOE does not believe 

current market behavior will radically 

change under new or amended 

standards. Without data suggesting 

otherwise, DOE believes the most 

appropriate forecasting assumption 

should generally reflect the 

predominant, current consumer 

behavior. Therefore, DOE maintains its 

assumption for the NOPR that 

residential consumers would continue 

to purchase the lowest-first-cost, 

standards-compliant lamps. For further 

detail regarding the Shift and Roll-up 

scenarios, see chapter 10 of the TSD. 

ii. Product-Substitution Scenarios 

At the public meeting, ACEEE 

commented that the deployment of nonIRL emerging technologies will be 

affected by the efficacy level that DOE 

selects for this rule. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21 at p. 291) While DOE 

considered the comment, it ultimately 

did not model additional movement to 

LED or CMH lamps in response to 

standards because the efficacy and price 

projections for such lamps have a 

significant degree of uncertainty. DOE 

does not wish to incorporate that level 

of conjecture into the NPV calculation 

for this rule. 

However, because DOE assumed R– 

CFL technology was mature, DOE did 

assess additional movement from IRL to 

R–CFL in response to standards. For the 

residential sector, DOE calculated 

simple payback periods comparing R– 

CFL to the baseline halogen and R–CFL 

to the higher-efficacy lamp designs. 

Using incremental market penetrations 

based on the payback period 

calculations, DOE incorporated 

additional movement to R–CFL in the 

residential sector standards case. In the 

commercial sector, DOE assumed that 

all institutions wishing to convert to R– 

CFL, despite its shortcomings (such as 

lower color quality), do so before 2012. 

Therefore, there is no additional 

movement to R–CFL in response to 

standards. 

DOE excluded certain IRL 

(particularly some BR and ER lamps, 

such as 65W BR30 and ER40 lamps) 

from the base-case NIA in the March 

2008 ANOPR because these IRL were 

exempted from standards by EISA 2007. 

(EISA 2007 section 322(b); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(i)(1)(C)) In the standards-case 

sensitivity scenario, DOE modeled the 

movements to exempted IRL as a 

reduction in the market size of covered 

IRL as consumers move from covered to 

16970 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

55New York State Energy Research and 

Development Authority, Incandescent Reflector 

Lamps Study of Proposed Energy Efficiency 

Standards for New York State (2006). Available at: 

http://www.nyserda.org/publications/Report%2006- 

07-Complete%20report-web.pdf (Last accessed Oct. 

7, 2006). 

non-covered lamps. DOE received a 

number of comments on its choice to 

exclude exempted IRL from the base 

case and standards case in the NIA. 

Several comments recommended that 

DOE should model movements to 

exempt IRL in the main base-case and 

standards-case NIA scenarios instead of 

only modeling such movements in a 

sensitivity scenario. ACEEE commented 

that DOE needs to account for BR lamps 

in its analysis; by excluding BR lamps 

from the base case, ACEEE argued DOE 

was essentially ignoring their presence 

in the market. The Joint Comment 

argues that 65W BR lamps should be 

included in the base case because they 

represent a potential loophole to 

standards. (Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 21 at pp. 293–294, 313–314; Joint 

Comment, No. 23 at p. 17) 

As stated above, DOE only includes 

products being regulated in this 

rulemaking in the base-case shipment 

forecasts. Since this rulemaking does 

not cover 65W BR lamps, DOE cannot 

include them in the base-case NIA. 

Accordingly, DOE removed exempted 

IRL from the shipment data used as 

inputs to the base-case NIA in the 

ANOPR. (March 2008 ANOPR TSD 

chapter 9) For the standards-case NIA, 

DOE created a ‘‘65 Watt BR lamp 

substitution’’ sensitivity scenario to 

model movements to exempted 65W BR 

lamps due to the various CSLs. (March 

2008 ANOPR TSD appendix 9A) DOE 

included 65W BR lamps in the 

standards case because covered 

products shift to this lamp. 

DOE received a number of comments 

on how it modeled the shift to BR lamps 

in the standards case. NEMA stressed its 

significance and agreed that consumers 

will shift from covered to exempted BR 

lamps, with the shift increasing as morestringent standards raise product costs. 

(NEMA, No. 22 at p. 27) The Joint 

Comment maintained that 65W BR 

lamps should be included in the 

standards case. (Joint Comment, No. 23 

at p. 17) However, some attendees of the 

public meeting suggested that the shift 

to the 65W BR might be inappropriate 

because they believed that consumers 

already purchase exempted BR lamps in 

most applications where consumers 

have the option of installing either the 

exempted BR lamps or higher-efficacy 

PAR lamps. For example, PG&E 

commented that the vast majority of IRL 

in recessed cans are already exempted 

BR lamps, so it is unlikely that 

consumers will switch from existing 

PAR lamps (which are included in 

coverage) to new BR lamps in those 

applications. In addition, Industrial 

Ecology stated that some household 

recessed can fixtures are not strong 

enough to hold PAR lamps, which are 

heavier than BR lamps. Thus, BR lamps 

would likely maintain their indoor 

recessed can market share relative to 

PAR lamps. Regarding outdoor 

applications in which PAR lamps are 

often used, Industrial Ecology also 

commented that BR lamps are generally 

incompatible with these application, 

meaning consumers would likely not 

migrate from PAR lamps to exempted 

BR lamps for outdoor applications in 

response to standards. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21 at pp. 319, 321) 

DOE considered these comments, and 

agrees that PAR lamps may be more 

suitable for outdoor applications than 

the exempted BR lamps. However, 

based on residential estimates that 40 

percent of all residential IRL are PAR 

lamps,55 DOE believes that a 

considerable portion of residential PAR 

lamps are used in non-outdoor 

applications which are compatible with 

both PAR and the exempted BR lamps. 

Thus, DOE maintains that some 

residential consumers would likely 

move to exempted IRL under standards. 

For the NOPR, DOE revised its estimates 

of the number of consumers that will 

shift to exempted IRL by calculating 

incremental market penetrations for 

each standard level. 

To better account for migration to 

exempted lamps, DOE has decided to 

analyze a second set of standards-case 

scenarios for IRL in this NOPR. DOE 

now analyzes scenarios called the 

Product Substitution and No Product 

Substitution scenarios. The Product 

Substitution scenario models a shift to 

both exempted BR lamps and to R–CFL 

in the standards case. The No Product 

Substitution scenario does not model 

any additional shift in the standards 

case to non-regulated reflector 

technologies. For more information 

about the product substitution standards 

case scenario, see chapter 10 of the TSD. 

DOE maintains the 10-percent lumen 

increase sensitivity scenario from the 

ANOPR, a scenario in which a portion 

of consumers purchase the same wattage 

higher efficacy lamp in the standards 

case and do not save energy. See 

appendix 11A for more detail on this 

sensitivity scenario. 

6. Other Inputs 

a. Analysis Period 

In its written comments, NEMA stated 

that any market forecast, even over a 

short period of time, will contain errors. 

NEMA argued that forecasting market 

relationships over 30 years will 

compound any inherent errors to the 

point where the estimate may no longer 

be useful. For example, NEMA argued 

that overstating growth of lamps 

covered by this standard would 

overstate the discounted value of 

potential benefits associated with 

amended standards. (NEMA, No. 22 at 

p. 24) DOE recognizes that forecasting 

over long periods of time can lead to 

inaccuracies. However, due to the long 

lifetime of ballasts and lamps in some 

sectors, the stock of these products can 

take decades to turn over. Thus, DOE 

believes the standards impact on energy 

consumption and energy savings is best 

quantified and evaluated over a long 

period of time. Therefore, DOE has 

decided to maintain an analysis period 

from 2012 to 2042, consistent with the 

shipment and national impact analyses 

of other rulemakings. However, to 

account for the uncertainties involved 

in forecasting energy savings and NPV 

in general, and over long periods of 

time, DOE has created several base-case 

and standards-case scenarios. Based on 

these scenarios, previously discussed in 

sections V.E.2.c, V.E.4, and V.E.5, DOE 

believes that it can characterize the NIA 

results for these products with a 

sufficient degree of certainty. 

b. Total Installed Cost 

The total annual installed cost 

increase is equal to the annual change 

in the per-unit total installed cost (i.e., 

the difference between base case and 

standards case) multiplied by the 

shipments forecasted in the standards 

case. 

On this topic, GE commented that the 

cost of migrating from an 8-foot lamp to 

a 4-foot lamp includes not only the 

lamp and ballast costs, but also the cost 

of the retrofit kit and labor, which was 

not included in DOE’s ANOPR NIA. 

NEMA commented that the retrofits kits 

would cost $45–$50, not including 

labor, which would take 20–25 minutes. 

(NEMA, No. 22 at p. 28; Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 21 at pp. 255–256) DOE 

agrees that the retrofit kit costs should 

be included in the NIA. Therefore, DOE 

is including in the NIA the retrofit kit 

cost of $50 per 8-foot single pin lamp 

that is replaced by two 4-foot lamps. 

DOE is also including a total installation 

time of 25 minutes. See TSD chapter 11 

for further detail on retrofit kit costs. 

c. Electricity Price Forecast 

In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

projected electricity prices using EIA’s 

AEO2007 estimates and extrapolated 

prices beyond 2030. In this notice, DOE 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16971 

56U.S. Department of Energy—Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy Office of Building Research 

and Standards. Technical Support Document: 

Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer 

Products: Fluorescent Lamp Ballast Proposed Rule: 

Appendix B. Marginal Energy Prices and National 

Energy Savings. January 2000. Washington, DC. 

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

appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/ 

appendix_b.pdf. 

57Under economic theory, ‘‘rebound effect’’ refers 

to the tendency of a consumer to respond to the cost 

savings associated with more-efficient equipment in 

a manner that actually leads to marginally greater 

product usage, thereby diminishing some portion of 

anticipated energy savings related to improved 

efficiency. 

58 Greening, L.A., D.L. Greene, and C. Difiglio, 

‘‘Energy efficiency and consumption—the rebound 

effect—a survey,’’ 28 Energy Policy (2000), pp. 389– 

401. 

59U.S. Department of Energy—Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Technical 

Support Document: Energy Conservation Program 

for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation 

Standards for Residential Furnaces and Boilers 

Proposed Rule: Chapter 11 (2006). Available at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/ 

furnaces_boilers/fb_tsd_chapt11_0906.pdf (Last 

accessed Dec. 8, 2008). 

60U.S. Department of Energy—Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Technical 

Support Document: Energy Conservation Program 

for Consumer Products: Central Air Conditioners 

and Heat Pumps Energy Conservation Standards 

Proposed Rule: Chapter 10 (2001). Available at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/chap10_subgrp.pdf (Last accessed Dec. 8, 2008). 

61U.S. Department of Energy—Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Technical 

Support Document: Energy Conservation Program 

for Consumer Products: Clothes Washer Energy 

Conservation Standards Final Rule: Chapter 18 

(2001). Available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/ 

chapter_8_consumer_analysis.pdf. (Last accessed 

Dec. 8, 2008). 

updated those projections based upon 

AEO2008. DOE received a comment on 

using electricity price forecasts other 

than those of AEO as sensitivities. See 

section 0 above for more detail on this 

comment and DOE’s response. 

d. Energy Site-to-Source Conversion 

The site-to-source conversion factor is 

the multiplicative factor DOE uses for 

converting site energy consumption into 

primary or source energy consumption. 

In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE used 

EIA’s AEO2007 forecasts (to 2030) of 

electricity generation and electricityrelated losses. DOE extrapolated 

conversion factors beyond 2030. In this 

notice, however, DOE uses annual siteto-source conversion factors based on 

the version of the National Energy 

Modeling System (NEMS) that 

corresponds to AEO2008. The 

conversion factors vary over time 

because of projected changes in the 

Nation’s portfolio of generation sources. 

DOE estimated that conversion factors 

remain constant at 2030 values 

throughout the remainder of the 

forecast. 

e. HVAC Interaction Factor 

In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

assumed a 6.25 percent HVAC 

interaction factor. The HVAC 

interaction factor measures the reduced 

cooling loads and increased heating 

loads that result from their interaction 

with more-efficacious lighting systems. 

For example, a 6.25 percent HVAC 

interaction factor means that one quad 

of energy savings due to lamps 

standards results in 1.0625 quads of 

total energy savings after the interaction 

with heating, ventilation, and air 

conditioning systems is taken into 

account. At the public meeting, PG&E 

stated that DOE’s assumed level for this 

factor was too low. PG&E argued that if 

the heat from these products goes 

directly into the building and it takes 

one unit of electric energy to remove 

three units of heat, 6.25 percent was a 

very conservative number. (Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 21 at pp. 333– 

334) Industrial Ecology agreed that 6.25 

percent was on the low end of most 

estimates and cited the following rule of 

thumb used in the service industry: One 

saves a quarter of a watt in HVAC 

operation for every watt one saves 

ceiling lighting systems. Industrial 

Ecology suggested that DOE should look 

into other studies for more information 

on the HVAC interaction factor. (Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 21 at pp. 333– 

334) 

DOE is unaware of any other nationallevel studies that may be useful in 

estimating the HVAC factor specific to 

lighting over the entire calendar year. 

Therefore, DOE continues to use the 

study 56 that originated from the 2000 

Ballast Rule. DOE notes that it has 

updated the study since its original 

publication and that it is a nationallevel analysis covering many building 

types across several climate zones. 

f. Rebound Effect 

In its analyses, DOE accounted for an 

anticipated ‘‘rebound effect’’ 57 that may 

occur after the installation of energy 

efficient lighting equipment. After 

consulting the literature 58 reporting on 

this effect, DOE used in the March 2008 

ANOPR an 8.5-percent rebound effect 

for the residential sector and a 1-percent 

effect in the commercial sector, with 

every 100 percent increase in energy 

efficiency. NEMA agreed with DOE’s 

inclusion of the rebound effect, but 

commented that more research needs to 

be done to characterize its magnitude. 

(NEMA, No. 22 at p. 30) DOE is unaware 

of other data that would affect its 

current rebound effect assumptions. 

DOE invites additional comments on 

this issue and will consider 

incorporating any relevant data 

provided. 

g. Discount Rates 

In its analyses, DOE multiplies 

monetary values in future years by a 

discount factor in order to determine 

their present value. DOE estimated 

national impacts using both a 3-percent 

and a 7-percent real discount rate as the 

average real rate of return on private 

investment in the U.S. economy. The 

Joint Comment argued that DOE should 

use a 2-percent to 3-percent real 

discount rate, noting other rulemakings 

and extensive academic research 

supporting a real societal discount rate 

in that range. (Joint Comment, No. 23 at 

p. 22) While DOE acknowledges the 

comment, the Department notes that it 

is required to follow guidelines on 

discount factors set forth by the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB). 

Specifically, DOE uses these discount 

rates in accordance with guidance that 

OMB provides to Federal agencies on 

the development of regulatory analysis 

(OMB Circular A–4 (Sept.17, 2003), 

particularly section E, ‘‘Identifying and 

Measuring Benefits and Costs’’). 

Accordingly, DOE is continuing to use 

3-percent and 7-percent real discount 

rates for the relevant calculations in this 

NOPR. 

F. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

In analyzing the potential impacts of 

new or amended standards, DOE 

evaluates the impacts on identifiable 

subgroups of consumers (e.g., lowincome households or small businesses) 

that may be disproportionately affected 

by a national standard. In the March 

2008 ANOPR, DOE requested comments 

on subgroups that should be considered 

for the NOPR analysis. 73 FR 13620, 

13682 (March 13, 2008). NEMA 

commented that DOE should assess the 

impacts of standards on low-income 

consumers, as well as houses of 

worship, historical facilities, and 

institutions that serve low-income 

populations. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 32) 

DOE researched the suggested 

subgroups using the 2001 RECS and 

2003 CBECS databases and the 2002 

U.S. Lighting Market Characterization. 

The Residential Furnaces and Boilers 

NOPR,59 Central Air Conditioners 

Supplemental Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking,60 and Clothes Washers 

Final Rule 61 defined ‘‘low-income 

consumers’’ as residential consumers 

with incomes at or below the poverty 

line, as defined by the U.S. Census 

Bureau. DOE has defined ‘‘low-income 

consumers’’ in the same way for this 

16972 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

62U.S. Department of Energy—Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Technical 

Support Document: Energy Conservation Standards 

for Certain Consumer Products (Dishwashers, 

Dehumidifiers, Electric and Gas Kitchen Ranges 

and Ovens, and Microwave Ovens) and for Certain 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment (Commercial 

Clothes Washers): Chapter 12 (2008). Available at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/ 

home_appliances_tsd/chapter_12.pdf. (Last 

accessed Dec. 8, 2008). 

rule. DOE discovered that in 2001, 

residential low-income consumers faced 

electricity prices that were 0.1 cents per 

kWh lower than the prices faced by 

consumers above the poverty line. Using 

this information, DOE performed a 

subgroup analysis of low-income 

consumers for the NOPR, the key 

findings of which are presented below 

and addressed in section VI.B.1.b. 

DOE found that houses of worship 

used their lamps for fewer hours per 

year than any other building type in the 

non-mall commercial building sector, 

according to the 2003 CBECS and LMC. 

DOE analyzed houses of worship using 

1,705 operating hours per year for GSFL 

(rather than 3,435 hours per year for an 

average commercial facility) and 1,609 

operating hours per year for IRL (rather 

than 3,450 hours per year for an average 

commercial facility). 

DOE also found that a wide range of 

sites (from single buildings to entire 

districts) are classified as ‘‘historical 

facilities.’’ Because historical facilities 

serve a range of functions, DOE assumed 

that such facilities also feature the same 

variety of operating hours, electricity 

prices, and discount rates as a typical 

consumer. However, DOE did find that 

these buildings, on average, have more 

T12 lamps than the typical commercial 

or residential building. Therefore, in its 

subgroup analysis for historical 

facilities, DOE concentrated on the LCC 

analysis and results for those consumers 

with T12 fluorescent lamps. 

DOE also found a wide array of 

nonprofit and for-profit organizations 

that serve low-income populations. 

Because of the large diversity of 

organizations in this sector, DOE does 

not expect to see operating hours, lamp 

types, or event response behaviors that 

vary significantly from the commercial 

sector as a whole. However, DOE 

believes that the majority of 

organizations serving low-income 

populations are small nonprofits. For 

this reason, DOE chose a subgroup 

scenario with a discount rate that is 3.8 

percent higher than the average 

discount rate for the commercial sector 

(for a discount rate of 10.8 percent), 

based on the sources used to develop 

the discount rate for small business 

subgroups in the Ovens and Commercial 

Clothes Washers NOPR analysis.62

Although NEMA did not request that 

DOE analyze consumers of T12 

electronic systems, DOE decided to 

analyze this subgroup as well, because 

consumers that already have a T12 

electronic system could potentially 

benefit less from standards than those 

consumers with magnetic systems. 

Specifically, consumers that own a T12 

electronic system in the base case would 

need to purchase a T8 electronic system 

in the case of an energy conservation 

standard at EL4 or EL5. Because the T12 

electronic system is more efficient than 

T12 magnetic systems, consumers with 

electronic systems would experience 

lower operating cost savings than those 

consumers with magnetic systems. In 

order to analyze the affect on consumers 

of T12 electronic systems, DOE 

established a new baseline electronic 

T12 system and modified standards-case 

systems so that both light output is 

maintained in the case of a standard and 

energy is saved. For this subgroup, DOE 

only analyzed the event where a 

consumer purchases a T12 lamp in the 

baseline and a T8 lamp and ballast 

system in the case of a standard at EL4 

and EL5, as T12 lamps are no longer 

available. All other factors of the LCC 

subgroup analysis remained the same as 

in the primary analysis. See the NOPR 

TSD chapter 12 for further information 

on the LCC analyses for all subgroups. 

G. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the financial impact of higher energy 

conservation standards on GSFL and 

IRL manufacturers, and to calculate the 

impact of such standards on domestic 

manufacturing employment and 

capacity. The MIA has both quantitative 

and qualitative aspects. The quantitative 

part of the MIA primarily relies on two 

separate Government Regulatory Impact 

Models (GRIMs)—industry-cash-flow 

models customized for this rulemaking. 

The GRIM inputs are data characterizing 

the industry cost structure, shipments, 

and revenues. The key output is the 

industry net present value. Different sets 

of assumptions (scenarios) will produce 

different results. The qualitative part of 

the MIA addresses factors such as 

product characteristics, characteristics 

of particular firms, and market and 

product trends, and it also includes an 

assessment of the impacts of standards 

on subgroups of manufacturers. The 

complete MIA is outlined in chapter 13 

of the TSD. 

DOE conducted the MIA in three 

phases. Phase 1, ‘‘Industry Profile,’’ 

consisted of the preparation of an 

industry characterization. Phase 2, 

‘‘Industry Cash Flow,’’ focused on the 

industry as a whole. In this phase, DOE 

used two separate GRIMs (one for the 

GSFL industry and one for IRL industry) 

to prepare an industry cash-flow 

analysis. DOE used publicly-available 

information developed in Phase 1 to 

adapt each GRIM structure to facilitate 

the analysis of amended GSFL and IRL 

standards. In Phase 3, ‘‘Subgroup 

Impact Analysis,’’ DOE conducted 

interviews with manufacturers 

representing the majority of domestic 

GSFL and IRL sales. During these 

interviews, DOE discussed engineering, 

manufacturing, procurement, and 

financial topics specific to each 

company, and also obtained each 

manufacturer’s view of the industry as 

a whole. The interviews provided 

valuable information DOE used to 

evaluate the impacts of amended energy 

conservation standards on manufacturer 

cash flows, manufacturing capacities, 

and employment levels. 

a. Phase 1, Industry Profile 

In Phase 1 of the MIA, DOE prepared 

a profile of the GSFL and IRL industries 

based on the market and technology 

assessment prepared for this 

rulemaking. Before initiating the 

detailed impact studies, DOE collected 

information on the present and past 

structure and market characteristics of 

the GSFL and IRL industries. The 

information DOE collected included 

market share, product shipments, 

markups, and cost structure for various 

manufacturers. The industry profile 

includes further detail on the overall 

market, product characteristics, 

estimated manufacturer market shares, 

the financial situation of manufacturers, 

and trends in the number of firms in the 

lamp industry. 

The industry profiles included a topdown cost analysis of GSFL and IRL 

manufacturers that DOE used to derive 

product costs and preliminary financial 

inputs for the GRIM (e.g., revenues; 

material, labor, overhead, and 

depreciation expenses; selling, general, 

and administrative expenses (SG&A); 

and research and development (R&D) 

expenses). DOE also used public 

information to further calibrate its 

initial characterization of the industry, 

including Securities and Exchange 

Commission (SEC) 10–K and 20–F 

reports, Standard & Poor’s (S&P) stock 

reports, and corporate annual reports. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16973 

63See http://www.airliquide.com/file/ 

otherelement/pj/airliquide2007gb_bd_ok12439.pdf, 

p. 110. 

64Betzendahl, Richard, ‘‘The Rare Gets More 

Rare: The Rare Gases Market Update’’ (CryoGas 

International) (June 2008) 26. 

65 Id. 

b. Phase 2, Industry Cash-Flow Analysis 

Phase 2 of the MIA focused on the 

financial impacts of potential amended 

energy conservation standards on the 

industries as a whole. DOE used the 

GRIMs to calculate the financial impacts 

of standards on manufacturers. DOE 

used two separate GRIMs, one for each 

industry analyzed (GSFL and IRL). In 

Phase 2, DOE used each GRIM to 

perform a preliminary industry cashflow analysis. In performing this 

analysis, DOE used the financial values 

determined during Phase 1 and the 

shipment scenarios used in the NIA 

analysis. 

c. Phase 3, Subgroup Impact Analysis 

Using average cost assumptions to 

develop an industry-cash-flow estimate 

does not adequately assess differential 

impacts among manufacturer subgroups. 

For example, small manufacturers, 

niche players, or manufacturers 

exhibiting a cost structure that largely 

differs from the industry average could 

be more negatively affected. DOE used 

the results of the industry 

characterization analysis (in Phase 1) to 

group manufacturers that exhibit similar 

characteristics. 

During the ANOPR public meeting, 

Industrial Ecology commented that 

small lamp manufacturers may be 

disproportionately affected by IRL and 

GSFL standards. (Public Transcript, No. 

21 at pp. 354–356) DOE established two 

subgroups for the MIA corresponding to 

large and small business manufacturers 

of GSFL and IRL products. For the GSFL 

and IRL manufacturing industries, small 

businesses, as defined by the Small 

Business Administration (SBA), are 

manufacturing enterprises with 1,000 or 

fewer employees. Based on 

identification of these two subgroups, 

DOE prepared one interview guide with 

questions related to both GSFL and IRL 

manufacturing for large and small 

manufacturers. DOE used the interview 

guide to tailor the GRIMs to address 

unique financial characteristics of 

manufacturers of each industry. DOE 

interviewed companies from each 

subgroup, including subsidiaries and 

independent firms and public and 

private corporations. The purpose of the 

meetings was to develop an 

understanding of how manufacturer 

impacts vary by TSL. During the course 

of the MIA, DOE interviewed 

manufacturers representing the vast 

majority of domestic GSFL and IRL 

sales. Many of these same companies 

also participated in interviews for the 

engineering analysis. However, the MIA 

interviews broadened the discussion 

from primarily technology-related issues 

to include business-related topics. One 

objective was to obtain feedback from 

industry on the assumptions used in the 

GRIM and to isolate key issues and 

concerns. See chapter 13 of the TSD for 

details. 

2. Discussion of Comments 

In response to DOE’s March 2008 

ANOPR presentation of the steps DOE 

would take during the MIA for the 

NOPR, DOE received several comments 

related to the high price and limited 

availability of xenon. NEMA 

commented that xenon gas was the only 

viable option for higher-efficiency fill 

gas and cited manufacturer concerns 

about its limited supply and quickly 

escalating prices. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 

8) NEMA also stated that assumptions 

DOE uses in its analysis can become 

invalid quickly, citing the price of 

xenon as an example of an assumption 

that could seriously affect their 

business. (NEMA, No. 21 at p. 108–109) 

During the manufacturer interviews, 

manufacturers contended that the global 

supply of xenon was fixed and that 

competition with other applications 

(i.e., anesthesia) has caused the price of 

xenon to increase ten-fold over the last 

year. After receiving these comments, 

DOE conducted its own research to 

determine if market conditions for 

xenon could affect its use as a higherefficiency fill gas. 

According to DOE’s research, xenon is 

one of three rare gases (along with neon 

and krypton) produced by cryogenic air 

separation. Given the low concentration 

of the rare gases in the air (neon 0.002 

percent, krypton 0.0001 percent, and 

xenon 0.00001 percent),63 the only costeffective recovery options are large airseparation units. Most worldwide 

supply is met by the three largest 

industrial gas companies (Air Liquide, 

Praxair, and Linde); another major 

supplier is Iceblick, a former Statecontrolled enterprise of the Soviet 

Union. 

Major applications for xenon include 

lighting, television flat panel displays, 

the space industry (for ion engines and 

satellite repositioning), medical imaging 

and anesthesia, and electronic chip 

manufacturing. All applications are 

growing rapidly. Demand from the 

semiconductor industry alone increased 

from less than 1 million liters per year 

in June 2007 to almost 3 million liters 

per year in June 2008. Demand for 

xenon has also grown significantly in 

the last 18 months, greatly outpacing the 

12 million liters of worldwide xenon 

production.64 While there remain 

essentially inexhaustible supplies of 

xenon in the atmosphere, considerable 

investment would be required to expand 

global production substantially. Since it 

is impossible to immediately increase 

supply to meet demand, spot prices 

have increased from $3–$4 per liter to 

$28–$35 per liter for large cylinders.65

These higher prices are likely to be 

sustained in the near-term until supply 

can meet the growing demand. 

DOE estimates that the increased 

demand for xenon as a result of this 

rulemaking would range from 3.2 

percent to 12.8 percent of current 

worldwide production in the first year 

the rulemaking takes effect. Over the 30- 

year analysis period, the increased 

demand for xenon could range from 0.5 

percent to 18 percent of current 

worldwide production, depending on 

the scenario analyzed. This increased 

demand is expected to have little longterm effect on the price or availability of 

xenon, considering the other 

contributing factors. Rapid growth or 

decline of existing markets or the 

discovery of a new application could 

significantly affect the total demand for 

xenon, perhaps even more than this 

rulemaking. Furthermore, the above 

numbers are based on the current 

worldwide production (12 million 

liters) and assume no increase in 

production over the analysis period. 

This is highly unlikely, given that 

current demand substantially exceeds 

supply. Any future increase in xenon 

production would decrease the 

percentages mentioned above. Thus, 

DOE has tentatively concluded that the 

amount of xenon required by lamp 

manufacturers to produce lamps that 

meet the proposed standards would not 

significantly affect the price or 

availability of xenon. DOE also 

conducted an LCC sensitivity analysis to 

determine the impact of higher xenon 

prices on the consumer. For more 

information on the xenon market 

analysis and the consumer impacts of 

higher xenon prices, see appendix 3B of 

the TSD. 

In the GSFL industry, manufacturers 

stated that the ‘‘rare earth phosphors’’ 

are a key component of GSFL 

performance. During the comment 

period, some manufacturers expressed 

concern that higher CSLs would 

necessitate increasing mixes of the 

costly rare earth phosphors in the lamp 

coating. These manufacturers stated that 

more stringent standards would drive 

16974 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

up demand for (and the price of) rare 

earth phosphors, which already face 

significant supply constraints. These 

manufacturers added that continued 

growth in the CFL market will also 

capture an increasing share of available 

phosphor supply in the future, 

potentially increasing prices and 

jeopardizing the cost-effectiveness of the 

standards. Depending on the lamp type, 

rare earth phosphors can be the highest 

input cost of a GSFL. 

Manufacturers also noted that higher 

standards could drive manufacturing 

processes to China, where the vast 

majority of rare earth phosphors are 

mined. Coupled with cheaper labor and 

high export tariffs, the incentive to 

move production of lamps to China 

might prove too great to resist. To 

address these concerns, DOE analyzed 

the rare earth phosphor market to 

understand the potential impact of the 

standards on supply and demand, 

pricing, growth, and innovation. DOE 

also analyzed the impact on 

employment for domestic 

manufacturers. 

Because the UV radiation emitted 

within the lamp by the reaction of the 

electrons and mercury vapor is 

invisible, manufacturers must coat the 

inside of the lamp’s glass with powered 

phosphors. The phosphors fluoresce 

when struck by the UV radiation and 

convert it into visible light. Lessefficient, low-cost lamps only use 

‘‘halophosphors’’ to coat the lamp. 

Halophosphors are more abundant and 

much less costly than rare earth 

phosphors, but are also less efficient 

and produce a lower quality light. 

Coating a lamp with a layer of rare earth 

phosphors in addition to, or in place of, 

halophosphors can increase efficacy, 

while dramatically improving color 

quality and lumen maintenance. The 

coating’s blend of phosphors 

determines, in part, the CCT and CRI of 

the lamp. The lamp coating of highperformance GSFL, often called a 

‘‘triband’’ or ‘‘triphosphor’’ blend, 

commonly includes three key 

elements—terbium, europium, and 

yttrium. Terbium and europium are the 

rarest and reflect the greatest portion of 

the coating’s cost. 

DOE evaluated the impact of 

standards on the phosphor markets and 

concluded that mandating TSL5 would 

increase the global demand and prices 

of these phosphors. DOE expects 2012 

terbium demand to be 31 percent greater 

at TSL5 in the Shift-High Consumer 

Expertise scenario than it would be in 

the Existing Technologies base case. 

DOE estimates europium demand would 

increase by 10 percent, while Yttrium 

demand would increase marginally. 

These estimates reflect the upper bound 

of demand increases. 

Given the historically volatile prices 

of these phosphors and the 

unpredictable future determinants of 

supply and demand (such as Chinese 

policy, additional mining operations, 

and future technological changes), DOE 

has not developed supply and demand 

curves in order to estimate future 

phosphor prices. However, DOE 

recognizes significant price increases 

are possible given the expected surge in 

demand, particularly for terbium and 

europium. Therefore, to analyze the 

impact of higher phosphor prices, DOE 

also conducted a sensitivity analysis to 

address the potential increases in lamp 

prices attributable to greater phosphor 

costs on the consumer. That is, DOE 

compares LCC savings with current 

phosphor costs to LCC savings under a 

scenario with higher phosphor prices. 

Appendix 3C shows the results of this 

sensitivity analysis and the rare earth 

phosphor market analysis. 

Additionally, DOE found several rare 

earth mining projects in development 

around the world that have the capacity 

to increase rare earth supply. If prices 

continue to climb, DOE expects the 

economics of mining rare earths to 

encourage more projects, and make lessconcentrated rare earth deposits 

economically viable, which will 

increase supply. For these reasons, DOE 

does not believe standards, and their 

potential impact on phosphor prices, 

will affect product availability. 

3. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

Analysis 

The GRIM analysis uses a standard, 

annual cash-flow analysis that 

incorporates manufacturer prices, 

manufacturing costs, shipments, and 

industry financial information as inputs 

and models changes in costs, 

distribution of shipments, investments, 

and associated margins that would 

result from new or amended regulatory 

conditions (in this case, standard 

levels). The GRIM spreadsheet uses a 

number of inputs to arrive at a series of 

annual cash flows, beginning with the 

base year of the analysis (2007) and 

continuing to 2042. DOE calculated 

INPVs by summing the stream of annual 

discounted cash flows during this 

period. 

DOE used the GRIM to calculate cash 

flows using standard accounting 

principles and to compare changes in 

INPV between a base case and various 

TSLs (the standards cases). Essentially, 

the difference in INPV between the base 

case and a standards case represents the 

financial impact of the amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers. DOE collected this 

information from a number of sources, 

including publicly-available data and 

interviews with manufacturers. See 

chapter 13 of the TSD for details. 

4. Manufacturer Interviews 

As part of the MIA, DOE discussed 

potential impacts of amended energy 

conservation standards with 

manufacturers responsible for the vast 

majority of domestic GSFL and IRL 

sales. The manufacturers interviewed 

produce approximately 90 percent of 

GSFL for sale and 85 percent of IRL for 

sale. These interviews were in addition 

to those DOE conducted as part of the 

engineering analysis. The interviews 

provided valuable information that DOE 

used to evaluate the impacts of 

amended energy conservation standards 

on manufacturer cash flows, 

manufacturing capacities, and 

employment levels. 

a. Key Issues 

i. GSFL 

Rare earth phosphor availability and 

price—All of the GSFL manufacturers 

DOE interviewed are concerned about 

the availability and price of rare earth 

phosphors. Due to the importation of 

rare earth phosphors, any increases in 

duties paid to producing countries, such 

as China, could have significant impacts 

on lamp manufacturing costs. Any 

increase in lamp material costs directly 

affects manufacturer profitability. 

According to manufacturers, meeting 

higher energy conservation standards 

for GSFL would require an increase in 

rare earth phosphor content in lamp 

coatings. These manufacturers stated 

that higher energy conservation 

standards would drive up demand for 

and prices of rare earth phosphors, 

which are already in short supply. In 

addition, manufacturers stated that the 

continued growth in the CFL market 

will erode future supply, jeopardizing 

the cost-effectiveness of the standards. 

Depending on the lamp type, rare earth 

phosphors can be the highest input cost 

of a GSFL. Some manufacturers also 

noted that higher standards could drive 

manufacturing processes to China, 

where the vast majority of rare earth 

phosphors are mined. Issues with rare 

earth phosphors are specifically 

addressed in appendix 3C of the TSD. 

Reduction in product portfolio—Some 

manufacturers are concerned that 

energy conservation standards will force 

manufacturers to eliminate some 

product lines, shrinking their overall 

marketability. According to 

manufacturers, the ability to survive in 

the industry is related to the companies’ 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16975 

diverse product portfolios. Companies 

benefit from a wide range of products 

and efficiencies. Depending on the 

characteristics of the product, 

manufacturers can up-sell to products 

that reap higher profits. Manufacturers 

are concerned that reducing the product 

portfolio will reduce options for 

customers and, ultimately, profitability. 

Profit margin impact—All 

manufacturers stated that energy 

conservation standards have the 

potential to greatly harm their 

profitability. Manufacturers enjoy a 

higher profit margin on higher-efficacy 

or premium products than lower-end or 

baseline products. Since higher-efficacy 

or premium products tend to 

incorporate design options that increase 

energy efficiency, a high-efficiency 

standard would commoditize such 

products and subsequently lower the 

overall manufacturer markup on 

shipments. Several manufacturers stated 

it is very difficult to pass along cost 

increases to customers because of the 

competitive nature of the industry. 

Therefore, they believe any cost increase 

due to standards set by DOE would 

automatically lower profit margins. 

ii. IRL 

Product performance issues—All 

manufacturers stated that 

implementation of design options to 

meet the proposed energy conservation 

standards could cause a reduction in 

product lifetime. Manufacturers stated 

that all standard levels could be met by 

lamps that combine improved 

technology with shorter life. In addition 

to this broad possibility, manufacturers 

indicated that the product lifetime of 

infrared lamps that meet efficacy levels 

prescribed by TSL3, TSL4, and TSL5 

could be lowered due to the ‘‘hot shock’’ 

application problem. If infrared lamps 

are installed in a live fixture, sections of 

the lamp’s filament can fuse together, 

possibly decreasing the lifetime by 25 to 

30 percent. Manufacturers are 

concerned that both the performance 

issues of hot shock and shorter life 

could impact consumers’ acceptance of 

covered IRL products. Any 

dissatisfaction resulting lower lifetimes 

of standards-compliant lamps could 

hasten the shift to competing 

technologies, which have much longer 

lifetimes. 

Xenon gas availability and price— 

According to several manufacturers, 

most higher-efficacy model lamps at 

each TSL use xenon to increase efficacy. 

While using a different fill gas does not 

require significant capital investments, 

manufacturers stated that xenon prices 

have increased as much as ten-fold in 

the past few years. In the short term, 

global supplies of xenon are limited by 

existing production capacity, so the IRL 

industry has to compete with other 

industries, such as medical 

applications, that are better able to 

support higher prices. For more 

information on DOE’s analysis of this 

issue, see appendix 3B of the TSD and 

section V.G.2 of today’s notice. 

Elimination of product types in the 

manufacturers’ product portfolio— 

Manufacturers are concerned that at 

higher efficacy levels, all lamps will 

need to switch to all infrared 

technology, which would significantly 

reduce product offerings. 

Elimination of small-diameter 

lamps—Manufacturers are concerned 

that energy conservation standards 

could eliminate smaller-diameter lamps. 

Because of the small size, all 

manufacturers use a single-ended quartz 

burner in lamps smaller than PAR30, 

limiting potential efficacy 

improvements. Although DOE scales its 

standard to smaller-diameter lamps and 

there are existing PAR20 lamps at all 

TSLs, manufacturers are concerned that 

the improvements for small-diameter 

lamps at high TSLs could be impossible 

or cost prohibitive. DOE addresses the 

issues of small-diameter lamps in 

section V.C.7.b.ii of today’s notice. 

Competition—Manufacturers stated 

that some TSLs could affect competition 

within the industry. For example, one 

manufacturer has a patent on silverized 

reflectors. While DOE did not set TSLs 

around this technology, this 

manufacturer could meet TSL2 with 

cheaper lamps than its competitors. One 

manufacturer has a cross license on the 

technology, but has not made silverized 

lamps recently and would incur 

substantial capital and conversion costs 

to produce them. There are competitive 

concerns at TSL4 and TSL5 as well. 

Two manufacturers have a full line of 

products that currently meet TSL4. The 

third manufacturer has some products at 

this level, but is concerned that it would 

have to incur significantly larger capital 

costs at TSL4 to redesign and 

manufacture different burners, which 

could put it at a competitive 

disadvantage. Only one manufacturer 

currently has a full line of products at 

TSL5. At TSL4 and TSL5, standardscompliant lamps could combine HIR 

technology with an improved reflector, 

potentially putting the company that 

does not have access to silverized 

reflectors at a disadvantage. 

Market erosion—Manufacturers stated 

that emerging technology is already 

starting to penetrate the IRL market. A 

standard on IRL would be unique 

because it would force investments in a 

market that would shrink over the entire 

lifetime of the investment. Depending 

on market penetration of emerging 

technology, these investments might 

never be recouped. Also, manufacturers 

are concerned that a standard on IRL 

could hasten the switch to emerging 

technology by lowering the difference in 

their first cost price. If the standard did 

increase the natural migration toward 

new technology, it would be less likely 

that manufacturers would make the 

substantial investments to modify IRL 

production equipment. Finally, 

manufacturers are concerned that the 

BR exemptions in EISA 2007 could also 

erode the market: The higher the IRL 

standard, the lower the relative cost of 

the exempted incandescent lamps. If a 

lower relative cost causes a large shift to 

exempted incandescent lamps, it is less 

likely that investments in improved 

halogen lamps could be justified. To 

address emerging technologies and BR 

exemptions issues discussed by 

manufacturers, DOE included several 

shipment scenarios in both the NIA and 

the GRIM. See chapter 10 and chapter 

13 of the TSD for a discussion of the 

shipment scenarios used in the 

respective analysis. 

b. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

Scenarios and Key Inputs 

i. GSFL Base-Case Shipment Forecast 

In the GSFL GRIM, DOE estimated 

manufacturer revenues, based on unit 

shipment forecasts and distribution by 

product class and efficacy. Changes in 

the product mix at each standard level 

are a key driver of manufacturer 

finances. For this analysis, the GSFL 

GRIM incorporated the two base-case 

shipment scenarios from the NIA. In the 

Existing Technologies base case 

shipment scenario, DOE assumed that in 

the base case customers would not 

migrate to emerging technologies. DOE 

also modeled an Emerging Technologies 

base-case shipment scenario. In this 

scenario, GSFL shipments are eroded in 

the base case as more customers 

purchase emerging technology rather 

than covered GSFL. Table V.7 and Table 

V.8 show total shipments forecasted by 

the NIA for the 2012 and 2042 GSFL 

base cases. For further information on 

the GSFL base-case shipment forecast, 

see chapter 10 of the TSD. 

16976 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.7—GSFL EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES BASE CASE TOTAL NIA-FORECASTED SHIPMENTS IN 2012 AND 2042 

Product class 

Total industry 

shipments for 

2012* 

Total industry 

shipments for 

2042* 

4-Foot MBP .............................................................................................................................................................. 479,177,000 490,528,000 

8-Foot SP Slimline ................................................................................................................................................... 22,448,000 6,873,000 

8-Foot RDC HO ....................................................................................................................................................... 17,654,000 2,320,000 

4-Foot T5 ................................................................................................................................................................. 24,225,000 79,906,000 

4-Foot T5 HO ........................................................................................................................................................... 23,610,000 67,857,000 

* Figures rounded to the nearest thousand. 

TABLE V.8—GSFL EXISTING TECHNOLOGIES BASE CASE TOTAL NIA-FORECASTED SHIPMENTS IN 2012 AND 2042 

Product class 

Total industry 

shipments for 

2012* 

Total industry 

shipments for 

2042* 

4-Foot MBP .............................................................................................................................................................. 479,177,000 645,323,000 

8-Foot SP Slimline ................................................................................................................................................... 22,448,000 6,873,000 

8-Foot RDC HO ....................................................................................................................................................... 17,654,000 2,320,000 

4-Foot T5 ................................................................................................................................................................. 24,225,000 105,863,000 

4-Foot T5 HO ........................................................................................................................................................... 23,610,000 67,857,000 

* Figures rounded to the nearest thousand. 

ii. IRL Base Case Shipments Forecast 

As with the GSFL GRIM, the IRL 

GRIM incorporated the two base-case 

shipment scenarios from the NIA for the 

period of 2007 to 2042 (Existing and 

Emerging Technologies base cases). 

Table V.9 and Table V.10 show total 

shipments forecasted by the NIA for the 

2012 and 2042 IRL for both base cases. 

The tables include the base-case 

shipments in 2020 because the impacts 

under the Emerging Technologies base 

case are most apparent in the years after 

the standard becomes effective and the 

differences between the base cases are 

easily demonstrated in 2020. For further 

information on IRL base case shipment 

forecast, see chapter 10 of the TSD. 

TABLE V.9—IRL EXISTING TECHNOLOGIES BASE CASE TOTAL NIA-FORECASTED SHIPMENTS IN 2012 AND 2042 

Product class 

Total industry 

shipments in 

2012* 

Total industry 

shipments in 

2020* 

Total industry 

shipments in 

2042* 

PAR38 90W ................................................................................................................................. 56,459,000 62,990,000 88,566,000 

PAR38 75W ................................................................................................................................. 44,065,000 49,163,000 69,124,000 

PAR30 50W ................................................................................................................................. 30,738,000 35,759,000 51,180,000 

* Figures rounded to the nearest thousand. 

TABLE V.10—IRL EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES BASE CASE TOTAL NIA-FORECASTED SHIPMENTS IN 2012 AND 2042 

Product class 

Total industry 

shipments in 

2012* 

Total industry 

shipments in 

2020* 

Total industry 

shipments in 

2042* 

PAR38 90W ................................................................................................................................. 52,393,000 31,654,642 52,978,000 

PAR38 75W ................................................................................................................................. 40,892,000 24,706,062 41,349,000 

PAR30 50W ................................................................................................................................. 28,417,000 17,318,155 30,058,000 

* Figures rounded to the nearest thousand. 

iii. GSFL Standards Case Shipments 

Forecast 

All shipment forecasts in the GSFL 

GRIM are obtained from the GSFL NIA. 

Consequently, the GSFL GRIM included 

two efficacy distribution scenarios (shift 

and roll-up), and two lighting expertise 

scenarios (high- and market segmentbased lighting expertise). For additional 

details on the various shipment 

scenarios, see TSD chapter 10. 

iv. IRL Standards-Case Shipments 

Forecast 

To characterize consumer behavior in 

the IRL standards-case GRIM, DOE 

considered the four shipment scenarios 

found in the NIA. The IRL GRIM 

considered two efficacy distributions 

scenarios (shift and roll-up) and two 

product substitution scenarios (product 

substitution and no product 

substitution). See chapter 10 of the TSD 

for additional details on the IRL 

standards-case shipment scenarios. 

v. Manufacturing Production Costs 

DOE derived manufacturing 

production costs by using end-user 

prices found in the NIA and discounting 

them using typical markups along the 

retail distribution chain. To calculate 

manufacturer selling prices from these 

end-user prices, DOE divided the 

medium end-user prices in the NIA by 

a typical markup for retail locations that 

sell the covered products. DOE 

calculated the markup for retail 

locations using the revenues and cost of 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16977 

66 Data on industry employment, hours, labor 

compensation, value of production, and the implicit 

price deflator for output for these industries are 

available upon request by calling the Division of 

Industry Productivity Studies (202–691–5618) or by 

sending a request by e-mail to dipsweb@bls.gov. 

Available at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ 

prin1.nr0.htm. 

goods sold from the annual reports of 

publicly-traded companies. To 

determine manufacturer production 

costs from manufacturing selling price, 

DOE divided manufacturing selling 

prices by the manufacturer markup. The 

manufacturer markup was calculated 

with the same publicly-available 

information used to calculate other 

GRIM financial inputs (e.g., industrywide tax rate and working capital). 

Further discussion of how DOE 

calculated other GRIM financial inputs 

from publicly-available information is 

found in chapter 13 of the TSD. 

vi. Amended Energy Conservation 

Standards Markup Scenarios 

In both the IRL and GSFL GRIM, DOE 

modeled a flat markup scenario. This 

scenario assumed that the cost of goods 

sold for each lamp is marked up by a 

flat percentage to cover standard SG&A 

expenses, R&D expenses, and profit. To 

derive this percentage, DOE evaluated 

publicly-available financial information 

for manufacturers of lighting equipment. 

For GSFL only, DOE also modeled a 

four-tier markup scenario. In this 

scenario, DOE assumed that the markup 

on lamps varies by efficacy in both the 

base case and the standards case. DOE 

learned from manufacturers that pricing 

for GSFL is typically determined on the 

basis of four product tiers, 

corresponding to different phosphor 

series. During the MIA interviews, 

manufacturers provided information on 

the range of typical efficacy levels in 

these four tiers and the change in 

profitability for each level. DOE used 

this information, retail prices derived in 

its product price determination, and 

industry average gross margins to 

estimate markups for GSFL under a 

four-tier pricing strategy in the base 

case. In the standards case, DOE 

modeled the situation in which 

portfolio reduction squeezes the margin 

of higher-efficacy products as they are 

‘‘demoted’’ to lower-relative-efficacytier products. This scenario is in line 

with information submitted during 

manufacturing interviews, which 

responds to manufacturers’ concern that 

DOE standards could severely disrupt 

profitability. 

The four-tier markup scenario was not 

modeled for IRL because markups do 

not increase as a function of efficacy as 

is the case for GSFL. Thus, this scenario 

is not representative of the IRL industry. 

vii. Product and Capital Conversion 

Costs 

Energy conservation standards 

typically cause manufacturers to incur 

one-time conversion costs to bring their 

production facilities and product 

designs into compliance with the 

amended standards. For the purpose of 

the MIA, DOE classified these 

conversion costs into two major groups: 

(1) Product conversion costs; and (2) 

capital conversion costs. Product 

conversion expenses are one-time 

investments in research, development, 

testing, and marketing, focused on 

making product designs comply with 

the new energy conservation standard. 

Capital conversion expenditures are 

one-time investments in property, plant, 

and equipment to adapt or change 

existing production facilities so that 

new product designs can be fabricated 

and assembled. 

DOE assessed the R&D expenditures 

manufacturers would be required to 

make at each TSL. DOE obtained 

financial information through 

manufacturer interviews and aggregated 

the results to mask any proprietary or 

confidential information from any one 

manufacturer. DOE considered a 

number of manufacturer responses for 

GSFL and IRL at each TSL. DOE 

estimated the total product conversion 

expenses by gathering manufacturer 

responses, then weighted these data by 

market share. 

DOE also evaluated the level of 

capital conversion expenditures 

manufacturers would incur to comply 

with amended energy conservation 

standards. DOE used the manufacturer 

interviews to gather data on the level of 

capital investment required at each TSL. 

Manufacturers explained how different 

TSLs affected their ability to use 

existing plants, tooling, and equipment. 

From the interviews, DOE was able to 

estimate what portion of existing 

manufacturing assets would need to be 

replaced and/or reconfigured, and what 

additional manufacturing assets would 

be required to manufacture the higherefficacy products. In most cases, DOE 

projected that the proportion of existing 

assets that manufacturers would have to 

replace would increase as standard 

levels for GSFL and IRL increase. For 

GSFL, DOE included capital costs for 

the natural market shift from T12 to T8 

lamps in the base case. For IRL, the 

capital conversion expenses 

manufacturers provided during 

interviews were based on converting 

their manufacturing equipment to meet 

the current volume of shipments. Since 

the shipments projected in the NIA 

decrease in the base cases, DOE scaled 

the conversion capital investments to 

account for the decline in shipments 

from 2008 to the year the standard 

becomes effective. DOE also consulted 

an independent supplier of IRL coaters 

to identify additional costs above TSL4 

that would be needed for manufacturers 

to meet TSL5. 

The investment figures used in the 

GRIM can be found in section VI.B.2.a 

of today’s notice. For additional 

information on the estimated product 

conversion and capital conversion costs, 

see chapter 13 of the TSD. 

H. Employment Impact Analysis 

DOE considers employment impacts 

in the domestic economy as one factor 

in selecting a proposed standard. 

Employment impacts include direct and 

indirect impacts. Direct employment 

impacts are any changes in the number 

of employees for manufacturers of the 

appliance products that are the subject 

of this rulemaking, their suppliers, and 

related service firms. Indirect 

employment impacts are employment 

changes in the larger economy that 

occur due to the shift in expenditures 

and capital investment caused by the 

purchase and operation of moreefficient appliances. The MIA addresses 

the portion of direct employment 

impacts that concern manufacturers of 

GSFL and IRL (see section V.G); this 

section addresses indirect impacts. 

Indirect employment impacts from 

standards consist of the net 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 (i.e., 

electricity); (2) reduced spending on 

new energy supply by the utility 

industry; (3) increased spending on the 

purchase price of new products; and (4) 

the effects of those three factors 

throughout the economy. DOE expects 

the net monetary savings from standards 

to be redirected to other forms of 

economic activity. DOE also expects 

these shifts in spending and economic 

activity to affect the demand for labor in 

the short term, as explained below. 

One method for assessing the possible 

effects on the demand for labor of such 

shifts in economic activity is to compare 

sectoral employment statistics 

developed by the Labor Department’s 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).66 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 

16978 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

67Available at: http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/ 

regional/perinc/meth/rims2.pdf. 

68Roop, J. M., M. J. Scott, and R. W. Schultz. 

ImSET: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies, 

PNNL–15273 (Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory) (2005). 

69Lawson, Ann M., Kurt S. Bersani, Mahnaz 

Fahim-Nader, and Jiemin Guo, ‘‘Benchmark InputOutput Accounts of the U.S. Economy, 1997,’’ Survey of Current Business (Dec. 2002) 19–117. 

70The 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 

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 (98) 

(Feb. 1998) (available at: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ 

FTPROOT/forecasting/058198.pdf). 

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 differences 

in wages and the fact that the utility 

sector is more capital intensive and less 

labor intensive than other sectors. See 

Bureau of Economic Analysis, ‘‘A User 

Handbook for the Regional Input-Output 

Modeling System (RIMS II), ’’ Third 

Edition, Washington, DC, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, March 

1997.67

Efficiency 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 efficacy 

standards is to shift economic activity 

from a less labor-intensive sector (i.e., 

the utility sector) to more laborintensive sectors (e.g., the retail and 

manufacturing sectors). Thus, based on 

the BLS data alone, DOE believes net 

national employment will increase due 

to shifts in economic activity resulting 

from standards for GSFL and IRL. 

In developing this proposed rule, DOE 

estimated indirect national employment 

impacts using an input/output model of 

the U.S. economy called ‘‘Impact of 

Sector Energy Technologies’’ (ImSET); 

ImSET is a spreadsheet model of the 

U.S. economy that focuses on 188 

sectors most relevant to industrial, 

commercial, and residential building 

energy use.68 ImSET is a specialpurpose version of the ‘‘U.S. Benchmark 

National Input-Output (I–O) Model,’’ 

which has been designed to estimate the 

national employment and income 

effects of energy-saving technologies 

deployed by DOE’s Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

Compared with previous versions of the 

model used in earlier rulemakings, this 

version allows for more complete and 

automated analysis of the essential 

features of energy efficiency 

investments in buildings, industry, 

transportation, and the electric power 

sectors. The ImSET software includes a 

computer-based I–O model with 

structural coefficients to characterize 

economic flows among the 188 sectors. 

ImSET’s national economic I–O 

structure is based on the 1997 U.S. 

benchmark table (Lawson, et al., 

2002),69 specially aggregated to 188 

sectors. DOE estimated changes in 

expenditures using the NIA spreadsheet. 

Using ImSET, DOE then estimated the 

net national indirect-employment 

impacts on employment in the 

manufacturing and energy industries of 

the new efficacy standards on 

employment by sector. 

While both ImSET and the direct use 

of BLS employment data suggest the 

proposed standards could increase the 

net demand for labor in the economy, 

the gains would most likely be very 

small relative to total national 

employment. Therefore, DOE concludes 

only that the proposed standards are 

likely to produce employment benefits 

that are sufficient to fully offset, any 

adverse impacts on employment in the 

manufacturing or energy industries 

related to GSFL and IRL. See the TSD 

chapter 15. 

NEMA agreed that ImSET would be 

the most appropriate tool to analyze 

employment impacts on a national 

scale. NEMA also suggested that DOE 

should be mindful of changes in 

production technologies and the 

associated flows of labor and capital 

across industries that could be needed 

under more-stringent efficacy standards, 

which would not necessarily be 

reflected in the ImSET I–O analysis. 

(NEMA, No. 22, p. 34) 

In response, DOE believes that the 

fixed I–O matrix is generally adequate 

in predicting the range of magnitude of 

lighting savings. Changes in production 

technologies and the associated 

economic flows with direct employment 

implications are addressed in the MIA 

chapter (chapter 13) of the TSD. DOE 

uses the ImSET model to address 

indirect employment effects of the 

standards. For more details on the 

employment impact analysis, see TSD 

chapter 15. 

I. Utility Impact Analysis 

The utility impact analysis estimates 

the change in the forecasted power 

generation capacity of the Nation which 

would be expected to result from the 

adoption of new efficacy standards. This 

section discusses the methodology used, 

the results of which can be found in 

section 0. DOE used a version of EIA’s 

National Energy Modeling System 

(NEMS) for this utility impact analysis. 

NEMS, which is available in the public 

domain, is a large, multisectoral, partialequilibrium model of the U.S. energy 

sector. EIA uses NEMS to produce its 

AEO, a widely-recognized baseline 

energy forecast for the United States. 

The version of NEMS used for appliance 

standards analysis is called NEMS–BT 

and is primarily based on the AEO 2008 

with minor modifications.70 The 

NEMS–BT offers a sophisticated picture 

of the effect of standards, since it 

accounts for the interactions between 

the various energy supply and demand 

sectors and the economy as a whole. 

Specifically, NEMS–BT models 

certain policy scenarios, such as the 

effect of reduced electricity 

consumption, for each trial standard 

level. The analysis output provides a 

forecast for the needed generation 

capacities at each TSL. The estimated 

net benefit of the standard is the 

difference between the forecasted 

generation capacities by NEMS–BT and 

the AEO2008 Reference Case. 

DOE obtained the energy savings 

inputs for the utility impact analysis 

from the NIA’s electricity consumption 

savings. These inputs reflect the effects 

on electricity of efficiency 

improvements due to the deployment of 

GSFL and IRL. Chapter 14 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice presents 

results of the utility impact analysis. 

DOE received comments requesting 

that DOE report gas and electricity price 

impacts, and the economic benefits of 

reduced need for new electric power 

plants and infrastructure. The 

expectation is that lower electricity 

demand will lead to lower prices for 

both electricity and natural gas that 

would benefit consumers. The Joint 

Comment also stated that the benefits of 

reduced power plant and infrastructure 

costs may not be fully reflected in prices 

because consumers generally pay retail 

rates for electricity that are based on the 

average embedded cost of all the 

facilities used to serve them, rather than 

on marginal costs. (Joint Comment, No. 

23 at pp. 20–22) 

DOE considered reporting gas and 

electricity price impacts but found that 

the uncertainty of price projections, 

together with the fairly small impact of 

the standards relative to total electricity 

demand, makes these price changes 

highly uncertain. As a result, DOE 

believes that they should not be 

weighed heavily in the decision 

concerning the standard level. Given the 

current complexity of utility regulation 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16979 

in the United States (with significant 

variances among States), it does not 

seem appropriate to attempt to measure 

impacts on infrastructure costs and 

prices where there is likely to be 

significant overlap. 

J. Environmental Analysis 

DOE has prepared a draft 

environmental assessment (EA) 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act and the requirements of 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and 6316(a), 

to determine the environmental impacts 

of the proposed amended standards. 

Specifically, DOE estimated the 

reduction in power sector emissions of 

carbon dioxide (CO2) using the NEMS– 

BT computer model. DOE calculated a 

range of estimates for reduction in 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions and 

mercury (Hg) emissions using current 

power sector emission rates. However, 

the Environmental Assessment (see the 

Environmental Assessment report of the 

TSD accompanying this notice) does not 

include the estimated reduction in 

power sector impacts of sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), because DOE has determined that 

due to the presence of nationals caps on 

SO2 emissions as addressed below, any 

such reduction resulting from an energy 

conservation standard would not affect 

the overall level of SO2 emissions in the 

United States. 

The NEMS–BT is run similarly to the 

AEO2008 NEMS, except the energy use 

is reduced by the amount of energy 

saved due to the TSLs. DOE obtained 

the inputs of national energy savings 

from the NIA spreadsheet model. For 

the Environmental Assessment, the 

output is the forecasted physical 

emissions. The net benefit of the 

standard is the difference between 

emissions estimated by NEMS–BT and 

the AEO2008 Reference Case. The 

NEMS–BT tracks CO2 emissions using a 

detailed module that provides results 

with a broad coverage of all sectors and 

inclusion of interactive effects. 

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990 set an emissions cap on SO2 for all 

power generation. The attainment of 

this target, however, is flexible among 

generators and is enforced through the 

use of emissions allowances and 

tradable permits. Because SO2 emissions 

allowances have value, they will almost 

certainly be used by generators, 

although not necessarily immediately or 

in the same year with and without a 

standard in place. In other words, with 

or without a standard, total cumulative 

SO2 emissions will always be at or near 

the ceiling, while there may be some 

timing differences between year-by-year 

forecast. Thus, it is unlikely that there 

will be an SO2 environmental benefit 

from electricity savings as long as there 

is enforcement of the emissions ceilings. 

Although there may not be an actual 

reduction in SO2 emissions from 

electricity savings, there still may be an 

economic benefit from reduced demand 

for SO2 emission allowances. Electricity 

savings decrease the generation of SO2

emissions from power production, 

which can decrease the need to 

purchase or generate SO2 emissions 

allowance credits, and decrease the 

costs of complying with regulatory caps 

on emissions. 

Like SO2, future emissions of NOX

and Hg would have been subject to 

emissions caps under the Clean Air 

Interstate Act (CAIR) and Clean Air 

Mercury Rule (CAMR). As discussed 

later in section VI.B.6, these rules have 

been vacated by a Federal court. But the 

NEMS–BT model used for today’s final 

rule assumed that both NOX and Hg 

emissions would be subject to CAIR and 

CAMR emissions caps. In the case of 

NOX emissions, CAIR would have 

permanently capped emissions in 28 

eastern States and the District of 

Columbia. Because the NEMS–BT 

modeling assumed NOX emissions 

would be subject to CAIR, DOE 

established a range of NOX reductions 

based on the use of a NOX low and high 

emissions rates (in metric kilotons (kt) 

of NOX emitted per terawatt-hours 

(TWh) of electricity generated) derived 

from the AEO2008. To estimate the 

reduction in NOX emissions, DOE 

multiplied these emission rates by the 

reduction in electricity generation due 

to the standards considered. For 

mercury, because the emissions caps 

specified by CAMR would have applied 

to the entire country, DOE was unable 

to use NEMS–BT model to estimate the 

physical quantity changes in mercury 

emissions due to energy conservation 

standards. To estimate mercury 

emission reductions due to standards, 

DOE used an Hg emission rate (in metric 

tons of Hg per energy produced) based 

on AEO2008. Because virtually all 

mercury emitted from electricity 

generation is from coal-fired power 

plants, DOE based the emission rate on 

the metric tons of mercury emitted per 

TWh of coal-generated electricity. To 

estimate the reduction in mercury 

emissions, DOE multiplied the emission 

rate by the reduction in coal-generated 

electricity associated with standards 

considered. 

DOE received comments from 

stakeholders on the valuation of CO2

emissions savings that result from 

standards. The Joint Comment stated 

that by not placing an economic value 

on the benefits from reduced CO2

emissions, DOE makes it difficult to 

weigh these benefits in comparison to 

other benefits and costs resulting from 

a given standard level. Implicitly, the 

Joint Comment argued that DOE is 

arbitrarily valuing pollution reductions 

at $0. The best way to avoid this mistake 

would be to estimate an economic value 

for pollutant reductions. According to 

the Joint Comment, voluminous work, 

both from academia and the business 

world, exists on the range of potential 

carbon prices under various regulatory 

scenarios. (Joint Comment, No. 23 at pp. 

19–20). NEMA also suggested a CBO 

report as a potential starting point. 

(NEMA, No. 22 at p. 34) DOE has made 

several additions to its monetization of 

environmental emissions reductions in 

today’s proposed rule, which are 

discussed in section 0, but has chosen 

to continue to report these benefits 

separately from the net benefits of 

energy savings. Nothing in EPCA, nor in 

the National Environmental Policy Act, 

requires that the economic value of 

emissions reduction be incorporated in 

the net present value analysis of the 

value of energy savings. Unlike energy 

savings, the economic value of 

emissions reduction is not priced in the 

marketplace. 

VI. Analytical Results 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

DOE analyzed the costs and benefits 

of many TSLs for the GSFL and IRL 

covered in today’s proposed rule. Table 

VI.2 and Table VI.4 present the TSLs 

and the corresponding product class 

efficiencies for GSFL and IRL. See the 

engineering analysis in section V.C of 

this NOPR for a more detailed 

discussion of the efficacy levels. 

In this section, DOE is only presenting 

the analytical results for the TSLs of the 

product classes that DOE analyzed 

directly (the ‘‘representative product 

classes’’). DOE scaled the standards for 

these representative product classes to 

create standards for other product 

classes that were not directly analyzed 

(such as modified-spectrum lamps), as 

set forth in chapter 5 of the TSD. 

The Joint Comment stated that DOE 

should use separate TSLs for GSFL and 

IRL. The Joint Comment also stated that 

the sets of CSLs in the ANOPR should 

be made into a single set of TSLs, 

without further regrouping. (Joint 

Comment, No. 23 at p. 18) In the NOPR, 

DOE has generally followed the 

methodology suggested by the Joint 

Comment. In this notice, DOE did not 

group GSFL with IRL. For example, 

each GSFL TSL reflects a set of efficacy 

levels across all products classes only 

within GSFL. DOE believes that this 

approach is appropriate because GSFL 

16980 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

and IRL, though often produced by the 

same manufacturers, frequently serve 

different lighting applications, so energy 

conservation standards for one lamp 

type are not likely to affect the market 

or energy consumption of the other 

lamp type. The following sections 

describe the TSLs and corresponding 

efficacy levels. 

1. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

DOE developed product classes for 

GSFL based on the utility of the covered 

lamps and how they are used in the 

market. DOE observed that 4-foot 

medium bipin lamps constitute the vast 

majority of GSFL sales. These lamps are 

followed in order of unit sales by 8-foot 

single pin slimline lamps and 8-foot 

recessed double contact high output 

lamps. Because 4-foot medium bipin, 8- 

foot single pin slimline, and 8-foot 

recessed double contact HO lamps are 

the most common GSFL, DOE selected 

them as representative lamps for its 

analysis. Lamps with a CCT greater than 

4,500K comprise a small share of the 

GSFL market. Therefore, DOE chose to 

analyze lamps with a CCT less than or 

equal to 4,500K. For the NOPR, DOE 

also chose to analyze 4-foot miniature 

bipin T5 standard output (SO) and HO 

lamps with a CCT less than or equal to 

4,500K. (DOE did not analyze T5 lamps 

in the March 2008 ANOPR.) 

The following lamps with a CCT less 

than 4,500K compose the five 

representative product classes: (1) 4-foot 

medium bipin; (2) 8-foot single pin 

slimline; (3) 8-foot recessed double 

contact HO lamps; (4) 4-foot miniature 

bipin T5 SO; and (5) 4-foot miniature 

bipin T5 HO lamps. Standards for other 

product classes were established by 

scaling the standards developed for 

these representative product classes. All 

12 GSFL classes are shown in Table 

VI.1. 

TABLE VI.1—GSFL PRODUCT

CLASSES

GSFL lamp type CCT 

4-Foot Medium 

Bipin.

≤ 4,500K (representative). 

> 4,500K. 

2-Foot UShaped.≤ 4,500K. 

> 4,500K. 

8-Foot Single 

Pin Slimline.

≤ 4,500K (representative). 

> 4,500K. 

8-Foot RDC HO ≤ 4,500K (representative). 

> 4,500K. 

4-Foot T5 SO ... ≤ 4,500K (representative). 

> 4,500K. 

4-Foot T5 HO .. ≤ 4,500K (representative). 

> 4,500K. 

DOE developed TSLs that generally 

follow a trend of increasing efficacy by 

using higher-quality phosphors. The 

TSLs also represent a general move from 

higher-wattage technologies to lowerwattage, lower-diameter lamps with 

higher efficacies. Table VI.2 shows the 

TSLs for GSFL. Each TSL is generally 

composed of the efficacy level of the 

same number across all product classes. 

That is, TSL1 is composed of EL1 for all 

classes, TSL2 is composed of EL2, etc. 

For T5 standard output lamps, however, 

DOE selected EL1 for all TSLs except 

TSL5, to which DOE assigned EL2 (the 

maximum technologically feasible 

efficacy level for T5 SO lamps). For T5 

high output lamps, DOE selected EL1 

for all TSLs because it is the maximum 

efficacy for this lamp type. With the 

methodology, TSL5 represents all 

maximum technologically feasible GSFL 

efficacy levels for this NOPR. 

The efficacy levels for the five 

representative product classes are 

shown in Table VI.2; Efficiency levels 

for all product classes in the TSLs can 

be found in the NOPR TSD chapter 5. 

DOE analyzes systems that meet each 

efficacy level in the TSLs by pairing 

standard and reduced-wattage lamps 

featuring a variety of design options 

with appropriate magnetic or electronic 

ballasts. As discussed in the screening 

analysis (NOPR TSD chapter 4), DOE 

uses design options with highly 

emissive electrode coatings, higher 

efficiency lamp fill gas composition, 

higher efficiency phosphors, glass 

coatings, or lamp diameter to achieve 

higher efficacy levels. 

TABLE VI.2—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR GSFL—EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR THE FIVE REPRESENTATIVE GSFL PRODUCT

CLASSES

Representative product class 

Trial standard level (lm/w) 

EPCA 

standard * TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 

4-Foot Medium Bipin, CCT ≤ 4,500K .............................. 75.0 78 81 84 89 94 

8-Foot Single Pin Slimline, CCT ≤ 4,500K ...................... 80.0 89 93 95 97 100 

8-Foot RDC HO, CCT ≤ 4,500K ...................................... 80.0 83 87 88 92 95 

4-Foot Miniature Bipin T5 SO, CCT ≤ 4,500K ................ [None] 103 103 103 103 108 

4-Foot Miniature Bipin T5 HO, CCT ≤ 4,500K ................ [None] 89 89 89 89 89 

* 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(B). Applies to GSFL as defined by EPCA. 

TSL1, which would set energy 

conservation standards for GSFL to EL1 

for all product classes, would eliminate 

the 4-foot medium bipin T12 baselines, 

the 95W T12 8-foot recessed double 

contact HO baseline, and the 75W T12 

8-foot single pin slimline baseline from 

the market. In the 4-foot medium bipin 

product class, this TSL could be met 

either with a 40W T12 lamp using 

improved 700-series or 800-series 

phosphors, or with a 34W T12 lamp 

using a 700-series phosphor. At this 

TSL, 4-foot medium bipin lamps using 

only halophosphors would not be able 

to meet this TSL. The 75W 8-foot single 

pin slimline T12 and 110W recessed 

double contact HO lamps would need to 

use an 800-series rare earth phosphor to 

meet TSL1. TSL1 also represents a level 

which would likely prevent the 

commercialization of T5 lamps with 

halophosphor coatings while allowing 

for 800-series 4-foot T5 miniature bipin 

and 4-foot T5 miniature bipin HO lamps 

that are currently commercially 

available to remain on the market. 

TSL2 would set energy conservation 

standards for GSFL at EL2 for 4-foot 

MBP, 8-foot SP slimline, and 8-foot RDC 

HO lamps. The 34W T12 4-foot medium 

bipin lamps would likely be required to 

use 800-series rare earth phosphors to 

meet TSL2. For 40W T12 lamps, TSL2 

is expected to require a premium 800- 

series rare earth phosphor and is the 

maximum TSL that a 40W T12 would be 

able meet. In the 8-foot single pin 

slimline product class, TSL2 is expected 

to require a premium 800-series rare 

earth phosphor for the 75W T12 and is 

the maximum TSL that 75W T12 would 

likely be able to meet. This standard 

level would eliminate the 60W T12 

baseline and require a 700-series 

phosphor for this lamp. In the 8-foot 

recessed double contact HO product 

class, TSL2 would eliminate 110W T12 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16981 

lamps and the 95W T12 baseline and 

would require rare earth 700-series 

phosphors for 95W T12 lamps. For T5s, 

TSL2 still represents the first efficacy 

level, which would allow for 800-series 

4-foot T5 miniature bipin and 4-foot T5 

miniature bipin HO lamps to remain on 

the market. 

TSL3 would set energy conservation 

standards for GSFL at EL3 for 4-foot 

MBP, 8-foot SP slimline, and 8-foot RDC 

HO lamps. In this product class, the 

32W T8 baseline would be eliminated 

from the market, and to produce a TSL3- 

compliant 32W T8 lamp, manufacturers 

would need to use an 800-series rare 

earth phosphor. The 34W T12 lamps 

would likely require an improved 800- 

series rare earth phosphor mixture and 

possibly other design options, such as a 

different gas fill or increased thickness 

of the bulb-wall phosphor. Only 

reduced-wattage (34W) 4-foot medium 

bipin T12 lamps are expected to meet 

this TSL. In the 8-foot single pin 

slimline product class, TSL3 would 

require the use of an 800-series 60W 

T12 lamp. This standard level is 

expected to eliminate all 75W T12 

lamps and to require an improved 700- 

series phosphor for the 60W T12. In the 

8-foot recessed double contact HO class, 

TSL3 requires 95W T12 lamps to shift 

to 800-series rare earth phosphors. TSL3 

also represents the first efficacy level for 

4-foot T5 miniature bipin and 4-foot T5 

miniature bipin HO lamps, retaining 

800-series versions of those lamps on 

the market. 

TSL4, which would set energy 

conservation standards for GSFL at EL4 

for 4-foot MBP, 8-foot SP slimline, and 

8-foot RDC HO, would be expected to 

eliminate 4,100K T12 lamps from the 

marketplace. TSL4 would also be 

expected to raise the efficacy of all fullwattage T8 lamps above the baselines 

for the aforementioned product classes. 

In the 4-foot medium bipin product 

class, TSL4 could be met by improved 

800-series full-wattage T8 lamps, or by 

800-series 30W and 25W T8 lamps. For 

the 8-foot SP slimline product class, 

59W T8 lamps would likely need to use 

an 800-series rare earth phosphor to 

meet TSL4. TSL4, while expected to 

eliminate 8-foot T12 RDC HO lamps 

from the market, would require an 

improved 700-series mixture to be used 

in T8 lamps for this product class. TSL4 

also represents the first efficacy level for 

4-foot T5 miniature bipin and 4-foot T5 

miniature bipin HO lamps, retaining 

800-series T5 lamps on the market. 

TSL5 represents the max-tech EL for 

all GSFL product classes. T12 lamps 

and 700-series T8 lamps are expected to 

not be able to meet this level. In the 4- 

foot medium bipin and 8-foot single pin 

slimline product class, T8 lamps would 

need to have a premium 800-series rare 

earth phosphor coating to meet TSL5. 

TSL5 could also be met by the 28W 

reduced-wattage 4-foot medium bipin 

T8 lamp and the 57W and 55W reducedwattage 8-foot single pin slimline T8 

lamps. TSL5 would require movement 

800-series T8 lamps in the 8-foot 

recessed double contact HO product 

class. For the 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO 

product class, a standard-wattage (28W) 

and reduced-wattage (26W) T5 with an 

improved 800-series phosphor would 

need to be used in order to meet TSL5. 

Because DOE created only one efficacy 

level for the 4-foot T5 miniature bipin 

HO lamps, TSL5 would set energy 

conservation standards for 4-foot T5 

MiniBP HO lamps at EL1 and allow 800- 

series T5 HO lamps to remain on the 

market. For more information on the 

TSLs for GSFL, see chapter 9 of the 

TSD. 

2. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

As discussed in section V.C, for IRL, 

DOE has established five efficacy levels 

based on an equation relating efficacy 

(in lumens per watt) to lamp wattage. 

Also discussed in section V.C, DOE has 

analyzed only one representative 

product class and intends to scale 

minimum efficacy requirements to other 

product classes. All IRL classes are 

listed in Table VI.3. As seen in the table, 

DOE only directly analyzed the 

standard-spectrum IRL with a diameter 

greater than 2.5 inches and voltage less 

than 125 volts. 

TABLE VI.3—IRL PRODUCT CLASSES

Lamp type Diameter Voltage 

Standard Spectrum .......................................................... > 2.5 inches ..................................................................... ≥ 125 

> 125 (representative). 

≤ 2.5 inches ..................................................................... ≥ 125. 

< 125. 

Modified Spectrum ........................................................... > 2.5 inches ..................................................................... ≥ 125. 

< 125. 

≤ 2.5 inches ..................................................................... ≥ 125. 

< 125. 

In establishing TSLs for IRL, in this 

NOPR, DOE analyzes five TSLs, each 

one corresponding to one efficacy level. 

For example, TSL1 corresponds to EL1 

and TSL5 corresponds to EL5. TSL1 

could be achieved with an improved 

halogen lamp that uses xenon, a higherefficiency inert fill gas. TSL2 could be 

achieved with a standard halogen 

infrared lamp with a lifetime of 6,000 

hours or a halogen lamp with an 

improved reflector, such as silver. TSL3 

could be met with a 3,000-hour-lifetime 

standard halogen infrared lamp. TSL4 

could be met with a 4,000-hour-lifetime 

improved halogen infrared lamp. 

Improvements in the halogen infrared 

lamp may include the use of a doubleended halogen infrared burner, higherefficiency inert fill gas, or more-efficient 

filament orientation. Finally, TSL5 

could be achieved with a 4,200-hourlifetime halogen infrared lamp (even 

further improved). These further 

improvements include an improved 

reflector, improved IR coating, or 

filament design that produces higher 

temperature operation (and may reduce 

lifetime to 3,000 hours). 

The efficacy levels for the 

representative analyzed product class 

are shown in Table VI.4 for the TSLs to 

which they correspond. The efficacy 

levels for this representative product 

class were then scaled to create the 

efficacy levels for the seven other IRL 

product classes as described in section 

V.C.7.b of this notice. For more 

information on efficacy standard levels 

for the other seven product classes, see 

chapter 5 of the TSD. 

16982 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

71 In many cases, DOE omitted events I(b) and IV 

in this notice, because DOE believes these lamp 

purchase events to be relatively less frequent. 

However, DOE did present all analyzed events in 

chapter 8 of the TSD. 

TABLE VI.4—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR IRL—EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR THE STANDARD SPECTRUM, DIAMETER > 2.5 

INCHES, VOLTAGE < 125 IRL PRODUCT CLASS

Trial standard level (lm/W)* 

EPCA standard** TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 

10.5 (40–50 Watts) 

11.0 (51–66 Watts) 

12.5 (67–85 Watts) 4.6P0.27 4.8P0.27 5.5P0.27 6.2P0.27 6.9P0.27

14.0 (86–115 Watts) 

14.5 (116–155 Watts) 

15.0 (156–205 Watts) 

* P is the rated wattage of the lamp. 

** 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(B). Applies to IRL as defined by EPCA. 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

The following section discusses the 

results of the analyses discussed in 

section 0. Section VI.C contains further 

discussion regarding DOE’s 

consideration of these results in the 

selection of proposed standards levels. 

1. Economic Impacts on Consumers 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

DOE calculated the average LCC 

savings relative to the baseline for each 

product class, as in the March 2008 

ANOPR. 73 FR 13620, 13665 (March 13, 

2008). A new standard would affect 

different lamp consumers differently, 

depending on the market segment to 

which they belong. DOE designs the 

LCC analysis around lamp purchasing 

events, in order to characterize the 

circumstances under which consumers 

need to replace a lamp. The LCC 

spreadsheet calculates the LCC impacts 

for each lamp replacement event 

separately. Examining the impacts on 

each event separately allows DOE to 

view the results of many subgroup 

populations in the LCC analyses. 

For the NOPR, as in the March 2008 

ANOPR, DOE decided not to aggregate 

the results of the various event scenarios 

together into a single LCC at each 

efficacy level. 73 FR 13620, 13655 

(March 13, 2008). To do so would have 

required too many assumptions, such as 

the relative occurrence of each event 

over time, and the market share of each 

lamp in the base case and each 

standards case. DOE believes it is more 

appropriate to incorporate assumptions 

about consumer decisions and long-term 

market trends in the NIA, and leave the 

LCC as a direct head-to-head 

comparison between lamp and lampand-ballast designs under different 

events. Further, the LCC savings results 

help DOE estimate consumer behavior 

decisions for the NIA. 

DOE recognizes that the large number 

of LCC and PBP results can make it 

difficult to draw conclusions about the 

cost-effectiveness of efficacy standards. 

The following discussion presents 

salient results from the LCC analysis. 

The LCC results are presented according 

to the lamp purchasing events that 

culminate in purchase of lamp-andballast designs. These results reflect a 

subset of all of the possible events, 

although they represent the most 

prevalent purchasing events.71 The 

analysis provides a range of LCC savings 

for each efficacy level. The range 

reflects the results of multiple systems 

(i.e., multiple lamp-ballast pairings) that 

consumers could purchase to meet an 

efficacy level. 

In addition, DOE has chosen not to 

present detailed PBP results by efficacy 

level in this NOPR because DOE 

believes that LCC results are a better 

measure of cost-effectiveness. However, 

a full set of both LCC and PBP results 

for the systems DOE analyzed are 

available in chapter 8 and appendix 8B 

of the TSD. All the LCC results shown 

here were generated using AEO2008 

reference case electricity prices and 

medium-range lamp and ballast prices. 

i. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

Table VI.5 through Table VI.11 

present the results for the baseline 

lamps in each of the four product 

classes DOE analyzed (i.e., 4-foot 

medium bipin, 4-foot miniature bipin 

SO, 4-foot miniature bipin HO, 8-foot 

single pin slimline, and 8-foot recessed 

double contact HO). When a standard 

results in ‘‘positive LCC savings,’’ the 

life cycle cost of the standardscompliant lamp is less than the life 

cycle cost of the baseline lamp, and the 

consumer benefits. When a standard 

results in ‘‘negative LCC savings,’’ the 

life cycle cost of the standardscompliant lamp is higher than the life 

cycle cost of the baseline lamp, and the 

consumer is adversely affected. The 

range of values represents the multiple 

ways a consumer can meet a certain 

efficacy standard under each lamp 

purchasing event. For example, at EL3, 

a consumer retrofitting a 4-foot 34W T12 

medium bipin baseline system can 

either purchase a high-efficacy T12 

lamp on an electronic ballast or a highefficacy T8 lamp on an electronic 

ballast. While consumers have both 

choices, selecting a T8 system offers 

positive LCC savings. 

Not all baselines have suitable 

replacement options for every lamp 

purchasing event at every efficacy level. 

For instance, because DOE assumed that 

consumers wish to purchase systems or 

lamp replacements with a lumen output 

within 10 percent of their baseline 

system output, in some cases, the only 

available replacement options produce 

less light than this. Thus, the 

replacement options are considered 

unsuitable substitutions. These cases are 

marked with ‘‘LL’’ (less light) in the LCC 

results tables below. In some cases, 

when consumers who currently own a 

T12 system need to replace their lamps, 

no T12 energy saving lamp 

replacements are available. In these 

cases, in order to save energy, the 

consumers must switch to other options, 

such as a T8 lamp and appropriate 

ballast. These cases are marked with 

‘‘NER’’ (no energy-saving replacement) 

in tables. 

Because some baseline lamps already 

meet higher efficacy levels (e.g., the 

baseline 32W 4-foot T8 MBP lamp 

achieves EL2), LCC savings at the levels 

below the baseline are zero. In these 

cases, ‘‘BAE’’ (baseline above efficacy 

level) is listed in the tables to indicate 

that the consumer makes the same 

purchase decision in the standards-case 

as they do in the base-case. Also, not all 

lamp purchase events apply for all 

baseline lamps or efficacy levels. For 

example, DOE assumed that the 

standards-induced retrofit event does 

not apply to the 32W T8 system, 

because it is already the most 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16983 

efficacious 4-foot medium bipin GSFL 

system. For these events, an ‘‘EN/A’’ 

(event not applicable) exists in the table. 

Finally, because LCC savings are not 

relevant when no energy conservation 

standard is established, ‘‘N/A’’ (not 

applicable) exists in the LCC savings 

column for the baseline system. 

DOE is also presenting the installed 

prices of the lamp-and-ballast systems 

in order to compare the up-front costs 

that consumers must bear when 

purchasing baseline or standards-case 

systems. The installed price results for 

a lamp replacement in response to a 

lamp failure event (Event IA) only 

include the lamp purchase price and 

lamps installation costs. For 4-foot MBP, 

8-foot SP slimline, and 8-foot RDC HO, 

at EL1 through EL3, consumers with 

T12 systems would have the option of 

purchasing a T12 lamp in the face of a 

lamp failure. At EL4 and EL5, because 

no T12 lamps are standard-compliant, 

consumers would not be able to proceed 

with a lamp replacement; therefore, no 

installed price increases are shown. 

Instead, at EL4 and EL5, consumers 

with T12 lamps that either fail at the 

beginning of the analysis period (Event 

IB: Lamp Failure, Lamp and Ballast 

Replacement) or fail in the middle of the 

analysis period (Event II: StandardsInduced Retrofit) would need to 

purchase a new lamp-and-ballast T8 

system. In these situations, the installed 

price in the baseline includes the cost 

of purchasing replacement lamps, 

whereas the installed price at EL4 and 

EL5 is much greater, because the 

consumer would need to purchase and 

install a T8 lamp-and-ballast system. 

The ballast failure event (Event III) 

and the new construction/renovation 

event (Event IV) include the purchase 

and installation costs for lamps and a 

ballast for the baseline and standardscase systems. This is because the 

occurrences of these events require the 

purchase of new lamps and ballasts in 

all cases. Although in most cases 

standards-case lamp-and-ballast systems 

are generally more expensive than 

baseline lamp-and-ballast systems, in 

some cases (primarily for owners of the 

T12 baseline systems purchasing a T8 

system instead), the standards-case 

lamp-and-ballast systems are less 

expensive than the baseline systems. 

Table VI.5 presents the findings of an 

LCC analysis on various 3-lamp 4-foot 

medium bipin GSFL systems operating 

in the commercial sector. The analysis 

period (based on the longest-lived 

baseline lamp’s lifetime) for this 

product class in the commercial sector 

is 5.5 years. As seen in the table, DOE 

analyzes three baseline lamps: (1) 40W 

T12; (2) 34W T12; and (3) 32W T8. 

For the 40W T12 baseline, when 

commercial consumers are confronted 

with a lamp failure in the base case, 

they purchase the 40W T12 baseline 

lamp as a lamp replacement on their 

magnetic T12 ballast. In general, the 

only energy-saving lamp replacement 

option for this system is a 34W T12 

lamp. However, as seen in Table VI.5, 

the EL1 and EL2 34W T12 lamps do not 

produce sufficient light compared to the 

baseline lumen output. Therefore, for 

the purposes of the LCC analysis, DOE 

assumes that at these ELs, 40W T12 

consumers would purchase the EL3 

34W T12 lamp (which has sufficient 

lumen output) in response to a lamp 

failure, and achieve positive LCC 

savings. Because no T12 lamps would 

be standards-compliant at EL4 and EL5, 

consumers with T12 ballasts who are 

confronted with a lamp failure beyond 

EL3 would be forced to retrofit their 

ballasts and instead purchase a T8 

system. The LCC savings and 

incremental costs related to this action 

can be seen in Table VI.5 under the 

standards induced retrofit event. At EL4 

and EL5, consumers who are forced to 

retrofit their ballast would achieve 

positive LCC savings; however, they 

would also incur an incremental 

installed price (baseline installed price 

minus standards-case installed price) 

greater than $49.30 per system. In 

particular, 40W T12 consumers who 

retrofit would obtain the greatest LCC 

savings at EL4 and EL5 by retrofitting to 

an electronically-ballasted 32W T8 

system. 

For the 40W T12 baseline, when 

commercial consumers are confronted 

with a ballast failure in the base case, 

they purchase the 40W T12 baseline 

lamps and a 0.88 ballast factor 

electronic ballast. In order to save 

energy with similar lumen output at EL1 

and EL2, consumers would purchase a 

higher-efficacy 40W T12 with a lowerBF ballast. As seen in Table VI.5, these 

choices result in negative LCC savings. 

However, under such a standard, 40W 

T12 consumers would be able to achieve 

positive LCC savings under a ballast 

failure scenario by purchasing systems 

at EL4 and EL5. Similar to the 

standards-induced retrofit, at EL4 and 

EL5 consumers are forced to purchase 

T8 systems. Those who purchase a 32W 

T8 lamp generally achieve the highest 

LCC savings. 

For the 34W T12 baseline, when 

commercial consumers are confronted 

with a lamp failure in the base case, 

they purchase the 34W T12 baseline 

lamp as a lamp replacement on their 

magnetic T12 ballast. As this is the 

lowest-wattage commercially-available 

T12 lamp, there are no energy-saving 

lamp replacement options for this 

system. However, as seen in Table VI.5 

in the Event IA installed price column, 

consumers do have the option to 

purchase a higher-efficacy 34W T12 

lamps, resulting in no energy-savings 

and an installed price increase ranging 

from $3.69 to $13.91. For the purposes 

of the LCC analysis, at EL1, EL2, and 

EL3, DOE analyzes the economics of 

standards-retrofit, an energy-saving 

response available to the 34W T12 

consumer under a lamp failure scenario. 

As seen in the table, some LCC savings 

results at EL1, EL2, and EL3 are 

negative, representing consumers 

retrofitting to a 34W T12 lamp on an 

electronic T12 ballast or the baseline 

32W T8 lamp on an electronic T8 

ballast. However, under such a 

standard, consumers would also be able 

to achieve positive savings by 

purchasing EL3, EL4, and EL5 T8 

systems with either a higher-efficacy 

32W T8 lamp or other reduced-wattage 

lamps. Because no T12 lamps would be 

standards-compliant at EL4 and EL5, 

consumers with T12 ballasts who are 

confronted with a lamp failure at these 

levels would be forced to retrofit their 

ballasts and instead purchase a T8 

system. The incremental installed prices 

associated with this forced retrofit are 

greater than $51.62 per system. 

For the 34W T12 baseline, when 

commercial consumers are confronted 

with a ballast failure in the base case, 

they purchase the 34W T12 baseline 

lamps and a 0.88 ballast factor 

electronic ballast. In order to save 

energy with similar lumen output at EL1 

and EL2, consumers would purchase a 

higher-efficacy 34W T12 with a lowerBF ballast. In addition, at EL3, 

consumers may purchase a 34W T12 

lamp with a lower-BF ballast as well. As 

seen in Table VI.5, these choices result 

in negative LCC savings. However, 

under such a standard, 34W T12 

consumers can achieve positive LCC 

savings under a ballast failure scenario 

by purchasing systems at EL4 and EL5. 

Similar to the standards-induced 

retrofit, at EL4 and EL5, consumers 

would be forced to purchase T8 

systems. Those who purchase the 

reduced-wattage 25W and 28W T8 

lamps achieve the highest LCC savings. 

For the 32W T8 baseline, commercial 

consumers purchase either the 32W T8 

baseline lamp (under lamp failure) or 

the 32W T8 baseline lamp and an 

electronic 0.88 BF ballast (under ballast 

failure). As the efficacy of this baseline 

lamp exceeds EL2, no LCC results or 

installed prices are presented for EL1 

and EL2. In order to save energy by only 

replacing the lamp, the consumer must 

purchase reduced wattage lamps (these 

16984 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

only lie at EL4 and EL5). Therefore, 

although there are no EL3 energy-saving 

lamp replacements, consumers may 

purchase EL4 and EL5 lamps at this 

standard level. At EL4, consumers who 

purchase 30W T8 lamps achieve lower 

LCC savings than those who purchase 

25W T8 lamps. At EL5, the only 

reduced-wattage lamp replacement 

option (the 28W T8) achieves positive 

LCC savings. 

When confronted with a ballast 

failure, consumers who would have 

purchased the 32W T8 baseline system, 

would achieve positive LCC savings at 

EL3 by purchasing higher-efficacy 32W 

T8 lamps on a lower-BF ballast. At EL4, 

these consumers could obtain the 

greater LCC savings by purchasing an 

electronically-ballasted 25W T8 system 

on a 0.88 BF ballast. At EL5, they 

achieve highest savings by purchasing 

the 32W T8 lamp on a lower-BF ballast. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 


EP13AP09.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16985 

As discussed in section V.D, DOE 

performed research on the usage of 

GSFL in the residential sector and found 

a number of variations from the 

commercial sector. In particular, DOE 

uses separate electricity prices (higher 

than commercial), operating hours 

(lower than commercial), discount rates 

(higher than commercial), and lamp 

lifetimes (higher than commercial). DOE 

also assumes that residential consumers 

of GSFL generally install their own 

lamps; thus, labor costs were modeled 

only for ballast replacements. DOE also 

uses a 40W T12 baseline lamp that has 

a lower efficacy, lower price, and 

shorter lifetime (in hours). DOE found 

that the most common ballast in the 

residential sector is a low-power-factor, 

2-lamp magnetic rapid-start T12 ballast 

with a ballast factor of 0.68. Therefore, 

DOE uses the combination of the 

magnetic T12 ballast and two 40W T12 

lamps as the residential sector GSFL 

baseline lamp-and-ballast system. 

Based on DOE’s analysis, the average 

operating hours for GSFL in the 

residential sector are 789 hours per year, 

which is lower than the commercial 

sector average of 3,435 annual operating 

hours. This would suggest a 19-year 

service life for the baseline lamp, which 

has a lifetime of 15,000 hours. Based on 

measured-life reports, DOE uses a 15- 

year average ballast and fixture lifetime 

in the residential sector. Under these 

assumptions, lamps used under average 

residential operating hours would not 

fail before the fixture reached the end of 

its life; thus, there would be no lamponly replacements, but there would be 

lamp-and-ballast replacements in the 

residential sector. However, with higher 

operating hours, lamp service life does 

decrease below 15 years, resulting in a 

lamp failure event prior to ballast or 

fixture replacement. Because DOE 

believes that the lamp failure event is an 

important event to analyze, DOE has 

presented the residential sector LCC 

analysis under both average operating 

hours (789 hours per year) and high 

operating hours (1,210 hours per year). 

The high operating hours are typical of 

kitchens, living rooms, dining rooms, 

and outdoor spaces. 

Table VI.7 presents the LCC results for 

a 4-foot medium bipin system operating 

in the residential sector under average 

operating hours. As discussed earlier, 

under average operating hours, only the 

ballast failure event (Event III) applies 

because the ballast and fixture reach the 

end of their 15 year life before the 

baseline lamp (which would otherwise 

have a lifetime of 19 years when 

operated for 789 hours per year) fails. 

DOE uses a 15-year analysis period, 

based on the effective service life of the 

lamp (limited by the fixture or ballast 

life). Because DOE assumes that the 

residential consumer discards the lamp 

when replacing a ballast or fixture, DOE 

does not assign any residual value to the 

remaining life of the lamp at the end of 

the analysis period. In this event, 

residential consumers purchase the 40W 

T12 baseline lamp with a magnetic T12 

system in the base case, and an 

electronic or magnetic T12 system or 

electronic T8 system in the standards 

case. 

At EL1 and EL2, although consumers 

may purchase an EL1 or EL2 T12 lamp 

with a magnetic ballast, none of these 

systems are both energy saving and 

produce similar lumen output at the 

baseline system. Therefore at EL1 and 

EL2, the only T12 systems analyzed are 

those purchased with electronic T12 

ballasts. At EL1, as seen in Table VI.6, 

higher LCC savings occur for consumers 

purchasing 34W T12 lamps than those 

purchasing 40W T12 lamps. When 

purchasing at EL2, consumers have the 

option of either purchasing an 

electronically-ballasted T12 system or a 

T8 system with the lowest efficacy 32W 

T8 lamp. LCC savings are the least when 

a consumer purchases a higher-efficacy 

40W T12 lamp with an electronic T12 

ballast. Consumers purchasing 32W T8 

lamps on an electronic ballast would 

obtain the greatest savings at EL2. At 

EL3, in addition to the T8 and 

electronically-ballasted T12 purchase 

options, consumers also can obtain 

energy savings and similar lumen 

output by purchasing 34W T12 lamps 

on magnetic T12 ballasts. However, as 

seen in the Table VI.6, this option 

results in the least savings of all ELs. 

Consumers achieve higher LCC savings 

by purchasing EL3 32W T8 lamps with 

electronic ballasts. As discussed in 

relation to the commercial sector, EL4 

and EL5 eliminate T12 lamps from the 

market and require the purchasing of a 

T8 system. Those consumers who select 

a 32W T8 lamp on an electronic ballast 

obtain the least LCC savings at EL4, 

while LCC savings are greatest of all ELs 

when a consumer purchases an 

electronically-ballasted 25W T8 system. 

At EL5, consumers choosing a 32W T8 

system obtain lower LCC savings than 

those purchasing a 28W T8 system. 

TABLE VI.6—LCC RESULTS FOR A 2-LAMP FOUR-FOOT MEDIUM BIPIN GSFL SYSTEM OPERATING IN THE RESIDENTIAL

SECTOR WITH AVERAGE OPERATING HOURS

Baseline Efficiency level 

LCC savings 

2007$ 

Installed price 

2007$ 

Event III: Ballast 

failure* 

Event III: Ballast 

failure 

Baseline ................................................................. N/A ....................... 49.47. 

EL1 ......................................................................... 5.87 to 9.24 .......... 47.22 to 54.10. 

40 Watt T12 EL2 ......................................................................... 5.67 to 16.88 ........ 48.64 to 54.29. 

EL3 ......................................................................... 0.27 to 16.63 ........ 50.71 to 57.95. 

EL4 ......................................................................... 16.34 to 21.24 ...... 50.99 to 54.07. 

EL5 ......................................................................... 17.72 to 19.66 ...... 51.16 to 52.03. 

* Analysis period is 15 years. 

N/A: Not Applicable. 

In addition to conducting the LCC 

analysis under average operating hours, 

DOE also computed residential LCC 

results under high operating hours 

(1,210 hours per year) in order to 

analyze the economic impacts of the 

lamp failure event (Event I). Table VI.7 

presents these LCC and installed-price 

results for a 2-lamp four-foot medium 

bipin GSFL system under the lamp 

failure event and high operating hours. 

As seen in Table VI.7, DOE divides 

the residential GSFL lamp failure event 

into Events IA (Lamp Failure: Lamp 

Replacement) and IB (Lamp Failure: 

Lamp and Ballast Replacement). Event 

IA, presented also in the commercial 

sector analysis, models solely a lamp 

purchase (in response to lamp failure) in 

both the base case and standards case. 

16986 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

With high operating hours, DOE 

calculates that the baseline lamp 

initially purchased with a ballast fails 

after 12.5 years. Therefore, a 

replacement lamp will operate for only 

2.5 additional years before the entire 

lamp-and-ballast system is discarded 

(due to either ballast failure or fixture 

replacement). Therefore, for this high 

operating hour scenario’s lamp failure 

event calculation, DOE uses a 2.5 year 

analysis period. Similar to the average 

operating hour analysis, when a lampand-ballast system is discarded, DOE 

does not attribute any residual value to 

the remaining life of the lamp. 

Similar to the commercial analysis, 

the only viable energy-saving lamp 

replacement option for the 40W T12 

residential system is the 34W T12 lamp 

at EL3. Thus, under a standard at either 

EL1 and EL2, DOE assumes, for the 

purpose of the LCC analysis, that 

consumers would purchase the 34W 

T12 lamp at EL3. DOE recognizes that 

not all consumers can use a 34W T12 

lamp on a residential magnetic lowpower-factor ballast because not all 

ballasts are designated to operate this 

lamp. However, in its review of 

manufacturer literature, DOE identified 

several low-power-factor residential 

magnetic ballasts designated to operate 

the 34W T12 lamp. Therefore, DOE 

considers this to be a viable option for 

some residential consumers. 

However, as seen in Table VI.7, these 

consumers who purchase the EL3 34W 

T12 lamp would encounter negative 

LCC savings. Although more efficacious 

than the baseline, the reduced-wattage 

34W T12 lamp that meets this EL does 

not save sufficient energy to offset its 

increased purchase price within the 2.5- 

year analysis period. The replacement 

lamp would need to be in service for 

exactly 8 years or greater in order for the 

energy cost savings to offset the 

increased purchase price of the higherefficacy 34W lamp. 

Because no T12 lamps would be 

standards-compliant at EL4 and EL5, 

consumers with T12 ballasts who are 

confronted with a lamp failure at these 

levels are forced to retrofit their ballasts 

and instead purchase a T8 system. The 

LCC savings and incremental costs 

related to this action can be seen in 

Table VI.7 under the lamp and ballast 

replacement event (Event IB). In the 

commercial sector, DOE presented the 

standards-induced retrofit event (Event 

II), where consumers proactively (before 

their lamp fails) retrofit their lamp and 

ballast in anticipation of the inability to 

purchase a standards-compliant, equallumen T12 replacement lamp due to 

standards. In contrast, for the residential 

sector, DOE believes that consumers 

would replace their systems only when 

forced by a lamp failure. Thus, instead 

of presenting the standards-induced 

retrofit event (Event II), for the 

residential sector, DOE models Event IB, 

where a consumer replaces a lamp-andballast system in direct response to a 

lamp failure. At EL4 and EL5, the 

available T8 system options do not save 

sufficient energy savings to offset the 

increased purchase price of the lamp 

and ballast in 2.5 years, leading to 

negative LCC savings. In addition 

consumers who would be forced to 

retrofit their ballast would incur an 

installed price increase greater than 

$47.01 per system. DOE requests 

comment on all inputs used in the LCC 

analysis for GSFL operating in the 

residential sector. 

TABLE VI.7—LCC RESULTS FOR A 2–LAMP FOUR-FOOT MEDIUM BIPIN GSFL SYSTEM OPERATING IN THE RESIDENTIAL

SECTOR WITH HIGH OPERATING HOURS

Baseline Efficiency level 

LCC savings 

2007$ 

Installed price 

2007$ 

Event IA: Lamp 

replacement* 

Event IB: Lamp and 

ballast 

replacement* 

Event IA: Lamp 

replacement 

Event IB: Lamp and 

ballast replacement 

Baseline .................... N/A ............................ N/A ............................ 3.98 ........................... 3.98. 

EL1 ............................ LL .............................. EN/A .......................... LL .............................. EN/A. 

40 Watt T12 EL2 ............................ LL .............................. EN/A .......................... LL .............................. EN/A. 

EL3 ............................ ¥5.42 ....................... EN/A .......................... 12.46 ......................... EN/A. 

EL4 ............................ NR ............................. ¥4.67 to ¥2.78 ....... NR ............................. 50.99 to 54.07. 

EL5 ............................ NR ............................. ¥4.13 to ¥3.50 ....... NR ............................. 51.16 to 52.03. 

*Analysis period is 2.5 years. 

N/A: Not Applicable; LL: Available Options Produce Less Light; EN/A: Event Not Applicable; NR: No Replacement 

Table VI.8 presents the results for an 

electronically-ballasted 4-foot T5 

miniature bipin standard-output, 

baseline system operating in the 

commercial sector. Table VI.9 presents 

the results for an electronicallyballasted 4-foot T5 miniature bipin 

high-output baseline system operating 

in the industrial sector. For the 

standard-output baseline, the analysis 

period is 5.5 years. For the high-output 

baseline, the analysis period is 3.9 

years. In general, positive LCC savings 

exist at all of the efficacy levels 

analyzed. However, negative LCC 

savings exist for Event I (Lamp 

Replacement) in the 4-foot T5 miniature 

bipin HO product class. Yet for the 4- 

foot T5 miniature bipin standard-output 

product class, consumers selecting a 

reduced-wattage T5 achieve positive 

LCC savings. Event II (Standards 

Induced Retrofit) is not shown because 

the 4-foot miniature bipin product class 

is composed entirely of T5 lamps. For 

Event V, consumers can change the 

physical layout of their system to match 

the mean lumen output of the baseline 

system. Because the T5 baseline 

halophosphors have such poor lumen 

maintenance compared to the 800-series 

T5 lamps, LCC savings for the new 

construction event are high. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16987 

TABLE VI.8—LCC RESULTS FOR A 2-LAMP FOUR-FOOT MINIATURE BIPIN STANDARD OUTPUT GSFL SYSTEM OPERATING

IN THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR

Baseline Efficiency level 

LCC savings 

2007$ 

Installed price 

2007$ 

Event IA: Lamp 

replacement* 

Event V: New construction/renovation* Event IA: Lamp 

replacement 

Event V: New construction/renovation 

Baseline .................... N/A ............................ N/A ............................ 9.39 ........................... 69.20.

28 Watt T5 EL1 ............................ NER .......................... 42.84 ......................... 13.15 ......................... 72.96. 

EL2 ............................ 1.22 ........................... 45.27 to 47.03 ........... 14.86 ......................... 74.67 to 75.16. 

*Analysis period is 5.5 years. 

N/A: Not Applicable; NER: No Energy-Saving Replacement. 

TABLE VI.9—LCC RESULTS FOR A 2-LAMP FOUR-FOOT MINIATURE BIPIN HIGH OUTPUT GSFL SYSTEM OPERATING IN

THE INDUSTRIAL SECTOR

Baseline Efficiency level 

LCC savings 

2007$ 

Installed price 

2007$ 

Event IA: Lamp 

replacement* 

Event V: New construction/renovation* Event IA: Lamp 

replacement 

Event V: New construction/renovation 

54 Watt T5 Baseline .................... N/A ............................ N/A ............................ 10.44 ......................... 71.33. 

EL1 ............................ ¥3.42 ....................... 55.60 to 56.60 ........... 19.85 ......................... 76.36 to 80.74. 

*Analysis period is 3.9 years. 

N/A: Not Applicable; NER: No Energy-Saving Replacement. 

Table VI.10 presents the results for an 

8-foot single-pin slimline GSFL system 

operating in the commercial sector. The 

analysis period is 4 years. For this 

product class, DOE analyzes three 

baseline lamps: (1) 75W T12; (2) 60W 

T12; and (3) 59W T8. 

For the 75W T12 baseline, consumers 

confronted with a lamp failure purchase 

the baseline 75W T12 for their magnetic 

T12 ballast in the base case. In the face 

of standards, consumers could save 

energy by purchasing reduced-wattage 

(60W) T12 lamps as replacements. The 

only 60W T12 lamp that produces 

sufficient light on the baseline ballast, 

however, exists at EL3. For the purposes 

of the LCC analysis, DOE assumes that 

at standard levels EL1 and EL2, 75W 

T12 consumers confronted with a lamp 

failure would purchase the EL3 

replacement lamp. These consumers 

would achieve positive LCC savings. 

Note that any standard level beyond EL3 

would likely require consumers to 

replace their T12 lamps and ballasts 

with T8 systems, since no T12 lamp 

currently meets the efficacy 

requirements of EL4 and EL5. The LCC 

savings and installed costs associated 

with this action are shown in the 

standards induced retrofit event in 

Table VI.10. The EL4 lamp available in 

this event does not produce sufficient 

light output, so DOE assumes that at 

standard level EL4, 75W T12 consumers 

would retrofit to the EL5 59W T8 and 

0.88 ballast factor ballast. At EL4 and 

EL5, 75W T12 consumers who retrofit to 

the EL5 T8 system achieve positive LCC 

savings while incurring an incremental 

installed price of $78.96 per system. 

In response to a ballast failure, 75W 

T12 consumers can purchase moreefficacious 75W T12 lamps and lowerballast-factor ballasts at EL1 and EL2. 

These systems do not save enough 

energy over their lifetimes to offset their 

increased installed prices, however, 

resulting in negative LCC savings for 

consumers. The systems at EL3 and EL4 

do not produce sufficient lumen output 

in comparison to the baseline system, so 

DOE assumes that 75W T12 consumers 

encountering ballast failures would 

purchase the EL5 59W T8 and 0.88 

ballast factor ballast at standard levels 

EL3 and EL4. At standard levels EL4 

and EL5, only T8 systems are available. 

It is possible, however, for 75W T12 

consumers to achieve positive LCC 

savings by purchasing the EL5 T8 

system. 

In response to a lamp failure, 

consumers of 60W T12 lamps do not 

have access to any energy-saving T12 

replacement lamps. At EL1, consumers 

could still purchase the 60W T12 

baseline lamp for their magnetic ballast. 

T12 lamps that do not save energy are 

also available at standard levels EL2 and 

EL3, with installed price increases 

ranging from $4.88 to $8.30. To save 

energy at EL2 and EL3, consumers of 

60W T12 lamps can instead choose to 

retrofit to T12 or T8 systems with 

electronic ballasts. 60W T12 consumers 

would not be able to achieve positive 

LCC savings with any of the systems 

available for a standards-induced 

retrofit at any EL, although they would 

save energy. Standard levels EL4 and 

EL5 also force T12 lamps from the 

market, requiring consumers to retrofit 

to T8 systems and incur installed price 

increases of at least $82.08. 

In response to a ballast failure, DOE 

assumes that 60W T12 consumers 

would purchase 60W T12 lamps and 

0.88 ballast factor electronic ballasts in 

the base case. Consumers can also 

purchase this system at standard level 

EL1. At standard levels EL2 and EL3, 

consumers could purchase moreefficacious 60W T12 lamps and lowerballast-factor electronic ballasts when 

faced with a ballast failure. Consumers 

cannot save enough energy with these 

systems to achieve positive LCC savings, 

however. Instead, they can purchase the 

T8 systems on electronic ballasts 

available at EL4 and EL5 and achieve 

positive LCC savings. In the face of 

standard levels EL4 and EL5, T12 

systems would be eliminated from the 

market. Consumers can achieve the 

greatest positive LCC savings with a 

57W T8 on a 0.78 ballast factor 

electronic ballast at EL5, while 

consumers purchasing the 59W T8 on a 

0.78 ballast factor electronic ballast at 

EL4 achieve the least positive LCC 

savings. 

Consumers of 59W T8 lamps can 

purchase the baseline 59W T8 to install 

on an electronic ballast at standard 

levels EL1 through EL3 when faced with 

a lamp failure. At EL4, there are no 

energy-saving lamp replacement 

options, so DOE assumes that 

16988 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

consumers of 59W T8 lamps would 

instead purchase the 57W or 55W T8 

lamps that comply with EL5. Consumers 

purchasing these lamps achieve positive 

LCC savings and incur installed price 

increases ranging from $3.94 to $4.76. 

Those purchasing the 55W T8 achieve 

the greatest positive LCC savings. 

In response to a ballast failure, 

consumers of 59W T8 lamps can 

purchase the baseline 59W T8 system at 

EL1 through EL3. The available system 

at EL4 is a 59W T8 lamp on a 0.85 

ballast factor electronic ballast, and 

consumers purchasing this system 

would achieve negative LCC savings. At 

EL5, 59W T8 consumers could purchase 

59W, 57W, or 55W T8 systems on 

electronic ballasts and achieve positive 

LCC savings. Those purchasing the 55W 

T8 system would achieve the greatest 

positive LCC savings, while those 

purchasing the 57W T8 system would 

achieve the least positive LCC savings. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

Table VI.11 shows LCC results for an 

8-foot recessed double-contact GSFL 

system operating in the industrial 

sector. The analysis period for this 

product class is 2.3 years. DOE analyzes 

110W T12 and 95W T12 baseline lamps 

on magnetic ballasts. 

Consumers who own 110W T12 

lamps and are faced with a lamp failure 

would be expected to purchase 110W 

T12 baseline lamps for their magnetic 

ballast in the base case. The available 

replacement lamps at EL1 and EL2 do 

not produce sufficient light output in 

comparison to the baseline system, so 

DOE assumes that 110W T12 consumers 

would purchase the reduced-wattage 


EP13AP09.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16989 

(95W) T12 lamp options at EL3 when 

faced with standard levels EL1 and EL2. 

Consumers could achieve positive LCC 

savings with these lamps while 

incurring installed price increases of 

$12.64 or $13.27. Standard levels EL4 

and EL5 eliminate T12 lamps from the 

market, requiring consumers to retrofit 

their systems to T8 systems in the face 

of a lamp failure. The available T8 

system at EL4 does not produce 

sufficient light in comparison with the 

baseline system, so DOE assumes that at 

EL4, consumers would instead purchase 

the 86W T8 system and 0.88 ballast 

factor electronic ballast at EL5. 110W 

T12 consumers purchasing this system 

could achieve positive LCC savings 

while incurring an installed price 

increase of $106.75. 

In the face of a ballast failure, 110W 

T12 consumers would be expected to 

purchase the 110W T12 baseline lamp 

and a 0.95 ballast factor magnetic ballast 

in the base case. Consumers who own 

110W T12 systems can purchase 

replacement systems that comply with 

EL1, EL3, or EL5 and achieve positive 

LCC savings. The available systems at 

EL2 and EL4 do not produce sufficient 

light, so DOE assumes that in the face 

of standard levels EL2 or EL4, 

consumers would purchase systems 

meeting higher standard levels. At EL1, 

110W T12 consumers could purchase a 

110W T12 lamp on an electronic ballast 

but would achieve the least positive 

LCC savings. At EL3, consumers could 

purchase reduced-wattage (95W) T12 

lamps on a magnetic ballast or on an 

electronic ballast. Consumers could 

achieve the most positive LCC savings 

of any EL by purchasing the 86W T8 

system available at EL5. Standard levels 

EL4 and EL5 would eliminate T12 

systems from the market, making the 

86W T8 system the only available 

option. 

When faced with a lamp failure, 

consumers of the 95W T12 baseline 

lamp would be expected to purchase the 

95W T12 baseline for their magnetic 

ballast in the base case. This lamp also 

complies with EL1. None of the lamps 

available at EL1 through EL3, when in 

combination with the magnetic ballast 

save energy as compared to the baseline 

system. However, consumers can 

purchase these lamps and incur 

installed price increases ranging from 

$6.14 to $19.09. Consumers of the 95W 

T12 baseline lamp could instead retrofit 

their systems to save energy. The EL1 

system available for retrofit does not 

produce sufficient light output, and 

consumers could not achieve positive 

LCC savings with any of the system 

options available for retrofit at EL2 

through EL5. Furthermore, standard 

levels EL4 and EL5 would eliminate T12 

lamps from the market, thereby forcing 

consumers of the 95W T12 baseline 

lamp to retrofit to T8 systems when 

faced with a lamp failure and incur 

installed price increases ranging from 

$109.35 to $112.57. 

When faced with a ballast failure, 

consumers of 95W T12 lamps could 

purchase a 95W T12 baseline lamp on 

a magnetic ballast in the base case. 

Consumers purchasing a higher efficacy 

95WT12 at EL2 on an electronic ballast 

achieve positive LCC savings. However, 

consumers purchasing these systems at 

EL3, would not achieve positive LCC 

savings. EL4 and EL5 would likely 

eliminate T12 systems from the market, 

making the EL4 and EL5 86W T8 system 

the only available option for consumers 

faced with a ballast failure. Those who 

purchase the 86W T8 system at EL4 or 

EL5 can achieve positive LCC savings. 

16990 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

ii. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

Table VI.12 shows the commercial 

and residential sector LCC results for 

IRL. The results are based on the 

reference case AEO2008 electricity price 

forecast and medium-range lamp prices. 

The analysis period is 3.4 years for the 

residential sector and 0.9 years for the 

commercial sector. DOE assessed three 

efficacy levels for the March 2008 

ANOPR. 73 FR 13620, 13666–13667 

(March 13, 2008). For the NOPR, DOE 

added two additional efficacy levels— 

one below the lowest EL considered in 

the March 2008 ANOPR, and one above 

the highest EL considered in the March 

2008 ANOPR See the engineering 

analysis in chapter 5 of the TSD or 

section V.C.4.b of this notice for details. 

The majority of efficacy levels result 

in positive LCC savings in spite of the 

higher installed prices of the standardscase lamps in comparison with the 

baseline lamps. In general, the higher 

lumen package lamps (i.e., those 

replacing the 90W baseline lamp) 

achieve higher LCC savings that the 

lower lumen package lamps (i.e., those 

replacing the 75W and 50W baselines). 

This is due to the larger energy savings, 

and, thus, operating cost savings 

associated with higher-wattage lamps. 

At EL1, in all but the residential 90W 

PAR38 baseline, consumers would 

achieve negative LCC savings when 

purchasing the improved halogen lamp. 

The improved halogen lamp at this 

efficacy level would not save enough 

energy to recover its increased initial 

cost from the baseline lamp. Maximum 

LCC savings would be achieved at EL5 

for the 90W and 75W baselines when a 

consumer purchases an improved HIR 

lamp. For the 50W baseline, both the 

EL4 and EL5 replacement lamps are 

40W, as this is the lowest-wattage IRL 

covered by standards. Therefore, EL4, 

consuming the same amount of energy 

and with a lower lamp price, would 

have higher LCC savings than EL5. In 

general, the lamps with the highest LCC 

savings are more efficacious and have 

longer lifetimes than the baseline lamps. 


EP13AP09.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16991 

TABLE VI.12—LCC RESULTS FOR INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMPS

Baseline Efficiency level 

Event I: Lamp replacement/Event V: New construction and renovation 

LCC savings 

2007$ 

Installed price 

2007$ 

Commercial * Residential * * Commercial Residential 

Baseline .................... N/A ............................ N/A ............................ 6.20 ........................... 5.13. 

EL1 ............................ ¥0.03 ....................... 0.12 ........................... 7.14 ........................... 6.07. 

90 Watt PAR38 EL2 ............................ 3.81 to 6.04 ............... 3.06 to 4.68 ............... 7.58 to 7.76 ............... 6.52 to 6.70. 

EL3 ............................ 6.19 ........................... 5.55 ........................... 7.76 ........................... 6.70. 

EL4 ............................ 8.14 ........................... 7.09 ........................... 9.08 ........................... 8.02. 

EL5 ............................ 9.41 ........................... 8.76 ........................... 9.65 ........................... 8.59. 

Baseline .................... N/A ............................ N/A ............................ 6.20 ........................... 5.13. 

EL1 ............................ ¥0.31 ....................... ¥0.18 ....................... 7.14 ........................... 6.07. 

75 Watt PAR38 EL2 ............................ 3.24 to 5.67 ............... 2.46 to 4.30 ............... 7.58 to 7.76 ............... 6.52 to 6.70. 

EL3 ............................ 4.77 ........................... 4.07 ........................... 7.76 ........................... 6.70. 

EL4 ............................ 7.00 ........................... 5.90 ........................... 9.08 ........................... 8.02. 

EL5 ............................ 7.50 ........................... 6.77 ........................... 9.65 ........................... 8.59. 

Baseline .................... N/A ............................ N/A ............................ 5.59 ........................... 4.53. 

EL1 ............................ ¥0.31 ....................... ¥0.28 ....................... 6.53 ........................... 5.46. 

50 Watt PAR30 EL2 ............................ 0.04 to 2.72 ............... 0.10 to 2.21 ............... 6.98 to 7.15 ............... 5.92 to 6.09. 

EL3 ............................ 0.77 ........................... 0.87 ........................... 7.15 ........................... 6.09. 

EL4 ............................ 1.95 ........................... 1.62 ........................... 8.47 ........................... 7.41. 

EL5 ............................ 1.51 ........................... 1.49 ........................... 9.04 ........................... 7.98. 

*Analysis period is 0.9 years. 

**Analysis period is 3.4 years. 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

Certain consumer subgroups may be 

disproportionately affected by 

standards. In the March 2008 ANOPR, 

DOE requested comment on which 

consumer subgroups should be 

considered as well as methods of 

analyzing those subgroups. 73 FR 

13620, 13682 (March 13, 2008). In 

response to comments it received, DOE 

performed LCC subgroup analyses in 

this NOPR for low-income consumers, 

institutions of religious worship, and 

institutions that serve low-income 

populations. See section 0 of this NOPR 

for a review of the inputs to the LCC 

analysis. The following discussion 

presents the most significant results 

from the LCC subgroup analysis. 

All of the LCC results shown here 

were generated using AEO2008 

reference case electricity prices. In 

addition, DOE presents subgroup results 

using medium-range lamp and ballast 

prices, as DOE believes that these prices 

represent average prices for the 

consumer subgroups as well. As in the 

primary LCC analysis, not all baselines 

and lamp purchase events have suitable 

replacement options at every efficacy 

level. See the primary LCC analysis 

results in section VI.B.1.a of this NOPR 

for more details on this analysis, as well 

as the TSD chapter 12 for a full set of 

LCC and PBP results for the subgroup 

analysis. 

i. Low-Income Households 

DOE conducted the low-income 

consumer subgroup analysis based on 

the 4-foot MBP 40W baseline operating 

in the residential sector and IRL 

operating in the residential sector. The 

low-income consumer subgroup 

analysis is identical to the residential 

average consumer LCC analysis, except 

that it includes slightly lower electricity 

prices, which DOE determined using 

data in the 2001 RECS. In comparing 

this subgroup’s LCC results to the 

primary results presented in Table VI.5, 

Table VI.6, and Table VI.12, positive 

primary LCC savings results remained 

positive and negative primary LCC 

savings results remained negative. In 

general, LCC savings for GSFL and IRL 

are approximately 1 to 2 percent lower 

for low-income residential consumers 

than they are for the average consumer 

in the residential sector. 

ii. Institutions of Religious Worship 

DOE found that institutions of 

religious worship have the lowest 

operating hours of any non-mall 

commercial building. Specifically, 

operating hours were 1,705 hours per 

year for GSFL (vs. the commercial sector 

average of 3,435 hours per year) and 

1,609 hours per year for IRL (vs. the 

commercial sector average of 3,450 

hours per year). The LCC analysis for 

this subgroup is identical to the main 

commercial sector LCC analysis except 

for the lower operating hours, resulting 

in an analysis period of 11 years for 4- 

foot GSFL, 8 years for 8-foot GSFL, and 

1.9 years for IRL. Results are shown in 

Table VI.13 through Table VI.16 of this 

notice. 

Institutions of religious worship 

experience lower LCC savings than the 

rest of the commercial sector, 

particularly for standards-induced 

retrofit events. This is because the 

longer analysis period (due to lower 

operating hours) causes operating cost 

savings and residual values to be 

discounted more heavily than in the 

primary commercial LCC analysis. In 

general, LCC savings that were positive 

for the 4-foot medium bipin product 

class in the primary commercial sector 

analysis remain positive for institutions 

of religious worship. For example, in 

Event II, LCC savings for institutions of 

religious worship are approximately $17 

lower than savings for the rest of the 

commercial sector for the 40W T12 

baseline. However, LCC savings for the 

standards-induced retrofit event for the 

34W T12 baseline lamp and 40W T12 

baseline lamp are negative for certain T8 

systems at EL4 and EL5. 

In the 4-foot T5 miniature bipin 

product class, LCC savings for 

institutions of religious worship are 

several dollars lower than savings for 

the rest of the commercial sector. This 

is also true for the 8-foot single-pin 

slimline product class except for the 

standards-induced retrofit event, where 

LCC savings for such institutions are 

approximately $20 lower than savings 

16992 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

for the rest of the commercial sector. 

DOE notes that the standards-induced 

retrofit of a 75W T12 system at EL5 is 

not cost-effective for religious 

institutions. 

For IRL, LCC savings for institutions 

of religious worship are generally lower 

by several cents compared to the rest of 

the commercial sector due to the longer 

analysis period. LCC savings are slightly 

higher, however, at EL1 for the 90W and 

75W PAR38 baselines. 


EP13AP09.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16993 

TABLE VI.14—LCC SUBGROUP RESULTS FOR A 2-LAMP FOUR-FOOT T5 MINIATURE BIPIN GSFL SYSTEM OPERATING IN

INSTITUTIONS OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP

Baseline Efficiency level 

LCC savings 

2007$ 

Installed price 

2007$ 

Event IA: Lamp 

replacement* 

Event V: New 

construction/ 

renovation* 

Event IA: Lamp 

replacement 

Event V: New 

construction/ 

renovation 

Baseline .................... N/A ............................ N/A ............................ 9.39 ........................... 69.20.

28 Watt T5 EL1 ............................ NER .......................... 38.73 ......................... 13.15 ......................... 72.96. 

EL2 ............................ ¥0.08 ....................... 39.74 to 42.31 ........... 14.86 ......................... 74.67 to 75.16. 

* Analysis period is 11 years. 

N/A: Not Applicable; NER: No Energy-Saving Replacement. 


EP13AP09.004</GPH>
16994 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VI.16—LCC SUBGROUP RESULTS FOR INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMPS OPERATING IN INSTITUTIONS OF

RELIGIOUS WORSHIP

Baseline Efficiency level 

Event I: Lamp replacement/Event V: New construction and renovation * 

LCC savings 

2007$ 

Installed price 

2007$ 

Baseline ..................................... N/A ................................................... 6.20. 

EL1 ............................................ 0.00 .................................................. 7.14. 

90 Watt PAR38 EL2 ............................................ 2.97 to 5.14 ...................................... 7.58 to 7.76. 

EL3 ............................................ 5.21 .................................................. 7.76. 

EL4 ............................................ 6.87 .................................................. 9.08. 

EL5 ............................................ 8.28 .................................................. 9.65. 

Baseline ..................................... N/A ................................................... 6.20. 

EL1 ............................................ ¥0.26 ............................................... 7.14. 

75 Watt PAR38 EL2 ............................................ 2.43 to 4.79 ...................................... 7.58 to 7.76. 

EL3 ............................................ 3.87 .................................................. 7.76. 

EL4 ............................................ 5.80 .................................................. 9.08. 

EL5 ............................................ 6.48 .................................................. 9.65. 

Baseline ..................................... N/A ................................................... 5.59. 

EL1 ............................................ ¥0.35 ............................................... 6.53. 

50 Watt PAR30 EL2 ............................................ ¥0.04 to 2.55 .................................. 6.98 to 7.15. 

EL3 ............................................ 0.64 .................................................. 7.15. 

EL4 ............................................ 1.58 .................................................. 8.47. 

EL5 ............................................ 1.37 .................................................. 9.04. 

* Analysis period is 1.9 years. 

iii. Institutions That Serve Low-Income 

Populations 

Table VI.17 through Table VI.20 show 

the LCC subgroup results for institutions 

that serve low-income populations. DOE 

assumed that the majority of these 

institutions are small nonprofits; thus, 

DOE used a higher discount rate of 10.8 

percent (versus the 7.0-percent discount 

rate for the primary commercial sector 

analysis). All other factors of the LCC 

subgroup analysis remained the same as 

in the primary commercial sector 

analysis. As a result of the higher 

discount rate, LCC savings are lower for 

institutions that serve low-income 

populations than for the rest of the 

commercial sector. For Events I and III 

for all analyzed GSFL product classes, 

savings are several dollars lower than 

for the rest of the commercial sector. For 

Event II for GSFL, LCC savings are 

approximately $10 lower than for the 

rest of the commercial sector. For IRL, 

LCC savings are several cents lower than 

for the rest of the commercial sector. 

Although LCC savings are lower, 

positive primary LCC results remained 

positive for this subgroup, while 

negative primary LCC results remained 

negative. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16995 


EP13AP09.005</GPH>
16996 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VI.18—LCC SUBGROUP RESULTS FOR A 2-LAMP FOUR-FOOT MINIATURE BIPIN GSFL SYSTEM OPERATING IN

INSTITUTIONS THAT SERVE LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS

Baseline Efficiency level 

LCC savings 

2007$ 

Installed price 

2007$ 

Event IA: Lamp 

replacement* 

Events V: New 

construction/ 

renovation* 

Event IA: Lamp replacement 

Events V: New 

construction/ 

renovation 

Baseline .................... N/A ............................ N/A ............................ 9.39 ........................... 69.20.

28 Watt T5 EL1 ............................ NER .......................... 40.41 ......................... 13.15 ......................... 72.96. 

EL2 ............................ 0.37 ........................... 41.91 to 44.24 ........... 14.86 ......................... 74.67 to 75.16. 

* Analysis period is 5.5 years. 

N/A: Not Applicable; NER: No Energy-Saving Replacement. 


EP13AP09.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16997 

TABLE VI.20—LCC SUBGROUP RESULTS FOR INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMPS OPERATING IN INSTITUTIONS THAT

SERVE LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS

Baseline Efficiency level 

Event I: Lamp replacement/Event V: New construction and renovation * 

LCC savings 

2007$ 

Installed price 

2007$ 

Baseline ..................................... N/A ................................................... 6.20. 

EL1 ............................................ ¥0.09 ............................................... 7.14. 

90 Watt PAR38 EL2 ............................................ 3.84 to 6.00 ...................................... 7.58 to 7.76. 

EL3 ............................................ 6.14 .................................................. 7.76. 

EL4 ............................................ 7.97 .................................................. 9.08. 

EL5 ............................................ 9.18 .................................................. 9.65. 

Baseline ..................................... N/A ................................................... 6.20. 

EL1 ............................................ ¥0.37 ............................................... 7.14. 

75 Watt PAR38 EL2 ............................................ 3.29 to 5.64 ...................................... 7.58 to 7.76. 

EL3 ............................................ 4.76 .................................................. 7.76. 

EL4 ............................................ 6.87 .................................................. 9.08 

EL5 ............................................ 7.34 .................................................. 9.65. 

Baseline ..................................... N/A ................................................... 5.59. 

EL1 ............................................ ¥0.33 ............................................... 6.53. 

50 Watt PAR30 EL2 ............................................ ¥0.01 to 2.57 .................................. 6.98 to 7.15. 

EL3 ............................................ 0.69 .................................................. 7.15. 

EL4 ............................................ 1.78 .................................................. 8.47. 

EL5 ............................................ 1.34 .................................................. 9.04. 

*Analysis period is 0.9 years. 

iv. Historical Facilities 

DOE found that historical facilities 

have similar operating hours, discount 

rates, and electricity prices as the 

typical consumer, although they do own 

more T12 systems. Accordingly, for this 

subgroup, no separate findings are 

warranted. See section VI.B.1.a.i of this 

notice to view the impacts on those 

consumers with T12 lamps. 

v. Consumers of T12 Electronic Ballasts 

Table VI.21 through Table VI.24 show 

the LCC subgroup results for consumers 

of T12 electronic ballasts. Specifically, 

DOE analyzed the LCC savings of a 

consumer that owns a T12 electronic 

system in the base case. In the case of 

an energy conservation standard at EL4 

or EL5, this consumer would need to 

purchase a T8 electronic system, as T12 

lamps would no longer available. DOE 

established a new baseline electronic 

T12 system and modified standards case 

systems so that both of the following 

conditions are met: (1) Light output is 

maintained in the case of a standard; 

and (2) energy is saved. All other factors 

of the LCC subgroup analysis remained 

the same as in the primary analysis. 

Because electronic T12 systems are 

much more efficient than magnetic T12 

systems, the LCC savings for this 

subgroup are lower than the LCC 

savings for systems in the primary 

analysis. For 4-foot medium bipin lamps 

operating in the commercial sector, LCC 

savings are reduced by approximately 

$20 to $30, going from positive LCC 

savings in the primary analysis to 

negative LCC savings for this subgroup. 

The source of this reduction is primarily 

due to the increased efficacy of the 

baseline system. 

TABLE VI.21—LCC SUBGROUP RESULTS FOR A 3-LAMP FOUR-FOOT ELECTRONIC MEDIUM BIPIN GSFL SYSTEM

OPERATING IN THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR

Baseline Efficiency level 

Event II: Standards-induced retrofit (lamp & ballast replacement) 

LCC savings * 

2007$ 

Installed price 

2007$ 

Baseline ........................................ N/A ................................................ 13.96. 

EL1 ............................................... EN/A ............................................. EN/A. 

40 Watt T12 EL2 ............................................... EN/A ............................................. EN/A. 

EL3 ............................................... EN/A ............................................. EN/A. 

EL4 ............................................... ¥16.72 to ¥4.37 ......................... 63.26 to 75.56. 

EL5 ............................................... ¥9.98 to ¥5.76 ........................... 64.83 to 71.19. 

Baseline ........................................ N/A ................................................ 11.22. 

EL1 ............................................... EN/A ............................................. EN/A. 

34 Watt T12 EL2 ............................................... EN/A ............................................. EN/A. 

EL3 ............................................... EN/A ............................................. EN/A. 

EL4 ............................................... ¥12.38 to ¥1.43 ......................... 63.26 to 67.88. 

EL5 ............................................... ¥8.63 to ¥5.53 ........................... 63.51 to 64.83. 

* Analysis period is 5.5 years. 

EN/A: Event Not Applicable; N/A: Not Applicable. 

16998 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

For 4-foot medium bipin lamps 

operating in the residential sector, LCC 

savings, already negative in the primary 

analysis, become slightly more negative 

for this subgroup. The change in the 

savings is not as large in the residential 

sector as in the commercial sector 

because consumers for this event have 

a shortened analysis period. 

TABLE VI.22—LCC SUBGROUP RESULTS FOR A 2-LAMP FOUR-FOOT ELECTRONIC MEDIUM BIPIN GSFL SYSTEM

OPERATING IN THE RESIDENTIAL SECTOR USING HIGH OPERATING HOURS

Baseline Efficiency level 

Event IB: Lamp & ballast replacement 

LCC savings 

2007$ 

Installed price 

2007$ 

Baseline ........................................ N/A ................................................ 3.98. 

EL1 ............................................... EN/A ............................................. EN/A. 

40 Watt T12 EL2 ............................................... EN/A ............................................. EN/A. 

EL3 ............................................... EN/A ............................................. EN/A. 

EL4 ............................................... ¥8.35 to ¥6.45 ........................... 50.99 to 54.07. 

EL5 ............................................... ¥7.80 to ¥7.18 ........................... 51.16 to 52.03. 

* Analysis period is 2.5 years. 

EN/A: Event Not Applicable; N/A: Not Applicable. 

For 8-foot single pin slimline lamps, 

LCC savings are reduced by 

approximately $18 to $25. For the 75W 

T12 baseline, consumers experience 

negative LCC savings for this subgroup 

as opposed to the positive LCC savings 

experienced by consumers in the 

primary analysis. For the 60W T12 

baseline, LCC savings, already negative 

in the primary analysis, become more 

negative for this subgroup. The source 

of this reduction is primarily due to the 

increased efficacy of the baseline 

system. 

TABLE VI.23—LCC SUBGROUP RESULTS FOR A 2-LAMP EIGHT-FOOT ELECTRONIC SINGLE-PIN SLIMLINE GSFL SYSTEM

OPERATING IN THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR

Baseline Efficiency level 

Event II: Standards-induced retrofit (lamp & ballast replacement) 

LCC savings* 

2007$ 

Installed price 

2007$ 

Baseline ........................................ N/A ................................................ 16.16. 

EL1 ............................................... EN/A ............................................. EN/A. 

75 Watt T12 EL2 ............................................... EN/A ............................................. EN/A. 

EL3 ............................................... EN/A ............................................. EN/A. 

EL4 ............................................... LL .................................................. 93.41. 

EL5 ............................................... ¥14.18 ......................................... 95.12. 

Baseline ........................................ N/A ................................................ 11.33. 

EL1 ............................................... EN/A ............................................. EN/A. 

60 Watt T12 EL2 ............................................... EN/A ............................................. EN/A. 

EL3 ............................................... EN/A ............................................. EN/A. 

EL4 ............................................... ¥32.74 ......................................... 93.41. 

EL5 ............................................... ¥31.86 to ¥30.09 ....................... 93.79 to 95.12. 

* Analysis period is 4.0 years. 

EN/A: Event Not Applicable; N/A: Not Applicable. 

For 8-foot recessed double contact 

high output lamps, LCC savings are 

reduced by approximately $10 to $15. 

For the 110W T12 baseline, consumers 

experience negative LCC savings for this 

subgroup as opposed to the positive 

LCC savings experienced by consumers 

in the primary analysis. For the 95W 

T12 baseline, LCC savings, already 

negative in the primary analysis, 

become more negative. The source of 

this reduction is again primarily due to 

the increased efficacy of the baseline 

system. 

TABLE VI.24—LCC SUBGROUP RESULTS FOR A 2-LAMP EIGHT-FOOT ELECTRONIC RECESSED DOUBLE-CONTACT HIGH

OUTPUT GSFL SYSTEM OPERATING IN THE INDUSTRIAL SECTOR

Baseline Efficiency level 

Event II: Standards-induced retrofit (lamp & ballast replacement) 

LCC savings 

2007$ 

Installed price 

2007$ 

Baseline ........................................ N/A ................................................ 19.74. 

EL1 ............................................... EN/A ............................................. EN/A. 

110 Watt T12 EL2 ............................................... EN/A ............................................. EN/A. 

EL3 ............................................... EN/A ............................................. EN/A. 

EL4 ............................................... LL .................................................. 123.27 to 123.60. 

EL5 ............................................... ¥10.09 ......................................... 126.49. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16999 

TABLE VI.24—LCC SUBGROUP RESULTS FOR A 2-LAMP EIGHT-FOOT ELECTRONIC RECESSED DOUBLE-CONTACT HIGH

OUTPUT GSFL SYSTEM OPERATING IN THE INDUSTRIAL SECTOR—Continued 

Baseline Efficiency level 

Event II: Standards-induced retrofit (lamp & ballast replacement) 

LCC savings 

2007$ 

Installed price 

2007$ 

Baseline ........................................ N/A ................................................ 13.92. 

EL1 ............................................... EN/A ............................................. EN/A. 

95 Watt T12 EL2 ............................................... EN/A ............................................. EN/A. 

EL3 ............................................... EN/A ............................................. EN/A. 

EL4 ............................................... ¥26.41 to ¥23.25 ....................... 123.27 to 123.60. 

EL5 ............................................... ¥23.07 ......................................... 126.49. 

* Analysis period is 2.3 years. 

EN/A: Event Not Applicable; N/A: Not Applicable. 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

DOE used the INPV in the MIA to 

compare the financial impacts of 

different TSLs on GSFL and IRL 

manufacturers. The INPV is the sum of 

all net cash flows discounted by the 

industry’s cost of capital (discount rate). 

DOE used the GRIMs to compare the 

INPV of the base case (no amended 

energy conservation standards) to that of 

each TSL for the GSFL and IRL 

industries. To evaluate the range of 

cash-flow impacts on the industries, 

DOE constructed different scenarios for 

each industry using different 

assumptions for markups and shipments 

that correspond to the range of 

anticipated market responses. Each 

scenario results in a unique set of cash 

flows and corresponding industry value 

at each TSL. These steps allowed DOE 

to compare the potential impacts on 

industries as a function of TSLs in the 

GRIMs. The difference in INPV between 

the base case and the standards case is 

an estimate of the economic impacts 

that implementing that standard level 

would have on the entire industry. 

a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results 

i. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

To assess the lower end of the range 

of potential impacts for the GSFL 

industry, DOE considered the flat 

markup scenario under the Existing 

Technologies base case, shipments with 

high lighting expertise, and a shift in 

efficacy distributions. Besides the 

impact of shipments on the INPV, this 

case assumed that manufacturers would 

be able to maintain gross margins as a 

percentage of revenues as production 

cost increases with efficacy. To assess 

the higher end of the range of potential 

impacts for the GSFL industry, DOE 

considered the scenario reflecting the 

four-tier markup scenario under the 

Emerging Technologies base case, 

shipments with market-based lighting 

expertise, and a rollup in efficacy 

distributions. Besides the impact of 

shipments on the INPV, this case 

assumed standards would reduce 

manufacturers’ portfolio, thereby 

squeezing the margin of higher-efficacy 

products as they are ‘‘demoted’’ to 

lower-relative-efficacy tier products. 

Table VI.25 and Table VI.26 show the 

low end and high end of the range of 

MIA results, respectively, for each TSL 

using the cases described above. 

TABLE VI.25—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR GSFL WITH THE FLAT MARKUP SCENARIO UNDER THE EXISTING

TECHNOLOGIES BASE CASE—HIGH LIGHTING EXPERTISE—SHIFT IN EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS

Units Base 

case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV ................................................................ (2007$ millions) .......... 602 652 653 673 594 616 

Change in INPV .............................................. (2007$ millions) .......... ................ 49 50 71 ¥9 13 

(%) .............................. ................ 8.18% 8.31% 11.78% ¥1.48% 2.21% 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards 

Product Conversion Expenses.

(2007$ millions) .......... ................ 3.3 8.8 8.8 11.6 29.6 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards 

Capital Conversion Expenses.

(2007$ millions) .......... ................ 38.5 60.5 104.5 181.5 181.5 

Total Investment Required .............................. (2007$ millions) .......... ................ 41.8 69.3 113.3 193.1 211.1 

TABLE VI.26—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR GSFL WITH THE FOUR-TIER MARKUP SCENARIO UNDER THE

EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES BASE CASE—MARKET SEGMENT LIGHTING EXPERTISE—ROLLUP IN EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV ........................................................ (2007$ millions) ...... 575 668 638 436 380 312 

Change in INPV ...................................... (2007$ millions) ...... .................. 93 63 ¥139 ¥195 ¥263 

(%) .......................... .................. 16.09% 11.02% ¥24.15% ¥33.96% ¥45.80% 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Product Conversion Expenses.(2007$ millions) ...... .................. 3.3 8.8 8.8 11.6 29.6 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Capital Conversion Expenses.(2007$ millions) ...... .................. 38.5 60.5 104.5 181.5 181.5 

Total Investment Required ...................... (2007$ millions) ...... .................. 41.8 69.3 113.3 193.1 211.1 

17000 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

For the GSFL MIA, margin impacts 

are the most significant driver of INPV. 

The potential margin impacts on 

manufacturers are based on their ability 

to maintain higher margins as standards 

remove efficacy as a differentiator of 

premium products. The potential for 

standards to disrupt the premium 

margins for efficacy is captured in the 

higher-bound and lower-bound 

scenarios DOE presents. The lowerbound scenario represents the situation 

where manufacturers maintain their 

current ‘‘good, better, best’’ marketing 

strategy by basing higher margins on 

features other than efficacy or coming 

up with more-efficient products. The 

large impacts on industry value in the 

upper-bound scenario are caused by 

higher standards disrupting 

manufacturers’ current marketing 

strategy. In this scenario, manufacturers 

cannot maintain higher margins when 

efficacy is lost as a differentiator and 

higher standards lower profitability. 

Other drivers of INPV are less 

significant because: (1) The capital costs 

required at each TSL are relatively small 

compared to the industry revenue; and 

(2) shipments do not substantially 

change regardless of the scenario. 

DOE estimated the impacts on INPV 

at TSL1 to range from $49 million to $93 

million, equal to a 8.2 percent to 16.1 

percent increase. At this level, the 

highest impact on cash flow in the year 

leading up to the standards occurs 

under the Emerging Technologies base 

case. Under this scenario, industry cash 

flow decreases by approximately 37 

percent, to $32 million, compared to the 

base-case value of $50 million in the 

year leading up to the standards. 

Product conversion costs are low at 

TSL1 because manufacturers have 

existing products that meet the efficacy 

levels. Capital conversion costs are also 

low at this TSL because a minimal 

amount of T12 machinery needs to be 

converted to meet the growing volume 

of T8 production induced by standards. 

The necessary conversion costs to meet 

TSL1 are low relative to the conversion 

costs for the natural market migration 

from T12 to T8 lamps in the base case, 

which helps to mitigate the impact of 

the standards-induced conversion costs. 

The positive INPV predicted in the flat 

markup scenario is indicative that 

product conversion and capital 

conversion outlays are also low relative 

to the increase in variable production 

costs. Whereas GSFL production is 

capital intensive, the capital 

requirements are a function primarily of 

the tube diameter. Efficiency standards 

which do not require a change in 

diameter will typically require a change 

in phosphors which is not capital 

intensive. Under the tiered markup 

scenario, manufacturers are left with a 

range of products after standards, so 

they still earn higher markups on a wide 

variety of premium products. In fact, the 

products eliminated at TSL1 are 

commodity products which have a 

lower-than-average profit margin. Thus, 

industry revenues and cash flows are 

not negatively affected, and 

manufacturers actually benefit from the 

higher prices of remaining products. 

At TSL2, DOE estimated the impacts 

in INPV at TSL2 to range from $50 

million to $63 million, equal to a 8.3 

percent to 11.0 percent increase. At this 

level, the highest impact on cash flow 

in the year leading up to the standards 

occurs under the Emerging 

Technologies base case. Under this 

scenario, industry cash flow decreases 

by approximately 60 percent, to $20 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $50 million in the year leading 

up to the standards. Product conversion 

costs are still relatively low at TSL2, 

because few manufacturers will have to 

modify exiting products to meet this 

standard level. Capital conversion costs 

are also low at this TSL, but the 

investments required to meet TSL2 are 

larger than TSL1, because more T12 

machinery needs to be converted to 

meet the growing volume of T8 

production induced by standards. INPV 

is less positive at TSL2 than at TSL1, 

because the higher conversion costs 

necessary to meet TSL2 lower the 

mitigating impact of the conversion 

costs for the natural market migration 

from T12 to T8 lamps included in the 

base case. At TSL2, more of the mostefficient, higher-priced T12 lamps are 

shifting to less-expensive T8 lamps. 

INPV in the four-tier markup scenario is 

also not as positive, because 

manufacturers have fewer premium 

products and the profit margins on some 

more-efficient T12 products begin to 

shrink. While TSL2 eliminates some of 

the premium T12 lamps, the T8 lamps 

to which consumers must migrate still 

earn a higher markup. 

At TSL3, the impact on INPV and 

cash flow depends heavily on the ability 

of manufacturers to differentiate 

products and maintain higher margins 

as standards move consumers to 

previously premium products. DOE 

estimated that the impacts on INPV at 

TSL3 range from approximately $71 

million to ¥$139 million, equal to a 

11.8 percent to ¥24.2 percent change. 

At this level, the highest impact on cash 

flow in the year leading up to the 

standards occurs under the Emerging 

Technologies base case. Under this 

scenario, industry cash flow decreases 

by approximately 100 percent, to $0 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $50 million in the year leading 

up to the standards. At TSL3, most 

manufacturers expressed concerns about 

the ability to maintain production 

volumes of T12 and T8 lamps, because 

all but the most efficient T12 lamps are 

eliminated. Because a large portion of 

existing T12 shipments migrate to T8, 

manufacturers have to convert or 

replace a significant portion of their T12 

production lines to T8, making capital 

conversion costs higher at TSL3 than at 

TSL1 or TSL2. Conversion costs are also 

higher at TSL3, because manufacturers 

have to make more R&D expenditures to 

offer a full line of T12 and T8 products 

that meet the standard. Because TSL3 

greatly accelerates the migration of T12 

to T8 products, the conversion costs in 

the base case have a minimal effect on 

offsetting INPV impacts from high 

standards-induced conversion costs at 

TSL3 and all higher TSLs. If 

manufacturers can pass along the 

increased production costs of moreefficient products by differentiating the 

products with features such as low 

mercury content and longer life, they 

can recoup margins, thereby mitigating 

some of the impacts. If manufacturers 

can fully differentiate their products 

and earn the same profit margins as in 

the base case (the lower range of 

impacts), they will benefit from higher 

prices and INPV will be positive at this 

TSL. However, if manufacturers cannot 

differentiate their products and the 

margins on previously premium 

products begin to erode with 

commoditization, DOE expects 

manufacturer margins to be negative 

and the higher end of the range of 

negative INPV will be reached. 

At TSL4, DOE estimated the impacts 

on INPV range from approximately ¥$9 

million to ¥$195 million, equal to a 

¥1.5 percent to ¥34.0 percent change. 

At this level, the highest impact on cash 

flow in the year leading up to the 

standards occurs under the Emerging 

Technologies base case. Under this 

scenario, industry cash flow decreases 

by approximately 171 percent, to ¥$36 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $50 million in the year leading 

up to the standards. At TSL4, there are 

significant conversion capital 

expenditures because all T12 

production lines need to be converted to 

T8 lines; the capital requirement for this 

conversion is nearly double the amount 

needed at TSL3. The large capital costs 

make INPV negative even if 

manufacturers maintain the margin on 

all lamps, as in the base case. Also, 

manufacturers expressed concern that 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 17001 

the highest-grade phosphor mixtures 

would be necessary on most lamps to 

meet efficiencies prescribed by TSL4. 

The more-efficient phosphor blends 

substantially increase lamp costs, 

decreasing profitability if the cost 

increases cannot be passed on to 

consumers. That is, at TSL4, more T8 

lamps that previously earned a premium 

are commoditized because the standard 

eliminates all T12 lamps from the 

market, thereby squeezing margins on 

all lamps and causing more negative 

impacts in the four-tier markup 

scenario. 

At TSL5, DOE estimated that the 

impacts on INPV range from 

approximately $13 million to ¥$263 

million, equal to a 2.2 percent to ¥45.8 

percent change. At this level, the 

highest impact on cash flow in the year 

leading up to the standards occurs 

under the Emerging Technologies base 

case. Under this scenario, industry cash 

flow decreases by approximately 183 

percent, to ¥$42 million, compared to 

the base-case value of $50 million in the 

year leading up to the standards. At 

TSL5, the necessary conversion capital 

is identical to TSL4 because this TSL 

also requires manufacturers to convert 

all existing T12 production to T8 

production. These large costs make 

INPV negative even if manufacturers 

pass along all production cost increases 

to the consumer. At TSL5, all products 

are commoditized because all lamps 

must use the most efficient phosphor 

coatings. There are few options 

available for manufacturers to 

differentiate lamps at TSL5, thereby 

making it more likely that 

manufacturers will be negatively 

affected. 

Based on interviews with 

manufacturers, DOE understands that 

manufacturers are constantly forced to 

revise their marketing strategies as new 

products are introduced and older 

products become commoditized. DOE 

also understands that higher efficacy is 

not the only feature available to 

differentiate premium products. 

Lifetime, lower mercury content, and 

removing lead are all features that also 

differentiate products. Therefore, DOE 

believes that after significant early 

disruptions in pricing, over time the 

industry will recover the profitability 

levels that existed prior to standards as 

manufacturers rebalance their product 

mix. The net effect on INPV is uncertain 

but should tend toward the midpoint of 

the two GRIM scenarios. DOE seeks 

comment on the ability of 

manufacturers to maintain these 

margins through the differentiation of 

products by other means. DOE also 

seeks comment on how the ability to 

differentiate products might vary over 

time. 

ii. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

During the manufacturer interviews 

DOE learned that for IRL lamps, 

markups do not increase as a function 

of efficacy (in contrast to GSFL). 

Instead, manufacturers indicated that 

the range of potential impacts would 

depend on the magnitude of the capital 

investments required and the expected 

reduction in product sales. Thus, DOE 

modeled manufacturing impacts using 

all IRL shipments scenarios described in 

sections V.G.4.b.ii and V.G.4.b.iv. To 

assess the lower end of the range of 

potential impacts for the IRL industry, 

DOE considered the Existing 

Technologies base case reflecting the no 

product substitution scenario with a 

shift in efficacy distributions. In this 

scenario: (1) Manufacturers benefit from 

higher prices from consumers switching 

to more-efficient products on their own 

(the shift scenario); (2) IRL base-case 

shipments are not eroded due to 

emerging technologies; and (3) 

standards-case shipments do not 

decrease due to substitutions of R–CFL 

and exempted BR lamps for IRL. To 

assess the higher end of the range of 

potential impacts for the IRL industry, 

DOE considered the Emerging 

Technologies base case reflecting the 

product substitution scenario with a 

rollup in efficacy distributions. In this 

scenario: (1) IRL base-case shipments 

are eroded due to emerging 

technologies; and (2) standards-case 

shipments decrease due to substitutions 

of R–CFL and exempted BR lamps for 

IRL. Table VI.27 and Table VI.28 show 

the MIA results for each TSL for IRL 

under the shipment scenarios which 

result in the highest and lowest INPV 

impacts. 

TABLE VI.27—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR IRL UNDER THE EXISTING TECHNOLOGIES BASE CASE—NO

PRODUCT SUBSTITUTION SCENARIO—SHIFT IN EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV ........................................................ (2007$ millions) ...... 267 263 215 205 190 185 

Change in INPV ...................................... (2007$ millions) ...... .................. (4) (52) (62) (77) (82) 

(%) .......................... .................. ¥1.55% ¥19.36% ¥23.06% ¥28.85% ¥30.85% 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Product Conversion Expenses.(2007$ millions) ...... .................. $3 $3 $2 $3 $7 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Capital Conversion Expenses.(2007$ millions) ...... .................. $31 $83 $134 $166 $185 

Total Investment Required ...................... (2007$ millions) ...... .................. $35 $87 $136 $170 $192 

TABLE VI.28—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR IRL UNDER THE EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES BASE CASE—PRODUCT

SUBSTITUTION—ROLL-UP IN EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV ........................................................ (2007$ millions) ...... 207 191 149 131 112 104 

Change in INPV ...................................... (2007$ millions) ...... .................. (16) (58) (76) (94) (103) 

(%) .......................... .................. ¥7.69% ¥27.87% ¥36.85% ¥45.60% ¥49.60% 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Product Conversion Expenses.(2007$ millions) ...... .................. $3 $3 $2 $3 $7 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Capital Conversion Expenses.(2007$ millions) ...... .................. $31 $83 $134 $166 $185 

17002 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VI.28—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR IRL UNDER THE EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES BASE CASE—PRODUCT

SUBSTITUTION—ROLL-UP IN EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS—Continued 

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

Total Investment Required ...................... (2007$ millions) ...... .................. $35 $87 $136 $170 $192 

To meet TSL1, manufacturers must 

replace less-efficient fill gases in the 

capsule with xenon. At TSL1, DOE 

estimated the impacts on INPV to be 

between ¥$4 million and ¥$16 

million, or a change in INPV of between 

¥1.6 percent and ¥7.7 percent. At this 

level, the highest impact on cash flow 

in the year leading up to the standards 

occurs under the Emerging 

Technologies base case. Under this 

scenario, the industry cash flow 

decreases by approximately 68 percent, 

to $7.1 million, compared to the base 

case value of $22.5 million in the year 

leading up to the standards. All 

manufacturers have a full range of 

products that meet this TSL. Conversion 

expenses are relatively low at this level 

because using xenon does not require 

substantial changes to the 

manufacturing process. Because the 

lifetimes of standards-compliant lamps 

do not change at TSL1, shipments in the 

standards cases are not further impacted 

by lower shipments due to higher lamp 

lifetimes. In fact, at this TSL, 

manufacturers benefit from the 

increased prices of standards-compliant 

lamps. However, this positive impact on 

revenues is not enough to overcome the 

product and capital conversion 

expenses, making overall INPV negative. 

The greater impact on shipments in the 

Emerging Technologies base case with 

product substitution drives INPV more 

negative. 

TSL2 is based on a 6,000 hour HIR 

lamp, but this level may also be 

achieved using an improved reflector. 

At TSL2, the impact on INPV and cash 

flow depends on a manufacturer’s 

ability to recoup the conversion capital 

and product conversion expenses and 

the extent to which shipments are 

reduced in the base case due to 

emerging technologies and in the 

standards case due to changes in the 

product mix (including lamp lifetime). 

DOE estimated the impacts in INPV at 

TSL2 to be between ¥$52 million and 

¥$58 million or a change in INPV of 

¥19.4 percent and ¥27.9 percent. At 

this level, the highest impact on cash 

flow in the year leading up to the 

standards occurs under the Emerging 

Technologies base case. Under this 

scenario, the industry cash flow 

decreases by approximately 172 percent, 

to ¥$16.2 million, compared to the 

base-case value of $22.5 million in the 

year leading up to the standards. At 

TSL2, there are negative impacts on 

manufacturers due to decreased 

shipments and significant product 

conversion expenses. At this TSL, 

conversion expenses vary greatly among 

manufacturers but are significant in the 

aggregate due to the need to increase 

production of HIR lamps or invest in 

improved reflector technology. Two 

manufacturers have a complete line of 

standards-compliant lamps but must 

spend a considerable amount of 

resources to expand production of a 

low-volume, premium product for mass 

production. Another manufacturer must 

spend a significant amount of capital to 

purchase the machinery to meet 

demand with exclusively higher 

technology (infrared) lamps in addition 

to replacing krypton with xenon as fill 

gas in the capsule. The shipment 

scenarios chosen account for the range 

in INPV. Shipments have a significant 

impact on INPV at this TSL in all cases 

because the products that meet this 

standard have the longest lifetimes in 

the standards cases, further decreasing 

shipments relative to the base cases. 

Some manufacturers have expressed 

concerns about competitive impacts at 

this TSL. One manufacturer has a patent 

on silverized reflectors. Another 

manufacturer is believed to have a cross 

license on the technology. Despite the 

large capital expense to expand this 

reflector technology for all baseline 

lamps to meet this TSL, both these 

manufacturers could capture market 

share by selling less-expensive lamps 

based on improved reflector coating 

instead of HIR technology. The other 

manufacturer without access to the 

enhanced reflectors would have to make 

large expenditures on capital and 

product conversion to produce lamps 

with a comparable efficacy, but at 

higher costs. 

TSL3 is based on 3,000-hour HIR 

technology. DOE estimated the impacts 

on INPV at TSL3 to be between ¥$62 

million and ¥$76 million, or a change 

in INPV of between ¥23.1 percent and 

¥36.9 percent. At this level, the highest 

impact on cash flow in the year leading 

up to the standards occurs under the 

Emerging Technologies base case. Under 

this scenario, the industry cash flow 

decreases by approximately 272 percent, 

to¥$38.6 million, compared to the basecase value of $22.5 million in the year 

leading up to the standards. There are 

significant capital conversion costs at 

this TSL that make INPV negative. 

Manufacturers must purchase additional 

infrared coaters to increase the 

production of these low-volume lamps. 

Since current HIR production is very 

small relative to standard halogen IRL, 

all manufacturers voiced their concerns 

about meeting demand at this level. 

Also, since all existing HIR capsules use 

xenon as the fill gas, manufactures are 

concerned about the high material costs 

for this gas and the potential for the 

price to increase over time. The high 

costs to convert all lamps to HIR 

technology drive INPV negative and 

strand existing equipment for standard 

halogen capsules. The range of INPV 

arises from the shipment scenarios that 

account for different market erosion due 

to emerging technology and standards 

inducing a switch to exempted BR 

lamps and R–CFL. If manufacturer 

concerns about consumers switching to 

exempted BR and R–CFL are realized in 

addition to emerging technology eroding 

the IRL market, then the higher end of 

the range of negative INPV will be 

reached. 

TSL4 requires the production of an 

improved HIR lamp. At TSL4, DOE 

estimated the impacts in INPV to be 

between ¥$77 million and ¥$94 

million, or a change in INPV of ¥28.9 

percent and ¥45.6 percent. At this 

level, the highest impact on cash flow 

in the year leading up to the standards 

occurs under the Emerging 

Technologies base case. Under this 

scenario, the industry cash flow 

decreases by approximately 338 percent, 

to ¥$53.6 million, compared to the 

base-case value of $22.5 million in the 

year leading up to the standards. The 

significant capital and product 

conversion expenses at this TSL make 

INPV negative. At this TSL, all 

manufacturers must expand production 

of the more-efficient HIR technology to 

meet demand of the entire market. Since 

current HIR production is relatively 

low, these substantial costs make INPV 

negative. The capital conversion 

expenses are large because, in addition 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 17003 

to HIR technology, manufacturers must 

also use enhanced reflectors or the most 

efficient burners and add xenon. Also, 

since all existing HIR capsules use 

xenon as the fill gas, manufactures are 

concerned about the high material costs 

for this gas and the potential for the 

price to increase over time. The 

lifetimes of products that meet this TSL 

are longer than the baseline, creating a 

negative impact on INPV from 

shipments regardless of the shipment 

scenario selected. Manufacturers also 

voiced concerns about competition at 

TSL4. Because lamps can use an 

enhanced reflector with HIR to meet 

TSL4, manufacturers have the same 

competitive concerns as at TSL2. 

Finally, two manufacturers currently 

have a full line of lamps that meet TSL4. 

A third manufacturer has some 

products, but would have to undertake 

a costly redesign of its burners in order 

to sell a full line of those lamps. 

TSL5 requires the production of 

lamps with an improved HIR coating 

and an additional improvement. At 

TSL5, DOE estimated the impacts in 

INPV to be between ¥$82 million and 

¥$103 million, or a change in INPV of 

between ¥30.9 percent and ¥49.6 

percent. At this level, the highest impact 

on cash flow in the year leading up to 

the standards occurs under the 

Emerging Technologies base case. Under 

this scenario, the industry cash flow 

decreases by approximately 381 percent, 

to ¥$63.1 million, compared to the 

base-case value of $22.5 million in the 

year leading up to the standards. The 

impacts at TSL5 are the most severe for 

manufacturers, because the capital and 

product conversion expenses are 

greatest at this TSL. At this TSL, all 

manufacturers must expand production 

of a lamp with multiple improvements 

over standard HIR lamps. Manufacturers 

must use HIR technology with an 

improved coating and with either 

enhanced reflectors or more-efficient 

burners. Since even standard HIR 

production is currently low compared to 

standard halogen, expanding the 

production of the most-efficient HIR 

technology to meet demand of the entire 

market is very costly. Due to the large 

conversion costs, INPV is greatly 

negative even if the market is not eroded 

by emerging technology and customers 

do not substitute R–CFL and exempted 

BR lamps for IRL. If manufacturers 

concerns about emerging technology 

and substitutions for IRL are realized, 

DOE expects the higher range of 

negative impacts to be reached (a 49.6 

percent decrease in INPV). 

b. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

While any one regulation may not 

impose a significant burden on 

manufacturers, DOE understands the 

combined effects of several existing and 

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. For this 

reason, DOE conducts an analysis of 

cumulative regulatory burden as part of 

its rulemakings pertaining to appliance 

efficiency. 

In its written comment, NEMA 

submitted a list of regulatory 

requirements that included numerous 

reporting requirements, the Restriction 

on Hazardous Substances directive 

(RoHS), and legislatively-prescribed 

minimum performance requirements 

that contribute to the industries’ 

cumulative regulatory burden (NEMA, 

No. 22 at p 34). DOE discusses the 

suggested regulatory provisions 

submitted by NEMA in chapter 13 of the 

TSD. 

In addition to the energy conservation 

standards on GSFL and IRL products, 

other regulations can significantly affect 

manufacturers’ financial operations. 

Multiple regulations affecting the same 

manufacturer can quickly strain profits 

and possibly cause an exit from the 

market. Besides the list of suggested 

regulatory provisions that NEMA 

submitted, DOE also identified other 

regulations these manufacturers are 

facing for other products and equipment 

they manufacture within three years 

prior to and three years after the 

effective date of the amended energy 

conservation standards for GSFL and 

IRL. 

DOE believes that the EISA 2007 

requirements for GSIL could have the 

greatest cumulative burden on 

manufacturers of GSFL and IRL. DOE 

understands that manufacturers of GSFL 

and IRL will also incur large capital and 

product conversion investments to 

comply with the GSIL minimum 

efficacy standards. The GSIL 

investments will compete with IRL and 

GSFL for company resources. For 

example, GSFL, IRL, and GSIL all share 

many of the same limited engineering 

resources. In addition, the capital costs 

to comply with EISA 2007 could 

potentially limit the funding available 

for GSFL and IRL conversions because 

these investments will compete for the 

same sources of capital. DOE 

understands that these are important but 

surmountable challenges for GSFL and 

IRL manufacturers. 

c. Impacts on Employment 

To assess the impacts of energy 

conservation standards on GSFL and 

IRL direct manufacturing employment, 

DOE used the GRIM to estimate 

domestic labor expenditures and 

employment levels. DOE used statistical 

data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2006 

Annual Survey of Manufacturers (2006 

ASM), results from other analyses, and 

interviews with manufacturers to 

estimate the inputs necessary to 

calculate industry-wide labor 

expenditures and employment levels. In 

the GRIM, total labor expenditures are a 

function of the labor content, the sales 

volume, and the wage rate which 

remains fixed in real terms over time. 

The total employment figures presented 

for the GSFL and IRL industries include 

both production and non-production 

workers. 

DOE does not believe that standards 

will alter the domestic employment 

levels of the GSFL industry. During 

interviews with manufacturers, DOE 

learned that GSFL are produced on 

high-speed, fully-automated lines. 

Production workers are not involved in 

the physical assembly of the final 

product (e.g., in inserting components, 

transferring partly assembled lamps, 

soldering lamp bases). The production 

workers counted in DOE’s figure 

include plant workers involved in 

clearing glass, overseeing a portion of 

the assembly line, monitoring quality 

control, mixing phosphors, and moving 

finished products to loading. The 

employment levels required for these 

tasks are a function of the total volume 

of the facility, not the labor content of 

the product mix produced by the plant. 

Since higher TSLs involve using moreefficient phosphors, employment will 

not be impacted because standards will 

not change the overall scale of the 

facility. DOE estimates that there are 

approximately 1,806 U.S. production 

and non-production workers in the 

GSFL industry. 

Table VI.29 and Table VI.30 show the 

domestic employment impacts 

calculated in the GRIM for the two cash 

flow scenarios used to bound the range 

of INPV impacts. The total employment 

figures include both production and 

non-production workers. 

17004 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

72 DOE identified and contacted 12 businesses 

that could potentially be classified as small 

business manufacturers of the products that are the 

subject of this rulemaking. Four of those businesses 

agreed to be interviewed. Of these, DOE verified 

that only one of those businesses met all the criteria 

to be classified as a small manufacturer of covered 

GSFL or IRL. For further detail on DOE’s inquiry 

regarding small manufacturers, please see section 

VII.B on the review under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. 

TABLE VI.29—CHANGE IN AVERAGE NUMBER OF DOMESTIC EMPLOYEES IN THE IRL INDUSTRY UNDER THE EXISTING

TECHNOLOGIES BASE CASE—NO PRODUCT SUBSTITUTION SCENARIO—SHIFT IN EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION

Baseline TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 

Average Number of Domestic IRL Employees from 2012–2042 ............ 1,319 1,518 1,303 1,492 1,396 1,426 

Change in the Average Number of Domestic IRL Employees from 

2012–2042 ............................................................................................ ................ 199 ¥16 173 77 107 

TABLE VI.30—CHANGE IN AVERAGE NUMBER OF DOMESTIC EMPLOYEES IN THE IRL INDUSTRY UNDER THE EMERGING

TECHNOLOGIES BASE CASE—PRODUCT SUBSTITUTION SCENARIO—ROLL-UP IN EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION

Baseline TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 

Average Number of Domestic IRL Employees from 2012–2042 ............ 699 783 623 724 617 621 

Change in the Average Number of Domestic IRL Employees from 

2012–2042 ............................................................................................ ................ 84 ¥77 24 ¥82 ¥78 

DOE believes that amended energy 

conservation standards will not 

significantly impact IRL direct 

employment. The impact that new 

standards will have on employment is 

far less significant than the potential 

impact from emerging technologies. 

Both scenarios show that the absolute 

magnitudes of employment impacts due 

to standards are small. Whether 

standards have a positive or negative 

impact on employment is largely 

determined by the extent to which 

consumers elect to substitute IRL with 

other lamp technologies (such as R–CFL 

or exempted IRL) in the standards case. 

The employment impacts calculated 

by DOE are independent of the 

employment impacts from the broader 

U.S. economy, which are documented 

in chapter 15 of the TSD accompanying 

this notice. The employment 

conclusions also do not account for the 

possible relocation of domestic jobs to 

lower-labor-cost countries because the 

potential relocation of U.S. jobs is 

uncertain and highly speculative. 

During interviews, manufacturers did 

not emphasize the risk of shifting 

production facilities abroad. 

d. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

DOE anticipates that amended energy 

conservation standards would not 

significantly affect the production 

capacity of GSFL manufacturers. For 

GSFL manufacturers, any necessary 

redesign of GSFL would not change the 

fundamental assembly of the equipment 

because higher TSLs require the use of 

more-efficient phosphor coatings, which 

are largely a materials issue. Therefore, 

in the long-term there should be no 

capacity constraints. However, higher 

standards would also be expected to 

expedite a natural conversion of T12 

shipments to T8 shipments. Because 

most production lines are specific to 

lamp diameter, shifting production from 

T12 to T8 lamps requires shutting down 

the line and retooling. Based on the 

duration of line changes described by 

manufactures, DOE believes that the 

conversion of machinery to T8 lamp 

production could occur between the 

announcement date and the effective 

date of the standards. In addition, 

manufacturers indicated it is possible to 

ramp up production before shutting 

down a line to maintain a constant 

supply of shipments during retooling. 

Manufacturers are concerned that IRL 

standards could cause capacity 

constraints if amended standards were 

to alter the assembly of standard 

halogen burners. In particular, IRL 

manufacturers are concerned about the 

ability to convert their equipment in 

time to meet an exclusively HIR 

standard (TSL3, TSL4, and TSL5). 

Although all manufacturers DOE 

interviewed produce lamps with 

infrared burners, the current volume of 

these lamps is many times lower than 

the volume of standard halogen lamps. 

In addition, the production of infrared 

capsules is much more time consuming, 

requiring additional time for the coating 

process and quality control due to the 

precision necessary for the technology 

to increase efficacy. In general, the large 

lamp manufacturers are concerned 

about their ability to increase the 

production volume of HIR capsules in 

time to meet the standard. However, 

interviews with suppliers of HIR 

capsules and coating decks suggest that 

the capacity could be met under an HIR 

standard. Based on discussions with 

suppliers of infrared coaters, DOE also 

believes that lamp manufacturers will 

have enough time in between the 

announcement date and the effective 

date of the standards to purchase and 

install the necessary coaters to meet 

TSL3 and higher and produce all 

burners in their own facilities. 

Independent of manufacturers’ ability to 

install coaters to produce all infrared 

burners in-house, independent 

suppliers of infrared capsules suggested 

that they have the ability to supply a 

significant portion of the market. 

Because manufacturers could install 

additional coaters, purchase infrared 

burners from a supplier, and use 

existing excess capacity, DOE believes 

IRL manufacturers will be able to 

maintain production capacity levels and 

continue to meet market demand for all 

IRL standard levels. 

e. Impacts on Manufacturer Subgroups 

As discussed above, using average 

cost assumptions to develop an industry 

cash-flow estimate is inadequate for 

assessing differential impacts among 

manufacturer subgroups. Small 

manufacturers, niche players, and 

manufacturers exhibiting a cost 

structure that differs largely from the 

industry average could be affected 

differently. DOE used the results of the 

industry characterization to group 

manufacturers exhibiting similar 

characteristics. 

During its interviews, DOE did not 

identify any small manufacturers of 

covered IRL, but DOE did identify one 

small manufacturer that produces 

covered GSFL.72 This manufacturer 

suggested that it could be less impacted 

by amended energy conservation 

standards on GSFL than the large 

manufacturers. Unlike its larger 

competitors, the small manufacturer 

focuses on specialty products not 

covered by this rulemaking and has had 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 17005 

a better ability to pass along product 

cost increases. For a discussion of the 

impacts on the small manufacturer, see 

chapter 13 of the TSD and section 0 of 

today’s notice. 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

To estimate the energy savings 

through 2042 due to amended energy 

conservation standards, DOE compared 

the energy consumption of the lamps 

under the base case to the energy 

consumption of these products under 

the trial standard levels. Table VI.31 and 

Table VI.32 show the forecasted 

national energy savings (including 

rebound effect and HVAC interactions 

where applicable) in quads (quadrillion 

BTU) at each TSL for GSFL and IRL. As 

discussed in section V.E, DOE models 

two base-case shipment scenarios and 

several standards-case shipment 

scenarios. For each lamp type, these 

scenarios combined produce eight 

possible sets of NES results. The tables 

below present the results of the two 

scenarios that represent the maximum 

and minimum energy savings resulting 

from all the scenarios analyzed. 

For GSFL, DOE presents ‘‘Existing 

Technologies, High Lighting Expertise, 

Shift’’ and ‘‘Emerging Technologies, 

Market Segment-Based Lighting 

Expertise, Roll-Up’’ in Table VI.31 as 

the scenarios that produce the 

maximum and minimum energy 

savings, respectively. Due to a larger 

reduction in the installed stock of lamps 

affected by standards, the Emerging 

Technologies base-case forecast results 

in lower energy savings than the 

Existing Technologies base-case 

forecast. In addition, due to a portion of 

consumers purchasing non-energysaving, higher-lumen-output systems, 

the Market Segment-Based Lighting 

Expertise scenario results in lower 

energy savings than the High Lighting 

Expertise scenario. Finally, because in 

the Shift scenario more consumers move 

to higher-efficacy lamps than in the 

Roll-Up scenario, the Shift scenario 

results in higher energy savings than the 

Roll-Up scenario. 

Table VI.31 presents total national 

energy savings for each TSL (labeled as 

‘‘Total’’ savings). The table also reports 

national energy savings due to 

individually regulating each type of 

GSFL (presented next to the lamp type 

names), assuming no amended standard 

on all other lamp types. However, it is 

important to note that individual lamp 

type energy savings (due to separate 

regulation) do not sum to equal total 

energy savings achieved at the trial 

standard levels due to standardsinduced substitution effects between 

lamp types. Instead, these savings are 

provided merely to illustrate the 

approximate relative energy savings of 

each lamp type under a TSL. As 

discussed in the March 2008 ANOPR, 

due to their relatively small shipmentsbased market share, DOE did not 

directly model the national impacts of 

2-foot U-shaped lamps. In the ANOPR, 

DOE stated that in order to develop NES 

and NPV for this lamps type, it intended 

to scale the NIA results from other 

analyzed product classes. Given the 

similarities in historical shipment 

trends (showing a decrease in T12 

lamps and an increase in T8 lamps) and 

in system input power, in this NOPR, 

DOE has decided to scale results from 

the 4-foot medium bipin product classes 

to approximate NES and NPV of 2-foot 

U-Shaped product classes. As historical 

shipments 4-foot medium bipin lamps 

were 22 times that of 2-foot U-shaped 

lamp shipments, DOE used this scaling 

factor to approximate the energy savings 

of 2-foot U-shaped lamps. 

As seen in the tables below, the 

highest energy savings result from TSL 

5 and from EL5 for all lamp types. In 

addition, DOE notes that at EL 1 and EL 

2 for 4-foot medium bipin and at EL 1, 

EL 2, and EL 3 for 8-foot single pin 

slimline and 8-foot RDC HO lamps, all 

energy savings originate from shifts to 

higher-efficacy T12 lamps and voluntary 

early retrofits to the more-efficacious T8 

systems (not applicable to 8-foot RDC 

HO). At these ELs, all T8 lamps are 

compliant and, therefore, unaffected by 

standards. At TSL 3, a large increase in 

total energy savings of GSFL can be 

observed, stemming from the conversion 

of all 40W, 4-foot MBP T12 lamps to 

34W T12 lamps and also from 4-foot T8 

lamps (the majority of the GSFL stock) 

being affected by the regulations. It is 

also important to note that at TSL 4 and 

TSL 5, all 4-foot MBP, 8-foot SP 

slimline, and 8-foot RDC HO T12 lamp 

systems would be automatically 

retrofitted to T8 lamp systems, because 

no T12 standards-compliant lamps 

would be available. 

TABLE VI.31—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR GSFL 

TSL/EL Lamp type 

National energy savings 

(quad) 

Existing 

technologies, high 

lighting expertise, 

shift 

Emerging 

technologies, market segment-based 

lighting expertise, 

roll-up 

1 ............. 4-foot MBP .......................................................................................................................... 1.52 0.43 

8-foot SP Slimline ............................................................................................................... 0.10 0.08 

8-foot RDC HO ................................................................................................................... 0.18 0.02 

4-foot MiniBP SO ................................................................................................................ 0.76 0.12 

4-foot MiniBP HO ................................................................................................................ 1.14 0.65 

2-foot U-Shaped .................................................................................................................. 0.07 0.02 

Total ................................................................................................................................. 3.77 1.32 

2 ............. 4-foot MBP .......................................................................................................................... 1.57 0.60 

8-foot SP Slimline ............................................................................................................... 0.13 0.11 

8-foot RDC HO ................................................................................................................... 0.24 0.20 

4-foot MiniBP SO ................................................................................................................ 0.76 0.12 

4-foot MiniBP HO ................................................................................................................ 1.14 0.65 

2-foot U-Shaped .................................................................................................................. 0.07 0.03 

Total ................................................................................................................................. 3.90 1.70 

3 ............. 4-foot MBP .......................................................................................................................... 4.76 1.99 

17006 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

73OMB Circular A–4, section E (Sept. 17, 2003). 

TABLE VI.31—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR GSFL—Continued 

TSL/EL Lamp type 

National energy savings 

(quad) 

Existing 

technologies, high 

lighting expertise, 

shift 

Emerging 

technologies, market segment-based 

lighting expertise, 

roll-up 

8-foot SP Slimline ............................................................................................................... 0.18 0.17 

8-foot RDC HO ................................................................................................................... 0.25 0.20 

4-foot MiniBP SO ................................................................................................................ 0.76 0.12 

4-foot MiniBP HO ................................................................................................................ 1.14 0.65 

2-foot U-Shaped .................................................................................................................. 0.22 0.09 

Total ................................................................................................................................. 7.33 3.24 

4 ............. 4-foot MBP .......................................................................................................................... 8.23 2.70 

8-foot SP Slimline ............................................................................................................... 0.38 0.23 

8-foot RDC HO ................................................................................................................... 0.66 0.66 

4-foot MiniBP SO ................................................................................................................ 0.76 0.12 

4-foot MiniBP HO ................................................................................................................ 1.14 0.65 

2-foot U-Shaped .................................................................................................................. 0.37 0.12 

Total ................................................................................................................................. 11.64 4.49 

5 ............. 4-foot MBP .......................................................................................................................... 9.53 3.72 

8-foot SP Slimline ............................................................................................................... 0.38 0.25 

8-foot RDC HO ................................................................................................................... 0.72 0.67 

4-foot MiniBP SO ................................................................................................................ 0.91 0.29 

4-foot MiniBP HO ................................................................................................................ 1.14 0.65 

2-foot U-Shaped .................................................................................................................. 0.43 0.17 

Total ................................................................................................................................. 13.17 5.75 

For IRL, DOE presents ‘‘Existing 

Technologies, Product Substitution, 

Shift’’ and ‘‘Emerging Technologies, No 

Product Substitution, Roll-Up’’ in Table 

VI.32 as the scenarios that produce the 

maximum and minimum energy 

savings, respectively. Similar to GSFL, 

the Existing Technologies base-case 

forecast results in higher energy savings 

than the Emerging Technologies basecase forecast due to the greater installed 

stock of IRL affected by standards. Also, 

although a relatively small difference, 

the Product Substitution scenario 

(including migration to both higherefficacy R–CFL and lower-efficacy, 

exempted BR lamps) results in 

marginally higher energy savings than 

the No Product Substitution scenario. In 

addition, while the effect is greater for 

GSFL than for IRL, the Shift scenario 

(only affecting commercial consumers) 

also represents higher energy savings 

than the Roll-Up scenario for IRL. As 

seen in the table below, TSL 5 achieves 

maximum energy savings for both 

scenarios. 

TABLE VI.32—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMPS

TSL 

National energy savings (quads) 

Existing technologies, product 

substitution, shift 

Emerging 

technologies, no 

product substitution, roll-up 

1 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.37 0.22 

2 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1.06 0.52 

3 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1.89 1.00 

4 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2.32 1.25 

5 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2.60 1.48 

b. Net Present Value 

The NPV analysis is a measure of the 

cumulative benefit or cost of standards 

to the Nation. In accordance with the 

OMB’s guidelines on regulatory 

analysis,73 DOE calculated 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 to private capital in the U.S. 

economy, and reflects the returns to real 

estate and small business capital, as 

well as corporate capital. DOE used this 

discount rate to approximate the 

opportunity cost of capital in the private 

sector, because recent OMB analysis has 

found the average rate of return to 

capital to be near this rate. DOE also 

used the 3-percent rate to capture the 

potential effects of standards on private 

consumption (e.g., through higher prices 

for equipment and the purchase of 

reduced amounts of energy). This rate 

represents the rate at which society 

discounts future consumption flows to 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 17007 

their present value. This rate can be 

approximated by the real rate of return 

on long-term government debt (i.e., 

yield on Treasury notes minus annual 

rate of change in the Consumer Price 

Index), which has averaged about 3 

percent on a pre-tax basis for the last 30 

years. 

The table below shows the forecasted 

net present value at each trial standard 

level for GSFL and IRL. Similar to the 

results presented for NES, Table VI.33 

DOE presents the ‘‘Existing 

Technologies, High Lighting Expertise, 

Shift’’ scenario and the ‘‘Emerging 

Technologies, Market Segment-Based 

Lighting Expertise, Roll Up’’ scenario as 

the maximum and minimum NPVs for 

GSFL, respectively. In general, the NPV 

results at each trial standard level are a 

reflection of the life-cycle cost savings at 

the corresponding efficacy levels. As 

seen in section VI.B.1.a.i for most lamp 

purchasing events and most baseline 

lamps, increasing efficacy levels 

generally result in increased LCC 

savings. Due to this general costeffectiveness of higher-efficacy GSFL, 

the Existing Technologies base-case 

forecast (which increases the affected 

stock and shipments) and the Shift 

scenario (which results in the shipment 

of more high-efficacy lamps) represent 

the high-range scenario for NPV. The 

Market Segment-Based Lighting 

Expertise scenario models consumers 

who purchase higher-first-cost lamps, 

but may not achieve energy savings. As 

these consumers generally have overall 

lower NPV (and often negative NPV) 

than their energy-saving counterparts, 

the Market Segment-Based Lighting 

Expertise scenario results in lower NPV 

than the High Lighting Expertise 

scenario. 

As seen in Table VI.33, NPV generally 

increases with increasing trial standard 

levels, consistent with the same trend in 

the LCC results. For the Market 

Segment-Based Lighting Expertise 

scenario, due to a large lack of lighting 

expertise in the residential sector (DOE 

assumes 0 percent consumers 

conducting T12 fixture replacements 

have high lighting expertise), the NPV 

from 4-foot medium bipin lamps is 

negative at EL1 and EL2. At efficacy 

levels above EL2, 4-foot medium bipin 

lamps achieve positive NPV due to the 

integration of more-efficacious T8 lamps 

into both commercial stocks (where 

lighting sophistication is higher) and 

residential stocks. In addition, the 

Emerging Technologies, Market 

Segment-Based Lighting Expertise, RollUp scenario shows decreased NPV from 

TSL4 to TSL5. This is primarily due to 

the portion of consumers (without 

lighting expertise) that are forced to 

purchase much higher cost lamps, but 

do not take advantage of the energy 

savings they provide. 

TABLE VI.33—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE FOR GSFL 

TSL/EL Product class 

NPV (billion 2007$) 

Existing technologies, high lighting 

expertise, shift 

Emerging technologies, market segmentbased lighting expertise, roll-up 

7% Discount 3% Discount 7% Discount 3% Discount 

1 ............. 4-foot MBP .................................................. 3.93 9.04 ¥0.01 0.73 

8-foot SP Slimline ........................................ 0.10 0.34 0.03 0.21 

8-foot RDC HO ............................................ 0.35 0.60 ¥0.17 ¥0.24 

4-foot MiniBP SO ........................................ 1.11 2.70 0.05 0.19 

4-foot MiniBP HO ........................................ 1.46 3.38 0.81 1.91 

2-foot U-Shaped .......................................... 0.18 0.41 0.00 0.03 

Total ......................................................... 7.12 16.46 0.71 2.82 

2 ............. 4-foot MBP .................................................. 3.14 7.78 ¥0.35 0.52 

8-foot SP Slimline ........................................ 0.15 0.45 0.09 0.35 

8-foot RDC HO ............................................ 0.43 0.73 0.53 0.87 

4-foot MiniBP SO ........................................ 1.11 2.70 0.05 0.19 

4-foot MiniBP HO ........................................ 1.46 3.38 0.81 1.91 

2-foot U-Shaped .......................................... 0.14 0.35 ¥0.02 0.02 

Total ......................................................... 6.43 15.39 1.11 3.85 

3 ............. 4-foot MBP .................................................. 7.56 17.53 1.79 5.58 

8-foot SP Slimline ........................................ 0.37 0.81 0.37 0.80 

8-foot RDC HO ............................................ 0.12 0.26 0.06 0.14 

4-foot MiniBP SO ........................................ 1.11 2.70 0.05 0.19 

4-foot MiniBP HO ........................................ 1.46 3.38 0.81 1.91 

2-foot U-Shaped .......................................... 0.34 0.80 0.08 0.25 

Total ......................................................... 11.09 25.67 3.23 8.98 

4 ............. 4-foot MBP .................................................. 17.47 35.93 5.97 13.34 

8-foot SP Slimline ........................................ 0.87 1.89 0.38 0.97 

8-foot RDC HO ............................................ 1.33 2.53 1.33 2.53 

4-foot MiniBP SO ........................................ 1.11 2.70 0.05 0.19 

4-foot MiniBP HO ........................................ 1.46 3.38 0.81 1.91 

2-foot U-Shaped .......................................... 0.79 1.63 0.27 0.61 

Total ......................................................... 23.37 48.61 8.85 19.59 

5 ............. 4-foot MBP .................................................. 18.37 38.56 5.53 12.80 

8-foot SP Slimline ........................................ 0.87 1.89 0.45 1.11 

8-foot RDC HO ............................................ 1.38 2.62 1.28 2.46 

4-foot MiniBP SO ........................................ 1.45 3.46 0.23 0.69 

17008 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VI.33—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE FOR GSFL—Continued 

TSL/EL Product class 

NPV (billion 2007$) 

Existing technologies, high lighting 

expertise, shift 

Emerging technologies, market segmentbased lighting expertise, roll-up 

7% Discount 3% Discount 7% Discount 3% Discount 

4-foot MiniBP HO ........................................ 1.46 3.38 0.81 1.91 

2-foot U-Shaped .......................................... 0.83 1.75 0.25 0.58 

Total ......................................................... 24.49 51.90 8.54 19.53 

For IRL, DOE presents the ‘‘Existing 

Technologies, Product Substitution, 

Shift’’ and ‘‘Emerging Technologies, No 

Product Substitution, Roll-Up’’ 

scenarios as the maximum and 

minimum NPVs, respectively. As seen 

in Table VI.34, NPV increases with TSL, 

consistent with LCC savings generally 

increasing with efficacy level. In 

particular, for the No Product 

Substitution scenario, the negative NPV 

at TSL1 results because the life-cycle 

cost savings at EL1 (the associated EL) 

are primarily negative. However, as seen 

in the Product Substitution scenario, 

TSL1 achieves positive NPV due to 

primarily the increased movement to 

highly cost-effective R–CFLs. NPV 

results are the most positive at TSL5, 

because the most cost-effective IRL lamp 

is purchased at this TSL. 

TABLE VI.34—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE FOR INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMPS

TSL 

NPV (billion 2007$) 

Existing technologies, product 

substitution, shift 

Emerging technologies, no 

product substitution, roll-up 

7% Discount 

rate 

3% Discount 

rate 

7% Discount 

rate 

3% Discount 

rate 

1 ............................................................................................................... 0.19 0.55 ¥0.06 0.00 

2 ............................................................................................................... 3.47 7.11 1.82 3.71 

3 ............................................................................................................... 4.75 9.85 2.58 5.30 

4 ............................................................................................................... 6.75 13.97 3.72 7.68 

5 ............................................................................................................... 7.52 15.55 4.34 8.99 

c. Impacts on Employment 

In addition to considering the direct 

employment impacts for the 

manufacturers of products covered in 

this rulemaking (discussed above), DOE 

also develops estimates of the indirect 

employment impacts of proposed 

standards on the economy in general. As 

noted previously, DOE expects energy 

conservation standards for the GSFL 

and IRL covered by these standards to 

reduce energy bills for consumers, with 

the resulting net savings being 

redirected to other forms of economic 

activity. DOE also realizes that these 

shifts in spending and economic activity 

could affect the demand for labor. To 

estimate these effects, DOE used an 

input/output model of the U.S. economy 

using BLS data (see section V.H). See 

chapter 15 of the TSD accompanying 

this notice for details. 

This input/output model suggests the 

proposed standards are likely to slightly 

increase the net demand for labor in the 

economy. Neither the BLS data nor the 

input/output model DOE uses includes 

the quality or wage level of the jobs. As 

Table VI.35 and Table VI.36 show, the 

net increase in jobs due to standards for 

GSFL and IRL, respectively, is so small 

that it would likely be imperceptible in 

national labor statistics and might be 

offset by other, unanticipated effects on 

employment. 

TABLE VI.35—NET NATIONAL CHANGE IN INDIRECT EMPLOYMENT FOR GSFL, JOBS IN 2042 

Trial standard level 

Net national change in jobs 

(thousands) 

Existing 

technologies, 

shift, high 

lighting expertise 

Emerging technologies, roll up, 

market segment 

based lighting 

expertise 

1 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 15.4 5.2 

2 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 15.2 5.7 

3 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 21.6 10.1 

4 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 27.6 13.3 

5 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 32.4 15.2 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 17009 

TABLE VI.36—NET NATIONAL CHANGE IN INDIRECT EMPLOYMENT FOR IRL, JOBS IN 2042 

Trial standard level 

Net national change in jobs 

(thousands) 

Existing technologies, product 

substitution, shift 

Emerging 

technologies, no 

product substitution, roll up 

1 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1.4 0.9 

2 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3.5 2.9 

3 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5.8 5.2 

4 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7.5 6.9 

5 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 8.2 7.8 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

As discussed in section IV.D.1.d of 

this notice, DOE concluded that none of 

the efficacy levels considered in this 

notice would reduce the utility or 

performance of the GSFL and IRL under 

consideration in this rulemaking. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)). 

Furthermore, manufacturers of these 

products currently offer GSFL and IRL 

that meet or exceed the proposed 

standards. 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

DOE considers any lessening of 

competition likely to result from 

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. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)). 

To assist the Attorney General in 

making such a determination, DOE has 

provided DOJ with copies of this notice 

and the TSD for review. DOE will 

consider DOJ’s comments on the 

proposed rule in preparing the final 

rule. In the final rule, DOE will publish 

the Attorney General’s written 

determination and respond accordingly. 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve 

Energy 

An improvement in the energy 

efficiency of GSFL and IRL is likely to 

improve the security of the Nation’s 

energy system by reducing overall 

demand for energy, thereby reducing the 

Nation’s reliance on foreign sources of 

energy. Reduced demand could improve 

the reliability of the electricity system, 

particularly in the short run during 

peak-load periods. As a measure of this 

reduced demand, DOE expects the 

energy savings from the proposed 

standards to eliminate the need for 

approximately 1100 to 3400 megawatts 

(MW) of generating capacity for GFSL 

and up to 450 MW for IRL by 2042. 

Enhanced energy efficiency also 

produces environmental benefits. The 

expected energy savings from higher 

standards would reduce the emissions 

of air pollutants and greenhouse gases 

associated with electric energy 

production and may reduce the cost of 

maintaining nationwide emissions 

standards and constraints. Table VI.37 

and Table VI.38 show cumulative CO2, 

NOX, and Hg emissions reductions for 

GSFL and IRL by TSL over the 

rulemaking period. 

TABLE VI.37—SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR GSFL 

[Cumulative reductions for products sold from 2012 to 2042] 

TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 

Existing Technologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise 

CO2 (MMt) ...................................................................... ................................ 236.4 233.7 395.2 597.7 679.7 

NOX (kt) ......................................................................... low ......................... 14 15 25 39 43 

NOX (kt) ......................................................................... high ........................ 347 361 623 951 1,072 

Hg (t) .............................................................................. low ......................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Hg (t) .............................................................................. high ........................ 4.2 3.8 6.9 7.9 9.1 

Emerging Technologies, Roll Up, Market Segment Based Lighting Expertise 

CO2 (MMt) ...................................................................... ................................ 85.7 103.5 184.3 239.7 312.8 

NOX (kt) ......................................................................... low ......................... 5 7 12 17 20 

NOX (kt) ......................................................................... high ........................ 127 167 289 407 503 

Hg (t) .............................................................................. low ......................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Hg (t) .............................................................................. high ........................ 1.5 1.5 2.9 3.2 4.4 

TABLE VI.38—SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR IRL 

[Cumulative reductions for products sold from 2012 to 2042] 

TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 

Existing Technologies, Product Substitution, Shift 

CO2 (MMt) ...................................................................... ................................ 17.7 44.8 88.1 114.4 118.8 

NOX (kt) ......................................................................... low ......................... 1 3 6 7 8 

NOX (kt) ......................................................................... high ........................ 29 78 141 181 193 

17010 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

74On December 23, 2008, the D.C. Circuit decided 

to allow CAIR to remain in effect until it is replaced 

by a rule consistent with the court’s earlier opinion. 

North Carolina v. EPA, No. 05–1244, 2008 WL 

5335481 (DC Cir. Dec. 23, 2008). Neither the July 

11, 2008 nor the December 23, 2008 decisions of the 

D.C. Circuit change the standard-setting proposals 

reached in this rule. See http://www.epa.gov/ 

cleanairinterstaterule. 

75 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

76 In the NOX SIP Call rule, EPA found that 

sources in the District of Columbia and 22 

‘‘upwind’’ States (States) were emitting NOX (an 

ozone precursor) at levels that significantly 

contributed to ‘‘downwind’’ States not attaining the 

ozone NAAQS or at levels that interfered with 

States in attainment maintaining the ozone NAAQS. 

In an effort to ensure that ‘‘downwind’’ States attain 

or continue to attain the ozone NAAQS, EPA 

established a region-wide cap for NOX emissions 

from certain large combustion sources and set a 

NOX emissions budget for each State. Unlike the 

cap that CAIR would have established, the NOX SIP 

Call Rule’s cap only constrains seasonal (summer 

time) emissions. In order to comply with the NOX

SIP Call Rule, States could elect to participate in the 

NOX Budget Trading Program. Under the NOX

Budget Trading Program, each emission source is 

required to have one allowance for each ton of NOX

emitted during the ozone season. States have 

flexibility in how they allocate allowances through 

their State Implementation Plans but States must 

remain within the EPA-established budget. 

Emission sources are allowed to buy, sell, and bank 

NOX allowances as appropriate. It should be noted 

that, on April 16, 2008, EPA determined that 

Georgia is no longer subject to the NOX SIP Call 

rule. 73 FR 21528 (April 22, 2008). 

TABLE VI.38—SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR IRL—Continued 

[Cumulative reductions for products sold from 2012 to 2042] 

TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 

Hg (t) .............................................................................. low ......................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Hg (t) .............................................................................. high ........................ 0.2 0.6 1.3 1.7 1.7 

Emerging Technologies, No Product Substitution, Roll Up 

CO2 (MMt) ...................................................................... ................................ 10.3 25.1 46.2 58.6 79.3 

NOX (kt) ......................................................................... low ......................... 1 2 3 4 1 

NOX (kt) ......................................................................... high ........................ 17 39 75 94 17 

Hg (t) .............................................................................. low ......................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Hg (t) .............................................................................. high ........................ 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.3 

MMt = million metric tons. 

kt = thousand metric tons. 

t = metric tons. 

NOTE: The derivation for the emission ranges are described below. 

The estimated cumulative CO2, NOX, 

and Hg emissions reductions for the 

proposed amended energy conservation 

standards range up to a maximum of 

680 MMt for CO2, 1072 kt for NOX, and 

9.1 metric tons for Hg for GSFL and 119 

MMt for CO2, 193 kt for NOX and 1.7 

tons for Hg for IRL over the period from 

2012 to 2042. In the Environmental 

Assessment (see the Environmental 

Assessment report of the TSD), DOE 

reports estimated annual changes in 

CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions 

attributable to each TSL. As discussion 

in section V.J of this NOPR, DOE does 

not report SO2 emissions reduction from 

power plants because reductions from 

an energy conservation standard would 

not affect the overall level of SO2

emissions in the United States due to 

the emissions caps for SO2. 

The NEMS–BT modeling assumed 

that NOX would be subject to the Clean 

Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) issued by the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

on March 10, 2005.74 70 FR 25162 (May 

12, 2005). On July 11, 2008, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) issued its 

decision in North Carolina v. 

Environmental Protection Agency,75 in 

which the court vacated the CAIR. If left 

in place, the CAIR would have 

permanently capped emissions of NOX

in 28 eastern States and the District of 

Columbia. As with the SO2 emissions 

cap, a cap on NOX emissions would 

have meant that energy conservation 

standards are not likely to have a 

physical effect on NOX emissions in 

States covered by the CAIR caps. While 

the caps would have meant that 

physical emissions reductions in those 

States would not have resulted from the 

energy conservation standards that DOE 

is proposing today, the standards might 

have produced an environmentalrelated economic impact in the form of 

lower prices for emissions allowance 

credits, if large enough. DOE notes that 

the estimated total reduction in NOX

emissions, including projected 

emissions or corresponding allowance 

credits in States covered by the CAIR 

cap was insignificant and too small to 

affect allowance prices for NOX under 

the CAIR. 

Even though the DC Circuit vacated 

the CAIR, DOE notes that the DC Circuit 

left intact EPA’s 1998 NOX SIP Call rule, 

which capped seasonal (summer) NOX

emissions from electric generating units 

and other sources in 23 jurisdictions 

and gave those jurisdictions the option 

to participate in a cap and trade 

program for those emissions. 63 FR 

57356, 57359 (Oct. 27, 1998).76 DOE 

notes that the SIP Call rule may provide 

a similar, although smaller in extent, 

regional cap and may limit actual 

reduction in NOX emissions from 

revised standards occurring in States 

participating in the SIP Call rule. 

However, the possibility that the SIP 

Call rule may have the same effect as 

CAIR is highly uncertain. Therefore, 

DOE established a range of NOX

reductions due to the standards being 

considered in today’s proposed rule. 

DOE’s low estimate was based on the 

emission rate of the cleanest new 

natural gas combined-cycle power plant 

available for electricity generated based 

on the assumption that efficiency 

standards would result in only the 

cleanest available fossil-fueled 

generation being displaced. DOE used 

the emission rate, specified in 0.0310 

kilotons (0.0341 thousand short tons) of 

NOX emitted per TWh of electricity 

generated, associated with an advanced 

natural gas combined-cycle power plant, 

as specified by NEMS–BT. To estimate 

the reduction in NOX emissions, DOE 

multiplied this emission rate by the 

reduction in electricity generation due 

to the amended energy conservation 

standards considered. DOE’s high 

estimate of 0.764 kilotons (0.843 

thousand short tons) of NOX per TWh 

was based on the use of a nationwide 

NOX emission rate for all electrical 

generation. Use of such an emission rate 

assumes that future efficiency standards 

would result in displaced electrical 

generation mix that is equivalent to 

today’s mix of power plants (i.e., future 

power plants displaced are no cleaner 

than what are being used currently to 

generate electricity). In addition, under 

the high estimate assumption, energy 

conservation standards would have 

little to no effect on the generation mix. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 17011 

77 In anticipation of CAIR replacing the NOX SIP 

Call Rule, many States adopted sunset provisions 

for their plans implementing the NOX SIP Call Rule. 

The impact of the NOX SIP Call Rule on NOX

emissions will depend, in part, on whether these 

implementation plans are reinstated. 

78 70 FR 28606 (May 18, 2005). 

79 517 F.3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

80 During the preparation of its most recent 

review of the state of climate science, the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

identified various estimates of the present value of 

reducing carbon-dioxide emissions by one ton over 

the life that these emissions would remain in the 

atmosphere. The estimates reviewed by the IPCC 

spanned a range of values. In the absence of a 

consensus on any single estimate of the monetary 

value of CO2 emissions, DOE used the estimates 

identified by the study cited in Summary for 

Policymakers prepared by Working Group II of the 

IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report to estimate the 

potential monetary value of CO2 reductions likely 

to result from standards finalized in this 

rulemaking. According to IPCC, the mean social 

cost of carbon (SCC) reported in studies published 

in peer-reviewed journals was $43 per ton of 

carbon. This translates into about $12 per ton of 

carbon dioxide. The literature review (Tol 2005) 

from which this mean was derived did not report 

the year in which these dollars were denominated. 

However, we understand this estimate was 

denominated in 1995 dollars. Updating that 

estimate to 2007 dollars yields a SCC of $15 per ton 

of carbon dioxide. 

Based on AEO2008 for a recent year 

(2006) in which no regulatory or nonregulatory measures were in effect to 

limit NOX emissions, DOE multiplied 

this emission rate by the reduction in 

electricity generation due to the 

standards considered. DOE is 

considering whether changes are needed 

to its plan for addressing the issue of 

NOX reduction. DOE invites public 

comment on how the agency should 

address this issue, including how it 

might value NOX emissions for States 

now that the CAIR has been vacated.77

The range in NOX emission changes 

calculated under using the low- and 

high-estimate scenarios are shown in 

Table VI.37 and Table VI.38 by TSL. 

The range of total cumulative NOX

emission reductions is from 5 to 1071 kt 

for GSFL and 1 to 193 kt for IRL for the 

range of TSLs considered. These 

changes in NOX emissions are extremely 

small, at less than 0.1 percent of the 

national base-case emissions forecast by 

NEMS–BT, depending on the TSL. 

As noted above in section V.J, with 

regard to Hg emissions, DOE is able to 

report an estimate of the physical 

quantity changes in these emissions 

associated with an energy conservation 

standard. As opposed to using the 

NEMS–BT model, DOE established a 

range of Hg rates to estimate the Hg 

emissions that could be reduced from 

standards. DOE’s low estimate was 

based on the assumption that future 

standards could displace electrical 

generation from natural gas-fired power 

plants as the cleanest possible fossilfueled generation displacement 

consistent with the low end of range 

established for NOX emissions, thereby 

resulting in an effective emission rate of 

zero. The low-end emission rate is zero 

because virtually all Hg emitted from 

electricity generation is from coal-fired 

power plants. Based on an emission rate 

of zero, no emissions would be reduced 

from energy conservation standards. 

DOE’s high estimate was based on the 

use of a nationwide mercury emission 

rate from AEO2008. Because power 

plant emission rates are a function of 

local regulation, scrubbers, and the 

mercury content of coal, it is extremely 

difficult to come up with a precise highend emission rate. Therefore, DOE 

believes that the most reasonable 

estimate is based on the assumption that 

all displaced coal generation would 

have been emitting at the average 

emission rate for coal generation as 

specified by AEO2008. As noted 

previously, because virtually all 

mercury emitted from electricity 

generation is from coal-fired power 

plants, DOE based the emission rate on 

the tons of mercury emitted per TWh of 

coal-generated electricity. Based on the 

emission rate for a recent year (2006), 

DOE derived a high-end emission rate of 

0.023 metric tons (0.0255 short tons) per 

TWh. To estimate the reduction in 

mercury emissions, DOE multiplied the 

emission rate by the reduction in coalgenerated electricity due to the 

standards considered as determined in 

the utility impact analysis. The 

estimated changes in Hg emissions are 

shown in Table VI.37 for both GSFL and 

IRL from 2012 to 2042. The range of 

total Hg emission reductions is from 0 

to 9.1 tons for GSFL and 0 to 1.7 tons 

for IRL for the range of TSLs considered. 

These changes in Hg emissions are 

extremely small, generally being less 

than 0.1 percent of the national basecase emissions forecast by NEMS–BT, 

depending on the TSL. 

The NEMS–BT model used for today’s 

rulemaking could not be used to 

estimate Hg emission reductions due to 

standards, as it assumed that Hg 

emissions would be subject to EPA’s 

Clean Air Mercury Rule 78 (CAMR), 

which would have permanently capped 

emissions of mercury for new and 

existing coal-fired plants in all States by 

2010. Similar to SO2 and NOX, DOE 

assumed that under such a system, 

energy conservation standards would 

have resulted in no physical effect on 

these emissions, but might have resulted 

in an environmental-related economic 

benefit in the form of a lower price for 

emissions allowance credits, if large 

enough. DOE estimated that the change 

in the Hg emissions from energy 

conservation standards would not be 

large enough to influence allowance 

prices under CAMR. 

On February 8, 2008, the DC Circuit 

issued its decision in New Jersey v. 

Environmental Protection Agency,79 in 

which the DC Circuit, among other 

actions, vacated the CAMR referenced 

above. Accordingly, DOE is considering 

whether changes are needed to its plan 

for addressing the issue of mercury 

emissions in light of the DC Circuit’s 

decision. DOE invites public comment 

on addressing mercury emissions in this 

rulemaking. 

In today’s proposed rule, DOE is 

taking into account a monetary benefit 

of CO2 emission reductions associated 

with this rulemaking. To put the 

potential monetary benefits from 

reduced CO2 emissions into a form that 

is likely to be most useful to decisionmakers and stakeholders, DOE used the 

same methods used to calculate the net 

present value of consumer cost savings: 

the estimated year-by-year reductions in 

CO2 emissions were converted into 

monetary values and these resulting 

annual values were then discounted 

over the life of the affected appliances 

to the present using both 3 percent and 

7 percent discount rates. 

These estimates discussed below are 

based on a previous analysis that used 

a range of no benefit to an average 

benefit value reported by the IPCC.80 It 

is important to note that the IPCC 

estimate used as the upper bound value 

was derived from an estimate of the 

mean value of worldwide impacts from 

potential climate impacts caused by CO2

emissions, and not just the effects likely 

to occur within the United States. This 

previous analysis assumed that the 

appropriate value should be restricted to 

a representation of those costs/benefits 

likely to be experienced in the United 

States. DOE expects that such domestic 

values would be lower than comparable 

global values; however, there currently 

are no consensus estimates for the U.S. 

benefits likely to result from CO2

emission reductions. Because U.S.- 

specific estimates were not available, 

and DOE did not receive any additional 

information that would help serve to 

narrow the proposed range as a 

representative range for domestic U.S. 

benefits, DOE believes it is appropriate 

to propose the global mean value as an 

appropriate upper bound U.S. value for 

purposes of the sensitivity analysis. 

As already discussed in section V.J, 

DOE received a comment on the March 

2008 ANOPR in the present rulemaking 

for estimating the value of CO2

emissions reductions. The Joint 

17012 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

81Climate Change 2007—Impacts, Adaptation 

and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group 

II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, 17. Available at http://www.ipcc-wg2.org (last accessed 

Aug. 7, 2008). 

Comment argued for assigning an 

economic value to CO2 emissions. 

DOE’s approach for assigning a range to 

the dollars per ton of CO2 emissions 

recognizes and addresses the concerns 

of the Joint Comment. 

The Department of Energy, together 

with other Federal agencies, is currently 

reviewing various methodologies for 

estimating the monetary value of 

reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse 

gas emissions. This 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, 

such as whether the appropriate values 

should represent domestic U.S. or global 

benefits (and costs). Given the 

complexity of the many issues involved, 

this review is ongoing. However, 

consistent with DOE’s legal obligations, 

and taking into account the uncertainty 

involved with this particular issue, DOE 

has included in this rulemaking the 

values and analyses previously 

conducted. 

Given the uncertainty surrounding 

estimates of the societal cost of carbon 

(SCC), DOE previously concluded that 

relying on any single study may be 

inadvisable since its estimate of the SCC 

will depend on many assumptions made 

by its authors. The Working Group II’s 

contribution to the Fourth Assessment 

Report of the IPCC notes that: 

The large ranges of SCC are due in the large 

part to differences in assumptions regarding 

climate sensitivity, response lags, the 

treatment of risk and equity, economic and 

non-economic impacts, the inclusion of 

potentially catastrophic losses, and discount 

rates.81

Because of this uncertainty, DOE 

previously relied on Tol (2005), which 

was presented in the IPCC’s Fourth 

Assessment Report, and was a 

comprehensive meta-analysis of 

estimates for the value of SCC. As a 

result, DOE previously decided to rely 

on the Tol study reported by the IPCC 

as the basis for its analysis. 

DOE continues to believe that the 

most appropriate monetary values for 

consideration in the development of 

efficiency standards are those drawn 

from studies that attempt to estimate the 

present value of the marginal economic 

benefits likely to result from reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions, rather than 

estimates that are based on the market 

value of emission allowances under 

existing cap and trade programs or 

estimates that are based on the cost of 

reducing emissions—both of which are 

largely determined by policy decisions 

that set the timing and extent of 

emission reductions and do not 

necessarily reflect the benefit of 

reductions. DOE also believes that the 

studies it relies upon generally should 

be studies that were the subject of a peer 

review process and were published in 

reputable journals. 

In today’s NOPR, DOE is essentially 

proposing to continue to use the range 

of values based on the values presented 

in Tol (2005). Additionally, DOE has 

applied an annual growth rate of 2.4% 

to the value of SCC, as suggested by the 

IPCC Working Group II (2007, p. 822), 

based on estimated increases in 

damages from future emissions reported 

in published studies. Because the values 

in Tol (2005) were presented in 1995 

dollars, DOE is assigning a range for the 

SCC of $0 to $20 ($2007) per ton of CO2

emissions. 

DOE is proposing to use the median 

estimated social cost of CO2 as an upper 

bound of the range. This value is based 

on Tol (2005), which reviewed 103 

estimates of the SCC from 28 published 

studies, and concluded that when only 

peer-reviewed studies published in 

recognized journals are considered, 

‘‘that climate change impacts may be 

very uncertain but [it] is unlikely that 

the marginal damage costs of carbon 

dioxide emissions exceed $50 per ton 

carbon [comparable to a 2007 value of 

$20 per ton carbon dioxide when 

expressed in 2007 U.S. dollars with a 

2.4% growth rate].’’ 

In proposing a lower bound of $0 for 

the estimated range, DOE’s previous 

analysis agreed with the IPCC Working 

Group II (2007) report that ‘‘significant 

warming across the globe and the 

locations of significant observed 

changes in many systems consistent 

with warming is very unlikely to be due 

solely to natural variability of 

temperatures or natural variability of the 

systems’’ (pp. 9), and, thus, tentatively 

concluded that a global value of zero for 

reducing emissions cannot be justified. 

However, DOE previously tentatively 

concluded that it is reasonable to allow 

for the possibility that the U.S. portion 

of the global cost of carbon dioxide 

emissions may be quite low. In fact, 

some of the studies looked at in Tol 

(2005) reported negative values for the 

SCC. DOE assumed that it would be 

most appropriate to use U.S. benefit 

values, and not world benefit values, in 

its analysis, and, further, that U.S. 

domestic values will be lower than the 

global values. As indicated above, DOE, 

together with other Federal agencies, is 

now reviewing whether this previous 

analysis should be modified. 

The resulting estimates of the 

potential range of net present value 

benefits associated with the reduction of 

CO2 emissions are reflected in Table 

VI.39 and Table VI.40. 

TABLE VI.39—PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES OF SAVINGS FROM CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR GSFL 

TSL Estimated cumulative CO2 (MMt) 

emission reductions 

Value of estimated CO2 emission 

reductions (billion 2007$) at 

7% discount rate 

Value of estimated CO2 emission 

reductions (billion 2007$) at 

3% discount rate 

1 ..................................................... 85.7 to 236.4 ................................ $0 to $1.2 ..................................... $0 to $2.5 

2 ..................................................... 103.5 to 233.7 .............................. $0 to $1.2 ..................................... $0 to $2.5. 

3 ..................................................... 184.3 to 395.2 .............................. $0 to $2.1 ..................................... $0 to $4.3. 

4 ..................................................... 239.7 to 597.7 .............................. $0 to $3.5 ..................................... $0 to $6.8. 

5 ..................................................... 312.8 to 679.7 .............................. $0 to $4.0 ..................................... $0 to $7.7. 

TABLE VI.40—PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES OF SAVINGS FROM CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR IRL 

TSL Estimated cumulative CO2 (MMt) 

emission reductions 

Value of estimated CO2 emission 

reductions (billion 2007$) at 

7% discount rate 

Value of estimated CO2 emission 

reductions (billion 2007$) at 

3% discount rate 

1 ..................................................... 10.3 to 17.7 .................................. $0 to $0.1 ..................................... $0 to $0.2. 

2 ..................................................... 25.1 to 44.8 .................................. $0 to $0.3 ..................................... $0 to $0.5. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 17013 

82Office of Management and Budget Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, ‘‘2006 Report to 

Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal 

Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, 

Local, and Tribal Entities’’ (2006). 

83Trasande, L., et al., ‘‘Applying Cost Analyses to 

Drive Policy that Protects Children,’’ 1076 ANN. 

N.Y. ACAD. SCI. 911 (2006). 

84Ted Gayer and Robert Hahn, Designing 

Environmental Policy: Lessons from the Regulation 

of Mercury Emissions, Regulatory Analysis 05–01 

(AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies) 

p. 31 (2004). A version of this paper was published 

in the Journal of Regulatory Economics in 2006. The 

estimate was derived by back-calculating the annual 

benefits per ton from the net present value of 

benefits reported in the study. 

TABLE VI.40—PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES OF SAVINGS FROM CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR IRL—Continued 

TSL Estimated cumulative CO2 (MMt) 

emission reductions 

Value of estimated CO2 emission 

reductions (billion 2007$) at 

7% discount rate 

Value of estimated CO2 emission 

reductions (billion 2007$) at 

3% discount rate 

3 ..................................................... 46.2 to 88.1 .................................. $0 to $0.5 ..................................... $0 to $1.0. 

4 ..................................................... 58.6 to 114.4 ................................ $0 to $0.6 ..................................... $0 to $1.3. 

5 ..................................................... 79.3 to 118.8 ................................ $0 to $0.7 ..................................... $0 to $1.3. 

DOE also investigated the potential 

monetary impact resulting from the 

impact of today’s energy conservation 

standards on SO2, NOX, and Hg 

emissions. As previously stated, DOE’s 

initial analysis assumed the presence of 

nationwide emission caps on SO2 and 

Hg, and caps on NOX emissions in the 

28 States covered by the CAIR caps. In 

the presence of these emissions caps, 

DOE concluded that no physical 

reductions in power sector emissions 

would likely occur; however, the lower 

generation requirements associated with 

energy conservation standards could 

potentially put downward pressure on 

the prices of emissions allowances in 

cap-and-trade markets. Estimating this 

effect is very difficult because of factors 

such as credit banking, which can 

change the trajectory of prices. DOE has 

further concluded that the effect from 

energy conservation standards on SO2

allowance prices is likely to be 

negligible, based upon runs of the 

NEMS–BT model. See Environmental 

Assessment report of the TSD for further 

details regarding SO2 allowance price 

impacts. 

As discussed earlier, with respect to 

NOX, the CAIR rule had been vacated by 

the courts, so projected annual NOX

allowances from NEMS–BT were no 

longer relevant. In DOE’s subsequent 

analysis, NOX emissions were not 

controlled by a nationwide regulatory 

system. For the range of NOX reduction 

estimates (and Hg reduction estimates), 

DOE estimated the national monetized 

benefits of emissions reductions from 

today’s proposed rule based on 

environmental damage estimates from 

the literature. Available estimates 

suggest a very wide range of monetary 

values for NOX emissions, ranging from 

$370 per ton to $3,800 per ton of NOX

from stationary sources, measured in 

2001 dollars 82 or a range of $432 per ton 

to $4,441 per ton in 2007 dollars. As 

discussed above, DOE is considering 

how it should address the issue of NOX

reduction and corresponding monetary 

valuation. DOE invites public comment 

on how the agency should address this 

issue. 

DOE has already conducted research 

for today’s NOPR and determined that 

the basic science linking mercury 

emissions from power plants to impacts 

on humans is considered highly 

uncertain. However, DOE identified two 

estimates of the environmental damages 

of mercury based on two estimates of 

the adverse impact of childhood 

exposure to methyl mercury on IQ for 

American children, and subsequent loss 

of lifetime economic productivity 

resulting from these IQ losses. The highend estimate is based on an estimate of 

the current aggregate cost of the loss of 

IQ in American children that results 

from exposure to mercury of U.S. power 

plant origin ($1.3 billion per year in 

year 2000$), which works out to $32.6 

million per ton emitted per year 

(2007$).83 The low-end estimate was 

$664,000 per ton emitted in 2004$ or 

$729,000 per ton in 2007$, which DOE 

derived from a published evaluation of 

mercury control using different methods 

and assumptions from the first study, 

but also based on the present value of 

the lifetime earnings of children 

exposed.84 DOE invites public comment 

on how the agency should address this 

issue, including how to value mercury 

emissions in the absence of the CAMR. 

The resulting estimates of the potential 

range of the present value benefits 

associated with the national reduction 

of NOX and national reductions in Hg 

emissions are reflected in Table VI.41 

through Table VI.44. 

TABLE VI.41—PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES OF SAVINGS FROM NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR GSFL 

TSL Estimated cumulative NOX (kt) 

emission reductions 

Value of estimated NOX emission 

reductions (billion 2007$) at 

7% discount rate 

Value of estimated NOX emission 

reductions (billion 2007$) at 

3% discount rate 

1 ..................................................... 5.1 to 347.4 .................................. $0.0 to $0.5 .................................. $0.0 to $0.9. 

2 ..................................................... 6.8 to 361.1 .................................. $0.0 to $0.5 .................................. $0.0 to $0.9. 

3 ..................................................... 11.7 to 623.0 ................................ $0.0 to $0.8 .................................. $0.0 to $1.6. 

4 ..................................................... 16.5 to 950.7 ................................ $0.0 to $1.3 .................................. $0.0 to $2.6. 

5 ..................................................... 20.3 to 1071.6 .............................. $0.0 to $1.4 .................................. $0. to $2.8. 

17014 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VI.42—PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES OF SAVINGS FROM NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR IRL 

TSL Estimated cumulative NOX (kt) 

emission reductions 

Value of estimated NOX emission 

reductions (billion 2007$) at 

7% discount rate 

Value of estimated NOX emission 

reductions (billion 2007$) at 

3% discount rate 

1 ..................................................... 0.7 to 29.0 .................................... $0 to $0.0 ..................................... $0 to $0.1. 

2 ..................................................... 1.6 to 77.6 .................................... $0 to $0.1 ..................................... $0 to $0.2. 

3 ..................................................... 3.0 to 140.6 .................................. $0 to $0.2 ..................................... $0 to $0.4. 

4 ..................................................... 3.8 to 180.7 .................................. $0 to $0.2 ..................................... $0 to $0.5. 

5 ..................................................... 4.5 to 193.1 .................................. $0 to $0.2 ..................................... $0 to $0.5. 

TABLE VI.43—PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES OF SAVINGS FROM HG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR GSFL 

TSL Estimated cumulative Hg (Tons) 

emission reductions 

Value of estimated Hg emission 

reductions (million 2007$) at 

7% discount rate 

Value of estimated Hg emission 

reductions (million 2007$) at 

3% discount rate 

1 ..................................................... 0 to 4.2 ......................................... $0 to $38. ..................................... $0 to $80. 

2 ..................................................... 0 to 3.8 ......................................... $0 to $35. ..................................... $0 to $73. 

3 ..................................................... 0 to 6.9 ......................................... $0 to $65. ..................................... $0 to $134. 

4 ..................................................... 0 to 7.9 ......................................... $0 to $88. ..................................... $0 to $166. 

5 ..................................................... 0 to 9.1 ......................................... $0 to $102. ................................... $0 to $192. 

TABLE VI.44—PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES OF SAVINGS FROM HG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR IRL 

TSL Estimated cumulative Hg (tons) 

emission reductions 

Value of estimated Hg emission 

reductions (million 2007$) at 

7% discount rate 

Value of estimated Hg emission 

reductions (million 2007$) at 

3% discount rate 

1 ..................................................... 0 to 0.2 ......................................... $0 to $2 ........................................ $0 to $5. 

2 ..................................................... 0 to 0.6 ......................................... $0 to $7 ........................................ $0 to $13. 

3 ..................................................... 0 to 1.3 ......................................... $0 to $13 ...................................... $0 to $26. 

4 ..................................................... 0 to 1.7 ......................................... $0 to $16 ...................................... $0 to $33. 

5 ..................................................... 0 to 1.7 ......................................... $0 to $16 ...................................... $0 to $33. 

C. Proposed Standard 

1. Overview 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A), EPCA 

requires that any new or amended 

energy conservation standard for any 

type (or class) of covered product shall 

be designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that 

the Secretary determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. In determining 

whether a standard is economically 

justified, the Secretary must determine 

whether the benefits of the standard 

exceed its burdens to the greatest extent 

practicable, in light of the following 

seven factors: 

(1) The economic impact of the 

standard on manufacturers and 

consumers of the products or equipment 

subject to the standard; 

(2) The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the covered products or equipment 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 or 

equipment 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 

considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) 

The new or amended standard also 

must ‘‘result in significant conservation 

of energy.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

As discussed in section 0, DOE 

established a separate set of TSLs for 

GSFL and IRL. Therefore, DOE analyzed 

each lamp type (GSFL or IRL) separately 

while establishing the proposed 

standards. 

During the screening phase of this 

rulemaking, DOE eliminated the 

maximum technologically feasible 

levels for GSFL that would incorporate 

the use of a higher-efficiency gas fill 

composition than what is currently 

available on the market today. DOE’s 

research had indicated that further 

usage of heavier gas fills to increase 

lamp efficacy beyond GSFL TSL5 would 

likely result in decreased utility of the 

product. Thus, DOE screened out the 

maximum technologically feasible 

levels that would be based on these 

reduced-utility GSFLs. TSL5 represents 

the most efficient level analyzed for 

GSFL. 

For IRL, in the engineering analysis, 

DOE eliminated the maximum 

technologically feasible level that would 

require the use of a silver reflector, 

which DOE understands to be a 

proprietary technology. DOE does not 

believe there are any alternate 

technology pathways to this efficacy 

level. Therefore, TSL5 represents the 

most efficient level analyzed for IRL 

which does not require installation of 

the proprietary silver reflector. See 

sections IV.B.2 and VI.A.2 of this notice 

for more information on maximum 

technologically feasible levels and other 

efficacy levels DOE analyzed. 

DOE then considered the impacts of 

standards at each trial standard level, 

beginning with the most efficient level, 

to determine whether the given level 

was economically justified. DOE then 

considered less efficient levels until it 

reached the highest level that is 

technologically feasible and 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 17015 

economically justified and saves a 

significant amount of energy. 

DOE discusses the benefits and/or 

burdens of each trial standard level in 

the following sections. DOE bases its 

discussion on quantitative analytical 

results for each trial standard level 

(presented in section VI) such as 

national energy savings, net present 

value (discounted at 7 percent and 3 

percent), emissions reductions, industry 

net present value, life-cycle cost, and 

consumers installed price increases. In 

addition to providing a summary of 

results, DOE discusses below the lifecycle cost and consumer installed price 

increase results for each product class 

and baseline where appropriate. Beyond 

the quantitative results, DOE also 

considers other burdens and benefits 

that affect economic justification, 

including how impacts on competition, 

supply constraints, and lamp input 

prices may affect the economic results 

presented. 

2. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

Conclusion 

a. Trial Standard Level 5 

For GSFL, DOE first considered the 

most efficient level, TSL5, which would 

save an estimated total of 5.8 to 13.2 

quads of energy through 2042—a 

significant amount of energy. For the 

Nation as a whole, TSL5 would have a 

net savings of $8.5 billion to $24.5 

billion at a 7-percent discount rate. The 

emissions reductions at TSL5 are 

estimated at 313 to 680 MMt of CO2, 20 

to 1072 kt of NOX,, up to 9 metric tons 

of Hg. Total generating capacity in 2042 

is estimated to decrease compared to the 

reference case by 1.8 to 5.4 GW under 

TSL5. 

The impacts on manufacturers would 

be very significant, because TSL5 would 

commoditize high-efficacy lamps and 

require a complete conversion of all T12 

4-foot MBP, 8-foot SP slimline, and 8- 

foot RDC HO lines to T8 lines, requiring 

a capital investment of $181.5 million. 

The projected change in industry value 

ranges from a decrease of $263 million 

to an increase of $13 million. The extent 

of the industry impacts is driven 

primarily by the ability to maintain 

current gross margins as efficient 

products become commoditized. 

Currently, manufacturers obtain higher 

margins for more-efficient products so 

to avoid the higher end of the 

anticipated impacts, they must find new 

ways to differentiate GSFL to maintain 

full product lines. At TSL5, DOE 

recognizes the risk of very large negative 

impacts if the high end of the range of 

impacts is reached, resulting in a net 

loss of 46 percent in INPV. 

At TSL5, DOE projects that most 

GSFL consumers would experience lifecycle cost savings. The following 

discussion outlines specific impacts on 

the separate product classes and 

baseline lamps. 

Table VI.5 presents the findings of an 

LCC analysis on various three-lamp, 4- 

foot medium bipin GSFL systems 

operating in the commercial sector. 

Regardless of the baseline lamp 

currently employed, consumers have 

available lamp designs which result in 

positive LCC savings at TSL5. At this 

standard level, users of 40W or 34W 4- 

foot MBP T12 baseline lamps installed 

on a magnetic ballast who need to 

replace their lamp would incur the cost 

of a lamp and ballast replacement 

($63.51 to $71.19) because no T12 lamp 

currently meets the efficacy 

requirements of TSL5. Comparing this 

cost of lamp-and-ballast replacements to 

the cost of only baseline lamp 

replacements ($11.22 to $13.96) results 

in installed price increases of $50.87 to 

$57.23. These ranges in prices depend 

on the specific baseline lamps 

previously owned by consumers and the 

specific combinations of lamps and 

ballasts they select in the standards 

case. However, over the life of the lamp, 

these consumers would save $15.13 to 

$25.26. 

Table VI.6 presents LCC results for a 

two-lamp 4-foot MBP system operating 

in the residential sector under average 

operating hours. The results are 

presented for a system operating 40W 

T12 lamps with a magnetic ballast, as 

this configuration is typical of the 

installed base of residential GSFL 

systems. As discussed in section V.D, 

DOE believes that the vast majority of 

lamps sold in the residential market are 

sold with new ballasts or luminaires. At 

TSL5, residential consumers are 

expected to purchase T8 lamps with 

electronic ballasts in lieu of the T12 

lamps with magnetic ballasts that they 

would purchase absent standards. These 

consumers would see LCC savings of 

$17.72 to $19.66. DOE recognizes that 

not all residential GSFL lamps would be 

sold in conjunction with a new ballast 

or luminaire in the base case. In 

particular, consumers with higher 

operating hours may need to replace 

their lamp on an existing system. 

However, at TSL5, there are no 

standards-compliant T12 replacement 

lamps available. As seen in Table VI.7, 

the consumer economics of retrofitting a 

typical high-use residential 4-foot MBP 

system are negative, with life-cycle cost 

savings of ¥$3.50 to ¥$4.13. 

With regard to 4-foot MBP consumer 

subgroups, all consumer subgroups 

analyzed achieve similar LCC savings to 

the average consumer with the 

exception of commercial consumers 

who own 40W or 34W 4-foot MBP T12 

lamps installed on electronic ballasts. 

These consumers, upon lamp failure, 

are forced to retrofit their existing 

ballasts, resulting in negative LCC 

savings of ¥$11.53 to ¥$5.53 (seen in 

Table VI.21). Overall, based on the NIA 

model, DOE estimates that at TSL5 in 

2012, approximately 2 percent of 4-foot 

MBP shipments result in negative LCC 

savings, and 9 percent of shipments are 

associated with the high installed price 

increases due to forced retrofits. 

Table VI.10 presents the findings of 

an LCC analysis on various two-lamp, 8- 

foot SP slimline GSFL systems operating 

in the commercial sector. Except for 

consumers who purchase reducedwattage 60W T12 lamps absent 

standards (and experience a lamp 

failure), all other consumers have 

available lamp designs that result in 

positive LCC savings at TSL5. At this 

standard level, users of 75W or 60W 8- 

foot SP slimline T12 baseline lamps 

installed on a magnetic ballast who 

need to replace their lamp would incur 

the cost of a lamp and ballast 

replacement ($93.79 to $95.12) because 

no T12 lamp currently meets the 

efficacy requirements of TSL5. 

Comparing the cost of a lamp-andballast replacement to the cost of only 

baseline lamp replacement ($11.33 to 

$16.16) results in an installed price 

increase of $78.96 to $83.99. In 

addition, users of 60W T12 lamps who 

need to replace their lamp experience 

negative LCC savings of ¥$14.02 to 

¥$12.26. On the other hand, over the 

life of the lamp, users of 75W T12 lamps 

who require a lamp replacement would 

save $11.45. 

With regard to 8-foot SP slimline 

consumer subgroups, all consumer 

subgroups analyzed achieve similar LCC 

savings to the average consumer with 

the exception of consumers of T12 

lamps operating in religious institutions 

or users of T12 lamps installed on 

electronic ballasts. These consumers, 

upon lamp failure, are forced to retrofit 

their existing ballasts, resulting in 

negative LCC savings. In particular, as 

seen in Table VI.15, these consumers in 

institutions of religious worship (with 

low operating hours) experience 

increases in life-cycle costs of $6.68 to 

$28.95. As seen in Table VI.23, 

consumers with T12 lamps installed on 

electronic ballasts experience increases 

in life-cycle costs of $14.18 to $31.86. 

Overall, based on the NIA model, DOE 

estimates that at TSL5 in 2012, 

approximately 24 percent of 8-foot SP 

slimline shipments would result in 

negative LCC savings, and 65 percent of 

17016 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

shipments would be associated with the 

high installed price increases due to 

forced retrofits. 

Table VI.11 presents the findings of 

an LCC analysis on various two-lamp, 8- 

foot RDC HO GSFL systems operating in 

the industrial sector. With the exception 

to consumers who purchase reducedwattage 95W T12 lamps absent 

standards (and purchase a lamp in 

response to a lamp failure), all other 

consumers have available lamp designs 

that result in positive LCC savings at 

TSL5. At this standard level, users of 

110W or 95W 8-foot RDC HO T12 

baseline lamps installed on a magnetic 

ballast who need to replace their lamp 

would incur the cost of a lamp and 

ballast replacement ($126.49), because 

no T12 lamp currently meets the 

efficacy requirements of TSL5. 

Comparing the cost of a lamp-andballast replacement to the cost of only 

baseline lamp replacement ($13.92 to 

$19.74) results in an installed price 

increase of $106.75 to $112.57. In 

addition, users of 95W T12 lamps who 

need to replace their lamp experience 

negative LCC savings of ¥$12.70. On 

the other hand, over the life of the lamp, 

users of 110W T12 lamps who require 

a lamp replacement would save $5.13. 

With regard to 8-foot RDC HO 

consumer subgroups, all consumer 

subgroups analyzed achieve similar LCC 

savings to the average consumer except 

consumers who own T12 lamps 

installed on electronic ballasts. These 

consumers, upon lamp failure, are 

forced to retrofit their existing ballasts, 

resulting in negative LCC savings of 

¥$10.09 to ¥$23.07 (seen in Table 

VI.24). Overall, based on the NIA model, 

DOE estimates that at TSL5 in 2012, 

approximately 33 percent of 8-foot RDC 

HO shipments would result in negative 

LCC savings, and 86 percent of 

shipments would be associated with the 

high installed price increases due to 

forced retrofits. 

Table VI.8 and Table VI.9 present the 

LCC analyses on two-lamp 4-foot 

MiniBP T5 standard-output and highoutput systems, respectively. The 

standard-output system is modeled as 

operating in the commercial sector, and 

the high-output system is modeled as 

operating in the industrial sector. The 

baseline lamps for these systems are the 

model 28W and 54W halophosphor 

lamps, as discussed in section V.C.3.a. 

At TSL5 (EL2 for standard output T5 

lamps), all consumers of standard 

output lamps have available lamp 

designs which result in positive LCC 

savings of $1.22 (for lamp replacement) 

and $45.27 to $47.03 (for new 

construction or renovation). At TSL5 

(EL1 for high output T5 lamps), 

consumers of high-output lamps who 

need only a lamp replacement would 

experience negative LCC savings of 

¥$3.42. However, purchasing a T5 

high-output system for new 

construction or renovation would result 

in positive LCC savings of $55.60 to 

$56.60. 

After carefully considering the 

analysis and weighing the benefits and 

burdens of TSL5, the Secretary has 

reached the following initial conclusion: 

At TSL 5, the benefits of energy savings, 

emissions reductions (both in physical 

reductions and the monetized value of 

those reductions), and the positive net 

economic savings to the Nation (over 30 

years) would be outweighed by the 

economic burden on some consumers 

(as indicated by the large increase in 

total installed cost) and the potentially 

large reduction in INPV for 

manufacturers resulting from large 

conversion costs and reduced gross 

margins. Specifically, consumers who 

operate a 4-foot MBP, 8-foot SP slimline, 

or 8-foot RDC HO T12 ballast prior to 

2012 would be forced to retrofit their 

system upon lamp failure, incurring an 

initial cost six to thirteen times that of 

a simple lamp replacement. 

Additionally, consumers who installed 

T12 electronic ballasts before 2012 

would bear the large increases in first 

cost without benefiting from LCC 

savings. Consequently, the Secretary has 

tentatively concluded that trial standard 

level 5 is not economically justified. 

b. Trial Standard Level 4 

Next, DOE considered TSL 4, which 

would save an estimated total of 4.5 to 

11.6 quads of energy through 2042, a 

significant amount of energy. For the 

Nation as a whole, TSL4 would have a 

net savings of $8.9 billion to $23.4 

billion at a 7-percent discount rate. The 

emissions reductions at TSL4 are 

estimated at 240 to 598 MMt of CO2, 17 

to 951 kt of NOX, and up to 8 metric 

tons of Hg. Total generating capacity in 

2042 is estimated to decrease compared 

to the reference case by 1.3 to 4.3 GW 

under TSL4. 

Similar to TSL5, the impacts on 

manufacturers would be very significant 

because TSL4 also would commoditize 

most high-efficacy lamps and require a 

complete conversion of all T12 4-foot 

MBP, 8-foot SP slimline, and 8-foot RDC 

HO lines to T8 lines, a capital 

investment of $181.5 million. The 

projected change in industry value 

ranges from a decrease of $195 million 

to a decrease of $9 million. At TSL4, 

DOE recognizes the risk of very large 

negative impacts if the high end of the 

range of impacts is reached, resulting in 

a net loss of 34 percent in INPV. 

As seen in Table VI.5 through Table 

VI.11, at TSL4, DOE projects that 4-foot 

MBP, 8-foot SP slimline, and 8-foot RDC 

HO consumers would experience 

similar life-cycle cost savings and 

increases as they would experience at 

TSL5. Like TSL5, consumers who own 

T12 ballasts prior to 2012 at TSL4 

would likely experience negative 

economic impacts, either through lifecycle cost increases or by large increases 

in total installed cost. For 4-foot MiniBP 

T5 standard-output lamps, TSL4 would 

require these lamps to meet EL1, 

resulting in positive LCC savings of 

$1.22 for lamp replacement and $42.84 

for new construction or renovation (seen 

in Table VI.8). For 4-foot MiniBP T5 

high-output lamps, TSL4 would require 

the same efficacy level (EL1) as TSL5, 

resulting in identical life-cycle cost 

impacts. 

After carefully considering the 

analysis and weighing the benefits and 

burdens of TSL4, the Secretary has 

reached the following initial conclusion: 

At TSL4, the benefits of energy savings, 

emissions reductions (both in physical 

reductions and the monetized value of 

those reductions), and the positive net 

economic savings to the Nation (over 30 

years) would be outweighed by the 

economic burden on some consumers 

(as indicated by the large increase in 

total installed cost) and the potentially 

large reduction in INPV for 

manufacturers. Specifically, consumers 

who operate a 4-foot MBP, 8-foot SP 

slimline, or 8-foot RDC HO T12 ballast 

prior to 2012 would be forced to retrofit 

their system upon lamp failure, 

incurring an initial cost six to thirteen 

times that of a simple lamp 

replacement. Additionally, consumers 

who installed T12 electronic ballasts 

before 2012 would bear the large 

increases in first cost without benefiting 

from LCC savings. Consequently, the 

Secretary has tentatively concluded that 

trial standard level 4 is not 

economically justified. 

c. Trial Standard Level 3 

Next, DOE considered TSL3, which 

would save an estimated total of 3.2 to 

7.3 quads of energy through 2042, a 

significant amount of energy. For the 

Nation as a whole, TSL3 would have a 

net savings of $3.2 billion to $11.1 

billion at a 7-percent discount rate. The 

emissions reductions at TSL3 are 

estimated at 184 to 395 MMt of CO2, 12 

to 623 kt of NOX, and up to 7 metric 

tons of Hg. Total generating capacity in 

2042 would be estimated to decrease 

compared to the reference case by 1100 

to 3400 megawatts under TSL3. 

As opposed to TSL4 and TSL5, TSL3 

does not eliminate all T12 lamps from 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 17017 

the market. The impacts on 

manufacturers are less significant 

because TSL3 does not require a 

complete conversion of all T12 4-foot 

MBP, 8-foot SP slimline, and 8-foot RDC 

HO lines to T8 lines. Instead, the 

required capital investments of $104.5 

million are to account for the likely 

accelerated consumer migration toward 

T8 lamps. The projected change in 

industry value ranges from a decrease of 

$139 million to an increase of $71 

million. The upper range of these 

impacts results from the reduced 

efficacy range of the product line and 

the corresponding reduction in gross 

margins. Compared with TSL 4 and TSL 

5, TSL 3 maintains a broader product 

line and, thus, provides manufacturers 

with a greater opportunity to 

differentiate lamp offerings. 

At TSL3, DOE projects that most 

GSFL consumers would experience lifecycle cost savings. Because the 

minimum efficacy levels for the T5 

product classes are the same for TSL3 as 

they are for TSL4, the life-cycle cost 

impacts on these consumers are 

identical as well. However, for the other 

GSFL product classes, the consumer 

economic impacts do differ at TSL3 

from TSL4 and TSL5. Because T12 

lamps are still available at this level, all 

consumers have viable lamp 

replacement options without needing to 

retrofit their ballasts. As a result, initial 

costs for 4-foot MBP, 8-foot SP slimline, 

or 8-foot RDC HO T12 lamp 

replacements are significantly lower 

than initial costs required at TSL4 and 

TSL5 when consumers must purchase a 

new lamp and new ballast with 

standards. For example, for 4-foot MBP 

lamps, installed costs at TSL3 may 

increase by $13.91 over a baseline lamp 

cost of $11.22 in the commercial sector 

or by $8.48 over the baseline lamp cost 

of $3.98 in the residential sector. 

Although incremental total installed 

costs are considerably reduced in 

comparison to TSL4 and TSL5, some 

consumers would still experience 

negative life-cycle cost savings at TSL3. 

These are many of the same consumers 

that would have negative savings at 

TSL4 and TSL5. Residential consumers 

who own T12 ballasts prior to 2012 

would experience negative LCC savings 

when replacing only their lamps 

(approximately 2 percent of 4-foot MBP 

shipments in 2012). Consumers who, 

absent standards, replace reducedwattage T12 lamps on 8-foot SP slimline 

systems (24 percent of 8-foot SP 

slimline shipments in 2012) experience 

net life-cycle cost increases. 

Approximately 33 percent of 8-foot RDC 

HO shipments in 2012 (those consumers 

who replace reduced-wattage T12 

lamps) result in negative LCC savings. 

As seen in section VI.B.1.a.i, for GSFL, 

often higher efficacy level lamps result 

in higher (or less negative) life-cycle 

cost savings. At TSL3, consumers have 

the option of purchasing these higherefficacy lamps, and, therefore, can 

achieve similar life-cycle cost savings as 

at TSL4 and TSL5. 

After considering the analysis and the 

benefits and burdens of trial standard 

level 3, the Secretary has reached the 

following tentative conclusion: Trial 

standard level 3 offers the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and will result 

in significant conservation of energy. 

The Secretary has reached the initial 

conclusion that the benefits of energy 

savings, emissions reductions (both in 

physical reductions and the monetized 

value of those reductions), and the 

positive net economic savings to the 

Nation would outweigh the economic 

burden on some consumers (as 

indicated by negative life-cycle cost 

savings) and the potentially large 

reduction in INPV for manufacturers. 

TSL 3 offers almost all consumers the 

choice to select lamp and ballast 

systems that will reduce their life-cycle 

costs but does not force them to incur 

the increased first costs of a new ballast 

if they elect not to do so. Therefore, 

DOE today proposes to adopt the energy 

conservation standards for GSFL at trial 

standard level 3. 

DOE will seriously consider adopting 

a more stringent standard level in the 

final rule that would eliminate T12 

lamps, as described in discussions 

regarding TSL4 and TSL5. An example 

may be for DOE to adopt a more 

stringent standard level in the final rule 

that, similar to TSL4 and TSL5, would 

eliminate T12 lamps, but allow an 

extended lead time before compliance 

would be required. A second example 

may be for DOE to adopt a more 

stringent standard level, while 

continuing to allow the sale of specially 

packaged or labeled T12 lamps in the 

residential sector only. DOE seeks 

comment on these or other possible 

alternative scenarios. 

3. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

Conclusion 

a. Trial Standard Level 5 

For IRL, DOE first considered the 

most efficient level, TSL5, which would 

save an estimated total of 1.5 to 2.6 

quads of energy through 2042—a 

significant amount of energy. For the 

Nation as a whole, TSL5 would have a 

net savings of $4.3 billion to $7.5 billion 

at a 7-percent discount rate. The 

emissions reductions at TSL5 are 

estimated at 79 to 119 MMt of CO2, 5 to 

193 kt of NOX, and up to 2 metric tons 

of Hg. Total generating capacity in 2042 

is estimated to decrease compared to the 

reference case by 40 to 500 MW under 

TSL5. As seen in Table VI.12, regardless 

of the baseline lamp purchased absent 

standards, consumers have available 

lamp designs which result in positive 

LCC savings, ranging from $1.49 to 

$9.41, at TSL5. The higher savings 

result from consumers who purchase 

lamps with larger lumen packages, 

while the lower savings result from 

consumers who purchase lamps with 

smaller lumen packages. 

The projected change in industry 

value would range from a decrease of 

$82 million to $103 million, or a net 

loss of 31 to 50 percent in INPV. The 

range in impacts is attributed in part to 

uncertainty concerning the future share 

of emerging technologies in the IRL 

market, as well as the expected 

migration to R–CFL and exempted IRL 

technologies under standards. 

DOE based TSL5 on commerciallyavailable IRL which employ a silver 

reflector, an improved IR coating, and a 

filament design that results in a lifetime 

of 4,200 hours. To DOE’s knowledge, 

only one manufacturer currently sells 

products that meet TSL5. In addition, it 

is DOE’s understanding that the silver 

reflector is a proprietary technology that 

all manufacturers may not be able to 

employ. However, DOE considered 

TSL5 in its analysis because it believes 

that there are alternate pathways to 

achieve this level. A combination of 

redesigning the filament to achieve 

higher-temperature operation (and thus 

reducing lifetime to 3,000 hours), 

employing other non-proprietary highefficiency reflectors, or applying higherefficiency IR coatings has the potential 

to result in an IRL that meets an 

equivalent efficacy level. However, to 

DOE’s knowledge, no prototype IRL 

exists that meets this efficacy level and 

does not use proprietary technology. 

Therefore, DOE is uncertain as to 

whether there are barriers to 

implementing these alternate pathways. 

In addition, DOE is uncertain of the 

manufacturer costs associated with 

producing such an IRL. As documented 

in appendix 5D of the TSD, DOE 

received manufacturer cost estimates 

from an IR coating manufacturer. Based 

on these cost estimates, DOE estimated 

that a medium-range end-user price for 

PAR 38 IRL that meet TSL5 and do not 

employ the proprietary silverized 

reflector would be $7.91. This price, 

when compared to the end-user price of 

the commercially-available PAR38 IRL 

that meet TSL5 and use the silverized 

17018 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

reflector ($8.03), would appear to be 

cost-competitive. However, DOE 

requires verification of these cost 

estimates before proposing a standard 

that would require this higher-efficiency 

IR coating technology. If it is 

significantly more costly for some 

manufacturers to meet this level than 

others, it is likely to cause a lessening 

of competition and distortions in the 

marketplace. 

After carefully considering the 

analysis and weighing the benefits and 

burdens of TSL5, the Secretary has 

reached the following initial conclusion: 

At TSL5, the benefits of energy savings, 

emissions reductions (both in physical 

reductions and the monetized value of 

those reductions), the positive net 

economic savings to the Nation (over 30 

years) would be outweighed by the large 

capital conversion costs that could 

result in a reduction in INPV for 

manufacturers and possible lessening of 

competition. Consequently, the 

Secretary has tentatively concluded that 

trial standard level 5 is not 

economically justified. 

As discussed above, DOE is not 

proposing TSL5 because DOE finds that 

the benefits to the Nation of TSL5 do 

not outweigh the costs, and, therefore, 

DOE proposes that TSL5 is not 

economically justified. This proposal 

reflects DOE’s tentative conclusion that 

there remains too much uncertainty 

regarding the ability for manufacturers 

to produce lamps that meet this level. 

While information is available that 

suggests that there are other economical 

pathways (without the use of 

proprietary technology) to meet this 

efficacy level, DOE believes that it must 

have a higher degree of confidence that 

these pathways exist and a clearer 

understanding of the economic burdens 

(to consumers and manufacturers) to 

warrant higher standards before it 

imposes such requirements. DOE is 

soliciting public comments on these and 

other issues, and will reconsider this 

tentative conclusion during the 

development of its final rule. 

Specifically, DOE requests comment on 

other technology pathways that may be 

utilized to meet TSL5, and whether 

these pathways may have any adverse 

effects on consumer utility or the ability 

for the product to be mass produced. In 

addition, DOE requests comment on the 

manufacturer costs associated with 

these pathways and resulting consumer 

product prices for lamps that meet this 

efficacy level. Based upon the 

information it receives, DOE may 

consider adoption of TSL5 at the final 

rule stage. 

b. Trial Standard Level 4 

DOE next considered TSL4, which 

would save an estimated total of 1.3 to 

2.3 quads of energy through 2042—a 

significant amount of energy. For the 

Nation as a whole, TSL4 would have a 

net savings of $3.7 billion to $6.8 billion 

at a 7-percent discount rate. The 

emissions reductions at TSL4 are 

estimated at 59 to 114 MMt of CO2, 4 

to181 kt of NOX, and up to 2 metric tons 

of Hg. Total generating capacity in 2042 

is estimated to decrease compared to the 

reference case by 0 to 500 MW under 

TSL4. As seen in Table VI.12, regardless 

of the baseline lamp currently 

employed, consumers have available 

lamp designs which would result in 

positive LCC savings, ranging from 

$1.62 to $8.14, at TSL4. 

To DOE’s knowledge, two of the three 

major manufacturers of IRL currently 

sell a full product line (across common 

wattages) that meet this standard level. 

In addition, it is DOE’s understanding 

that the third manufacturer employs a 

technology platform that, due to the 

positioning of the filament in the HIR 

capsule, is inherently less efficient. 

Therefore, it is likely that in order to 

meet TSL4, this manufacturer would 

have to make considerably higher 

investments than the other 

manufacturers, placing it at a 

competitive disadvantage. DOE projects 

that change in industry value at TSL4 

ranges from a decrease of $77 million to 

$94 million, or net loss of 29 to 46 

percent in INPV. However, compared to 

each of the baselines, TSL4 showed 

significant positive life-cycle cost 

savings on a national average basis and 

for all consumer subgroups. In addition, 

TSL4 is projected to result in significant 

net economic savings to the Nation. 

After considering the analysis, 

comments on the ANOPR, and the 

benefits and burdens of trial standard 

level 4, the Secretary has reached the 

following tentative conclusion: Trial 

standard level 4 offers the maximum 

improvement in efficacy that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and will result 

in significant conservation of energy. 

The Secretary has reached the initial 

conclusion that the benefits of energy 

savings, emissions reductions (both in 

physical reductions and the monetized 

value of those reductions), the positive 

net economic savings to the Nation, and 

positive life-cycle cost savings would 

outweigh the potentially large reduction 

in INPV for manufacturers. Therefore, 

DOE today proposes to adopt the energy 

conservation standards for IRL at trial 

standard level 4. 

VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

Today’s regulatory action has been 

determined to be an economically 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review.’’ 58 FR 51735 

(Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action 

was subject to review under the 

Executive Order by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) at OMB. 

The Executive Order requires that 

each agency identify in writing the 

specific market failure or other specific 

problem that it intends to address that 

warrant new agency action, as well as 

assess the significance of that problem, 

to enable assessment of whether any 

new regulation is warranted. Executive 

Order 12866, § 1(b)(1). 

DOE’s analysis for GSFL and IRL 

explicitly accounts for the percentage of 

consumers that already purchase moreefficient products and takes these 

consumers into account when 

determining the national energy savings 

associated with various trial standard 

levels. The analysis suggests that 

accounting for the market value of 

energy savings alone (i.e., excluding any 

possible ‘‘externality’’ benefits such as 

those noted below) would produce 

enough benefits to yield net benefits 

across a wide array of products and 

circumstances. In its ANOPR, DOE 

requested additional data on and 

suggestions for testing the existence and 

extent of potential market failures to 

assess the significance of these failures 

and, thus, the net benefits of regulation. 

73 FR 13620, 13688 (March 13, 2008) In 

particular, DOE sought to verify the 

estimates of the percentage of 

consumers purchasing efficient lighting 

equipment and the extent to which 

consumers will continue to purchase 

more-efficient equipment in future 

years. DOE received no such data in 

response to the ANOPR but continues to 

request such data in today’s proposed 

rule. 

DOE believes that there is a lack of 

consumer information and/or 

information processing capability about 

energy efficiency opportunities in the 

lighting market. If this is the case, DOE 

would expect the efficiency for lighting 

products to be randomly distributed 

across key variables such as electricity 

prices and usage levels. Although DOE 

has identified the percentage of 

consumers that already purchase moreefficient lighting products, DOE does 

not correlate the consumers’ usage 

pattern and electricity price with the 

efficiency of the purchased product. In 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 17019 

its ANOPR, DOE sought data on the 

correlation between the efficacy of 

existing lamps, usage patterns (e.g., how 

many hours the product is used), and its 

associated electricity price (geographic 

region of the country). 73 FR 13620, 

13688 (March 13, 2008) DOE received 

no such data from interested parties in 

response to the ANOPR but continues to 

request this data in today’s proposed 

rule. DOE plans to use these data to test 

the extent to which purchasers of this 

equipment behave as if they are 

unaware of the costs associated with 

their energy consumption. 

DOE believes several factors 

contribute to the lack of consumer 

information for lighting products. In the 

residential sector, consumers that base 

purchases on wattage rather than lumen 

output may reject higher efficacy or 

energy-saving lamp designs. For 

example, consumers may not recognize 

that a higher efficacy, reduced-wattage 

lamp fulfills the same utility as a higherwattage lamp, although both lamps may 

have similar lumen outputs. For this 

reason, higher-efficiency products may 

be unduly rejected in the marketplace. 

In the commercial and industrial 

sectors, the complexity of GSFL systems 

may introduce high information costs. 

GSFL systems are composed of lamps 

and ballasts with a multitude of varying 

properties, such as lamp wattage, lumen 

output, lifetime, and ballast factor. 

These variables impose high 

information costs which may prevent 

purchasers from selecting the most costeffective GSFL system. In its ANOPR, 

DOE sought comment on the potential 

for the Federal ENERGY STAR program 

to increase consumer knowledge of the 

availability and benefits of energyefficient lamps. DOE received no data in 

response to the ANOPR but continues to 

request this data in today’s proposed 

rule. 

A related issue is the problem of 

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). In many instances, 

the party responsible for the lamp 

purchase may not pay to operate it. For 

example, in the commercial and 

industrial sectors, building owners and 

developers may make purchasing 

decisions about lighting fixtures that 

include ballasts and lamps, but tenants 

pay the utility bills. Although renters 

often have the opportunity to purchase 

replacement lamps, renters are severely 

limited in their choices by prior fixture 

and ballast selections. The separation of 

fixture purchases and payment for the 

operating costs imposes transaction 

costs on the renter. If there were no 

transactions costs, building developers 

and owners would install the lighting 

fixtures renters would choose on their 

own. For example, a tenant who 

knowingly faces higher utility bills from 

low-efficacy lighting would be willing 

to pay less in rent, and the building 

owner would indirectly bear the higher 

utility cost. However, this information is 

not costless, and it may not be in the 

interest of the renter to take the time to 

develop the knowledge of the higher 

operating cost of low-efficacy lighting. 

Similarly, it may not be in the interest 

of the building owner who installs 

lighting systems to convey operating 

cost information to the renter. 

DOE did not receive any data that 

would enable it to conduct tests of 

market failure in response to the March 

2008 ANOPR. DOE would not expect a 

correlation between higher rents for 

office space with high-efficacy lighting 

systems if there were a market failure 

due to asymmetric information and/or 

high transactions costs. If there were 

symmetric information with low 

transaction costs, renters would be fully 

knowledgeable about the lower 

operating costs of high-efficacy lighting 

systems and would compensate owners 

for their reduced costs. 

This proposed rulemaking is likely to 

yield certain external benefits resulting 

from improved energy efficiency of 

GSFL and IRL that are not captured by 

the users of such products. These 

benefits include externalities related to 

environmental protection and energy 

security which are not reflected in 

energy prices, such as reduced 

emissions of greenhouse gases. The 

emissions reductions in today’s 

proposed rule are projected to be 184 to 

395 MMt and 59 to 114 MMt of CO2 for 

GSFL and IRL, respectively, and 12 to 

623 kt, 4 to 181 kt of NOX, for GSFL and 

IRL, respectively. In addition, today’s 

proposed rule is projected to result in 

Hg emissions reduction of up to 7 

metric tons and 2 metric tons for GSFL 

and IRL, respectively. DOE invites 

comments on the weight that DOE 

should place on these factors in 

determining the maximum energy 

efficacy level at which the total benefits 

are likely to exceed the total burdens 

resulting from an amended standard. 

As previously stated, DOE generally 

seeks data that might enable it to 

conduct tests of market failure for 

products under consideration for 

standard-setting. For example, given 

adequate data, there are ways to test for 

the extent of market failure for 

commercial GSFL. One would expect 

the owners of fluorescent lamps who 

also pay for their electricity 

consumption to purchase more-efficient 

lamps compared to owners who do not 

pay for their electricity usage. To test for 

this form of market failure, DOE needs 

data on energy efficiency of such units 

and whether the owner of the 

equipment also pays the operating costs. 

DOE is also interested in other potential 

tests of market failure and data that 

would enable such tests. 

DOE conducted a regulatory impact 

analysis (RIA) and, under the Executive 

Order, was subject to review by OIRA. 

DOE presented to OIRA for review the 

draft proposed rule and other 

documents prepared for this 

rulemaking, including the RIA, and has 

included these documents in the 

rulemaking record. They are available 

for public review in the Resource Room 

of the Building Technologies Program, 

950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th Floor, 

Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–9127, 

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The RIA is contained in the TSD as a 

separate report. The RIA consists of: (1) 

A statement of the problem addressed 

by this regulation, and the mandate for 

government action; (2) a description and 

analysis of the feasible policy 

alternatives to this regulation; (3) a 

quantitative comparison of the impacts 

of the alternatives; and (4) the national 

economic impacts of the proposed 

standard. 

The RIA calculates the effects of 

feasible policy alternatives to energy 

conservation standards for GSFL and 

IRL and provides a quantitative 

comparison of the impacts of the 

alternatives. DOE identified the 

following major policy alternatives for 

achieving increased energy efficiency in 

GSFL and IRL: 

• No new regulatory action. 

• Consumer rebates. 

• Consumer tax credits. 

• Manufacturer tax credits. 

• Voluntary energy-efficiency targets. 

• Bulk government purchases. 

• Early replacement. 

• The proposed energy conservation 

standards. 

DOE evaluated each alternative’s 

ability to achieve significant energy 

savings at reasonable costs (Table VII.1 

and Table VII.2) and compared it to the 

effectiveness of the proposed rule. DOE 

analyzed these alternatives using a 

series of regulatory scenarios as inputs 

to the NIA spreadsheets for the two 

products, which it modified to allow 

inputs for voluntary measures. 

17020 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

85 DOE averaged the rebates from utility programs 

across the United States, including NSTAR, Pacific 

Gas & Electric, Xcel, Idaho Power and Light, Duke 

Energy, and Alliant. (See the RIA to the TSD for 

additional detail.) 

TABLE VII.1—GSFL NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND NET PRESENT VALUE OF NON-REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES

COMPARED TO THE PROPOSED STANDARDS

Policy alternatives 1

National energy 

savings 

(quads) 

Net present value 

(billion $2007) 

7% Discount rate 3% Discount rate 

No New Regulatory Action .................................................................................. 0 0 0 

Consumer Rebates .............................................................................................. 1.33–1.74 1.93–2.67 4.72–6.58 

Consumer Tax Credits ......................................................................................... 0.63–0.83 1.13–1.33 2.47–3.17 

Manufacturer Tax Credits .................................................................................... 0.35–0.44 0.68–0.73 1.49–1.64 

Voluntary Energy Efficiency Targets ................................................................... 1.09–1.44 1.54–2.10 3.83–5.19 

Bulk Government Purchases ............................................................................... 1.21–1.61 1.69–2.36 4.23–5.82 

Proposed Standards 2 .......................................................................................... 3.15–7.12 3.15–10.75 8.73–24.87 

Notes: 

1 NPV discounted to 2007; Non-regulatory alternatives encourage purchases of GSFL at TSL 3. 

TABLE VII.2—IRL NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND NET PRESENT VALUE OF NON-REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES

COMPARED TO THE PROPOSED STANDARDS

Policy alternatives 1 National energy 

savings (quads) 

Net present value (billion $2007) 

7% Discount rate 3% Discount rate 

No New Regulatory Action .................................................................................. 0 0 0 

Consumer Rebates .............................................................................................. 0.52–0.69 1.52–1.89 3.19–3.97 

Consumer Tax Credits ......................................................................................... 0.32–0.42 0.96–1.17 1.97–2.44 

Manufacturer Tax Credits .................................................................................... 0.16–0.21 0.53–0.64 1.05–1.28 

Voluntary Energy Efficiency Targets ................................................................... 0.26–0.45 0.83–1.28 1.65–2.59 

Bulk Government Purchases ............................................................................... 0.04–0.24 0.23–0.72 0.32–1.33 

Proposed Standards ............................................................................................ 1.25–2.21 3.72–6.00 7.68–12.45 

Notes: 

1 NPV discounted to 2007, Non-regulatory alternatives encourage purchases of IRL at TSL 4. 

The results for each scenario are 

reported at the TSLs proposed by DOE 

in this rulemaking; they are TSL 3 for 

GSFL and TSL 4 for IRL. For GSFL, the 

range presented results from the effects 

of applying the lighting expertise 

scenario discussed in section V.E.4.b. 

The lower end of the range represents 

the Emerging Technologies, marketsegment based lighting expertise 

scenario. In contrast, the upper end of 

the range for GSFL represents the 

Existing Technologies, high-lighting 

expertise scenario. For IRL, the range of 

impacts results from the two base-case 

shipment scenarios analyzed in the NIA. 

The lower end of the range for IRL 

represents the Emerging Technologies 

scenario, whereas the upper end of the 

range represents the Existing 

Technologies scenario. 

DOE did not analyze one of the policy 

alternatives (early replacement), 

because, as discussed below, DOE 

believes that the lifetimes of the lamps 

analyzed are too short for early 

replacement to result in significant 

savings. In overview, of the other 

alternatives that DOE examined, none 

would save as much energy nor have an 

NPV as high as the proposed standards. 

Also, some of the alternatives would 

require new enabling legislation (e.g., 

consumer or manufacturer tax credits), 

as authority to carry out those 

alternatives does not presently exist. 

The following paragraphs summarize 

each policy alternative. Additional 

details can be found in the regulatory 

impact analysis report of the TSD. 

No New Regulatory Action. The case 

in which DOE takes no regulatory action 

regarding GSFL and IRL is the base case 

(or no action) scenario. Because this is 

the base case, energy savings and NPV 

for GSFL and IRL are zero by definition. 

In this case, between 2012 and 2042, as 

determined in the NIA, energy 

consumption for GSFL is expected to 

range from 82.16 to 94.73 quads of 

primary energy and energy consumption 

for IRL is expected to range from 5.64 

to 10.52 quads of primary energy. 

Consumer Rebates. Consumer rebates 

cover a portion of the difference in 

incremental product price between 

products meeting baseline efficacy 

levels and those meeting higher efficacy 

levels, resulting in a higher percentage 

of consumers purchasing more efficient 

models. For GSFL, DOE estimated the 

impact of improving the simple payback 

through a rebate that paid 70 percent of 

the incremental product price. DOE 

based the 70-percent rebate on existing 

utility rebate programs for replacing a 

T12 lamp with a T8 lamp or upgrading 

an existing T8 lamp to a moreefficacious T8 GSFL.85 DOE studied 

each program and found that the 

average rebate amounted to about 70 

percent of the incremental product price 

for GSFL. DOE assumed that the 

consumer rebate policy would reduce 

the incremental product price for IRL 

during the analysis period by the same 

percentage. DOE calculated the simple 

payback period of each higher efficacy 

lamp, both with and without the rebate. 

Then by using the market penetration 

curves discussed in section V.E.2.c, 

DOE estimated percent market adoption 

of a technology as a function of 

technology simple payback. The 

difference between the market 

penetration with and without the rebate 

was assumed to represent the market 

share that would participate in a 

consumer rebate program. For both 

GSFL and IRL, DOE assumed that the 

impact of this policy would be to 

permanently transform the market so 

that the increased market penetration 

seen in the first year of the program 

would be maintained throughout the 

forecast period. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 17021 

86 Kenneth Train, Customer Decision Study: 

Analysis of Residential Customer Equipment 

Purchase Decisions (Prepared for Southern 

California Edison by Cambridge Systematics, Pacific 

Consulting Services, The Technology Applications 

Group, and California Survey Research Services) 

(1994). 

87Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, EndUse Forecasting Group, Analysis of Tax Credits for 

Efficient Equipment (1997). Available at: http:// 

enduse.lbl.gov/Projects/TaxCredits.html (Last 

accessed April 24, 2008). 

88Available at: http://www.energystar.gov/ 

index.cfm?c=about.ab_milestones. 89Horowitz, Marvin J., ‘‘Economic Indicators of 

Market Transformation: Energy Efficient Lighting 

and EPA’s Green Lights,’’ Energy Journal, Vol. 22, 

No. 4, (2001) pp. 95–122. 

At the estimated participation rates 

for GSFL, DOE calculated that consumer 

rebates would provide between 1.33 and 

1.74 quads of national energy savings 

and an NPV between $1.93 and $2.67 

billion (at a 7-percent discount rate). For 

IRL, DOE calculated that consumer 

rebates at the estimated participation 

rates would provide between 0.52 and 

0.69 quads of national energy savings 

and an NPV between $1.52 and $1.89 

billion (at a 7-percent discount rate). 

Although DOE estimated that 

consumer rebates would provide 

national benefits for GSFL and IRL 

products, these benefits would be 

smaller than the benefits resulting from 

the proposed energy conservation 

standards. Thus, DOE rejected consumer 

rebates as a policy alternative to energy 

conservation standards. 

Consumer Tax Credits. Consumer tax 

credits cover a percentage of the 

difference in incremental product price 

between products meeting baseline 

efficacy levels and those with higher 

efficiencies. Consumer tax credits are 

considered a viable non-regulatory 

market transformation program, as the 

inclusion of Federal consumer tax 

credits in EPACT 2005 for various 

residential appliances shows. (section 

1333 of EPACT 2005; codified at 26 

U.S.C. 25C) DOE assumed a consumer 

tax credit equivalent to the amount 

covered by rebates (i.e., 70 percent of 

the difference in incremental product 

price between the base case and higherefficacy products). 

DOE estimated that for both lamp 

types, the consumer participation rate 

for tax credits would be lower than the 

rate of participation in consumer 

rebates. Research on tax credits has 

shown that the time delay to the 

consumer in receiving a reimbursement 

through a tax credit, plus the added 

transaction costs in tax-return 

preparation, make the tax credit 

incentive less effective than a rebate 

received at the time of purchase. Based 

on previous analyses, DOE assumed that 

only 60 percent as many consumers 

would take advantage of the tax credit 

as would take advantage of a rebate. 

DOE assumed the impact of the policy 

would be to permanently transform the 

market at this market penetration level. 

For GSFL, at the estimated 

participation rate, consumer tax credits 

would provide national energy savings 

between 0.63 and 0.83 quads and an 

NPV between $1.13 and $1.33 billion (at 

a 7-percent discount rate). At the 

estimated participation rates for IRL, 

consumer tax credits would provide 

between 0.32 and 0.42 quads of national 

energy savings and an NPV between 

$0.96 and $1.17 billion (at a 7-percent 

discount rate). DOE estimated that while 

consumer tax credits would yield 

national benefits for GSFL and IRL, 

these benefits would be much smaller 

than the benefits from the proposed 

energy conservation standards. Thus, 

DOE rejected consumer tax credits as a 

policy alternative to energy 

conservation standards. 

Manufacturer Tax Credits. 

Manufacturer tax credits are considered 

a viable non-regulatory market 

transformation program, as the 

inclusion of Federal tax credits in 

EPACT 2005 for manufacturers of 

residential appliances shows. (section 

1334 of EPACT 2005; codified at 26 

U.S.C. 45M) Similar to consumer tax 

credits, manufacturer tax credits would 

effectively result in lower product 

prices for consumers by an amount that 

covered part of the incremental product 

price difference between products 

meeting baseline efficacy levels and 

those meeting higher efficacy levels. 

Because these tax credits would go to 

manufacturers instead of consumers, 

fewer consumers would be affected by 

a manufacturer tax credit program than 

by consumer tax credits.86 87 Although 

consumers would benefit from price 

reductions passed through to them by 

manufacturers, approximately half the 

consumers who would benefit from a 

consumer tax credit program would be 

aware of the economic benefits of moreefficient technologies included in an 

appliance manufacturer tax credit 

program. Therefore, DOE estimated that 

the effect of a manufacturer tax credit 

program would be only half of the 

maximum impact of a consumer tax 

credit program. For both GSFL and IRL, 

DOE assumed that this policy would 

permanently transform the market so 

that the increased market penetration 

seen in the first year of the program 

would be maintained throughout the 

forecast period. 

At the estimated participation rates 

for GSFL, DOE calculated that 

manufacturer tax credits would provide 

between 0.35 and 0.44 quads of national 

energy savings and an NPV between 

$0.68 and $0.73 billion (at a 7-percent 

discount rate). For IRL, DOE estimated 

national energy savings between 0.16 

and 0.21 quads and an NPV between 

$0.53 and $0.64 billion (at a 7-percent 

discount rate). DOE estimated that while 

manufacturer tax credits would yield 

national benefits for GSFL and IRL, 

these benefits would be much smaller 

than the benefits from the proposed 

energy conservation standards. Thus, 

DOE rejected manufacturer tax credits 

as a policy alternative to energy 

conservation standards. 

Voluntary Energy Efficiency Targets. 

DOE estimated the impact of a voluntary 

energy efficiency program by reviewing 

the historical and projected market 

transformation performance of past and 

current ENERGY STAR programs. The 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

introduced the Green Lights program in 

January of 1991. Green Lights was a 

voluntary (non-regulatory) program 

tasked with a goal of reducing air 

pollution by promoting energy-efficient 

lighting. Companies that elected to 

participate installed energy-efficient 

lighting where it proved to be costeffective (as long as lighting quality was 

not diminished). In return, the EPA 

provided technical assistance and 

public recognition. In a similar effort, 

the EPA launched the ENERGY STAR 

program in 1992 as a voluntary labeling 

program to help consumers identify the 

most energy-efficient products on the 

market. In 1995, Green Lights became a 

part of the ENERGY STAR program.88

In order to determine how a lighting 

market would respond to a voluntary 

energy program, DOE analyzed the 

success of the Green Lights program in 

the 1990s. One of the significant results 

of the Green Lights program was 

demonstrated in its initiative to 

encourage consumers to purchase 

higher-efficiency electronic ballasts over 

less-efficient magnetic ballasts. As a 

result of this initiative, electronic 

ballasts began to enter the market in 

increasing numbers. A study that 

analyzed the impact of public programs 

on fluorescent ballast shipments 

concluded that of all the electronic 

ballasts shipped between 1986 and 

2000, 61 percent were due to this public 

program.89 DOE used data from the US 

Census to calculate the percent of the 

market that opted to use more efficient 

ballasts as a result of a voluntary 

program. Based on this analysis, DOE 

concluded that 20 percent of the market 

would shift to more-efficient products 

as a result of a voluntary energy 

efficiency program. DOE assumed this 

participation rate would be the same for 

17022 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

90U.S. Department of Energy, Regulatory Impact 

Analysis: Energy Conservation Standards for 

Consumer Products, Covering: Fluorescent Lamp 

Ballasts (Oct. 1999). Available at: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_

standards/residential/pdfs/regulatory_impact.pdf. 

both GSFL and IRL. DOE also assumed 

that the impact of this policy would be 

to permanently transform the market so 

that the increased market penetration 

seen in the first year of the program 

would be maintained throughout the 

forecast period. 

For GSFL, DOE estimated that 

voluntary energy efficiency targets 

would provide between 1.09 and 1.44 

quads of national energy savings and an 

NPV between $1.54 and $2.10 billion (at 

a 7-percent discount rate). For IRL, DOE 

estimated national energy savings 

between 0.26 and 0.45 quads and an 

NPV between $0.83 and $1.28 billion (at 

a 7-percent discount rate). DOE 

estimated that while voluntary energyefficiency targets would yield national 

benefits for GSFL and IRL, these 

benefits would be much smaller than 

the benefits from the proposed energy 

conservation standards. Thus, DOE 

rejected voluntary energy efficiency 

targets as a policy alternative to energy 

conservation standards. 

Early Replacement. The early 

replacement policy alternative envisions 

a program to replace old, inefficient 

units with models meeting efficacy 

levels higher than baseline equipment. 

DOE did not model this alternative 

because the lifetimes of GSFL and IRL 

are very short (on the order of 1 to 5 

years), so the savings would not be very 

great. Early replacement policies are 

generally beneficial for products with 

long lifetimes (e.g., washers and dryers, 

furnaces) and that represent a 

significant upfront investment, neither 

of which apply to GSFL and IRL. 

Bulk Government Purchases. Under 

this policy alternative, the government 

sector would be encouraged to shift its 

purchases to products that meet the 

target efficacy levels. DOE assumed that 

Federal, State, and local government 

agencies would administer such a 

program. DOE modeled this program by 

assuming an increase in the installation 

of equipment meeting higher efficacy 

levels for those locations where 

government agencies purchase or 

influence the purchase of appliances. 

Similar to previous analysis, DOE 

used floor space data from CBECS 2003 

to derive the proportion of governmentowned floor space to total commercial 

floor space, which is 21.4 percent. DOE 

assumed that the portion of governmentowned floor space is proportional to the 

portion of government lamp purchases. 

DOE then added a 1.4 percent marketpull impact to arrive at a conservative 

22.8 percent market penetration rate.90

Bulk government purchases will not 

affect the residential market as DOE 

believes that most government-owned 

buildings are in the commercial sector. 

DOE assumed that the impact of this 

policy would be to permanently 

transform the market so that the 

increased market penetration seen in the 

first year of the program would be 

maintained throughout the forecast 

period. 

At the above estimated participation 

rates, the bulk government purchases 

scenario would provide between 1.21 

and 1.61 quads of national energy 

savings and an NPV between $1.69 and 

$2.36 billion (at a 7-percent discount 

rate) for GSFL, and between 0.04 and 

0.24 quads of national energy savings 

and an NPV between $0.23 and $0.72 

billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) for 

IRL. DOE estimated that while bulk 

government purchases would yield 

national benefits for GSFL and IRL, 

these benefits would be much smaller 

than the benefits from the proposed 

energy conservation standards. Thus, 

DOE rejected voluntary energy 

efficiency targets as a policy alternative 

to energy conservation standards. 

Energy Conservation Standards. As 

indicated in the paragraphs above, none 

of the alternatives DOE examined would 

save as much energy as the proposed 

energy conservation standards. 

Therefore, DOE proposes to adopt the 

efficacy levels listed in section VI.C 

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 

Counsel’s Web site at http:// 

www.gc.doe.gov. 

DOE reviewed today’s proposed rule 

under the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the procedures and 

policies published on February 19, 

2003. 68 FR 7990. A regulatory 

flexibility analysis examines the impact 

of the rule on small entities and 

considers alternative ways of reducing 

negative impacts. DOE identified 

producers of all products covered by 

this rulemaking which have 

manufacturing facilities located within 

the United States. DOE then looked at 

publicly-available data and contacted 

manufacturers, as necessary, to 

determine if they meet the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) 

definition of a small manufacturing 

facility. 

In the context of this rulemaking, 

‘‘small businesses,’’ as defined by the 

SBA, for the GSFL and IRL 

manufacturing industries, are 

manufacturing enterprises with 1,000 

employees or fewer. DOE used the small 

business size standards published on 

March 11, 2008, as amended, by the 

SBA to determine whether any small 

entities would be required to comply 

with the rule. 61 FR 3286 (codified at 13 

CFR part 121). The size standards are 

listed by North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code and 

industry description. GSFL and IRL 

manufacturing is classified under 

NAICS 335110, ‘‘Electric Lamp Bulb 

and Part Manufacturing,’’ which sets a 

threshold of 1,000 employees or less for 

an entity in this category to be 

considered a small business. 

In overview, the GSFL and IRL 

industries include both domestic and 

international manufacturers. The 

majority of covered GSFL and IRL are 

manufactured by three large companies, 

with a small percentage of the market 

being manufactured by either large or 

small companies that are primarily 

specialized in lamps not covered by this 

rulemaking. Prior to issuing this notice 

of proposed rulemaking, DOE 

interviewed one small business affected 

by the rulemaking. DOE also obtained 

information about small business 

impacts while interviewing 

manufacturers that exceeded the small 

business size threshold of 1,000 

employees. 

To better assess the potential impacts 

of this rulemaking on small entities, 

DOE proceeded to conduct a more 

focused inquiry, as explained below. 

During its market survey, DOE created 

a list of every company that 

manufactures covered and non-covered 

GSFL and IRL for sale in the United 

States. DOE also asked stakeholders and 

industry representatives if they were 

aware of any other small manufacturers. 

DOE then reviewed publicly-available 

data and contacted companies on its 

list, as necessary, to determine whether 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 17023 

they met the SBA’s definition of a small 

business manufacturer in the GSFL or 

IRL industries. In total, DOE contacted 

57 companies that could potentially be 

small businesses. During initial review 

of the 57 companies in its list, DOE 

either contacted or researched each 

company to determine if it sold covered 

GSFL and IRL. Based on its research, 

DOE screened out companies that did 

not offer lamps covered by this 

rulemaking. Consequently, DOE 

estimated that only 12 out of 57 

companies listed were potentially small 

business manufacturers of covered 

products. DOE contacted these potential 

small business manufacturers to request 

an interview about the possible impacts 

on small business manufacturers. Of the 

12 potential small business 

manufacturers, four agreed to be 

interviewed. Based on its initial 

screening and subsequent interviews, 

DOE identified only one company as a 

small business manufacturer based on 

SBA’s definition of a small business 

manufacturer for this industry. The 

small business manufacturer that DOE 

identified only produces covered GSFL 

products. 

DOE found that the small 

manufacturer of covered GSFL shared 

some of the same concerns about energy 

conservation standards as large 

manufacturers. DOE summarized the 

key issues in section V.G.4.a of today’s 

notice. However, the small 

manufacturer was less concerned about 

the potential of standards to severely 

harm its business. Because the small 

manufacturer is more focused on 

specialty products not covered by this 

rulemaking, covered GSFL represents a 

smaller portion of its revenue and 

product portfolio. In addition, this 

manufacturer stated that it is possible to 

pass along cost increases to consumers, 

thereby limiting margin impacts due to 

energy conservation standards. 

DOE could not use the GSFL GRIM to 

model the impacts of energy 

conservation standards on the small 

business manufacturer of covered GSFL. 

The GSFL GRIM models the impacts on 

GSFL manufacturers if concerns about 

margin pressure and significant capital 

investments necessitated by standards 

are realized. The small manufacturer 

did not share these concerns, and, 

therefore, the GRIM model would not be 

representative of the identified small 

business manufacturer. Like large 

manufacturers, the small business 

manufacturer stated that more-efficient 

products earn a premium; however, 

unlike larger manufacturers, the small 

manufacturer stated that it could pass 

costs along to its customers. Since the 

GSFL GRIM models the financial impact 

of the standards commoditizing 

premium products, it is not 

representative of the small business 

manufacturer because the small 

business manufacturer did not share 

these concerns. Because of its focus on 

specialized products, the small 

manufacturer was more concerned 

about being able to offer the products to 

their customers than the impact on its 

bottom line. For further information 

about the scenarios modeled in the 

GRIM, see section VI.B.2.a of today’s 

notice and chapter 13 of the TSD. 

DOE seeks further comment on how 

small businesses could be impacted by 

standards on GSFL and IRL. 

DOE reviewed the standard levels 

considered in today’s notice of proposed 

rulemaking under the provisions of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

procedures and policies published on 

February 19, 2003. On the basis of the 

foregoing, DOE certifies that this 

proposed rule, if promulgated, would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. Accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis 

for this rulemaking. DOE’s certification 

and supporting statement of factual 

basis will be provided to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), 

a person is not required to respond to 

a collection of information by a Federal 

agency, including a requirement to 

maintain records, unless the collection 

displays a valid OMB control number. 

(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(1)(B)(iii)(V)) This 

rulemaking would impose no new 

information or record keeping 

requirements. Accordingly, OMB 

clearance is not required under the PRA. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

DOE has prepared a draft 

environmental assessment (EA) of the 

impacts of the proposed rule pursuant 

to the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the 

regulations of the Council on 

Environmental Quality (40 CFR Parts 

1500–1508), and DOE’s regulations for 

compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (10 CFR Part 

1021). This assessment includes an 

examination of the potential effects of 

emission reductions likely to result from 

the rule in the context of global climate 

change, as well as other types of 

environmental impacts. The draft EA 

has been incorporated into the TSD. 

Before issuing a final rule for GSFL and 

IRL, DOE will consider public 

comments and, as appropriate, 

determine whether to issue a finding of 

no significant impact as part of a final 

EA or to prepare an environmental 

impact statement (EIS) for this 

rulemaking. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have Federalism implications. 

Agencies are required to examine the 

constitutional and statutory authority 

supporting any action that would limit 

the policymaking discretion of the 

States and 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. DOE has examined today’s 

proposed rule and has determined that 

it would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. EPCA 

governs and prescribes Federal 

preemption of State regulations on 

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(d) and 

6316(b)(2)(D)) No further action is 

required by Executive Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform’’ (61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996)) 

imposes on Executive agencies the 

general duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; and 

(3) provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard and promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

17024 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 

DOE reviewed this regulatory action 

under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

(UMRA), which requires each Federal 

agency to assess the effects of Federal 

regulatory actions on State, local and 

Tribal governments and the private 

sector. 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 for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

an agency to publish a written statement 

assessing the costs, benefits, and other 

effects of the rule 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) (also available at http:// 

www.gc.doe.gov). Although today’s 

proposed rule does not contain a 

Federal intergovernmental mandate, it 

may impose expenditures of $100 

million or more on the private sector. 

Section 202 of UMRA authorizes an 

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 notice of proposed rulemaking 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. 

DOE is required to select from those 

alternatives the most cost-effective and 

least burdensome alternative that 

achieves the objectives of the rule 

unless DOE publishes an explanation 

for doing otherwise or the selection of 

such an alternative is inconsistent with 

law. As required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(i) 

and (o), today’s proposed rule would 

establish energy conservation standards 

for GSFL and IRL 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 

proposed rule would not have any 

impact on the autonomy or integrity of 

the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation 

would not result in any taking that 

would 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 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 proposed rule under the OMB 

and DOE guidelines and has concluded 

that it is consistent with applicable 

policies in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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. 

Today’s regulatory action is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ because it 

would not have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, nor has it been designated as 

such by the Administrator of OIRA. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects. 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 17025 

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 2664, 2667 

(Jan. 14, 2005). 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal 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 process 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: 

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

appliance_standards/peer_review.html. 

VIII. Public Participation 

DOE will make the entire record of 

this proposed rulemaking, including the 

transcript from the public meeting, 

available for inspection at the U.S. 

Department of Energy, Resource Room 

of the Building Technologies Program, 

950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, 

DC 20024, (202) 586–2945, between 

9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. Any 

person may buy a copy of the transcript 

from the transcribing reporter. 

A. Submission of Comments 

DOE began accepting comments, data, 

and information regarding the proposed 

rule at the public meeting, and will 

continue to accept comments until no 

later than the date provided at the 

beginning of this notice of proposed 

rulemaking. Information submitted 

should be identified by docket number 

EE–2006–STD–0131 and/or RIN 1904– 

AA92. Comments, data, and information 

submitted to DOE’s e-mail address for 

this rulemaking should be provided in 

WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or 

text (ASCII) file format. Stakeholders 

should avoid the use of special 

characters or any form of encryption 

and, wherever possible, comments 

should carry the electronic signature of 

the author. Comments, data, and 

information submitted to DOE via mail 

or hand delivery/courier should include 

one signed paper original. No 

telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit two copies: one copy of 

the document including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document with the 

information believed to be confidential 

deleted. 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. 

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

DOE is particularly interested in 

receiving comments and views of 

interested parties concerning: 

(1) The scope of covered products 

DOE considered in this rulemaking— 

specifically, DOE’s decision to cover 4- 

foot T5 miniature bipin SO and 4-foot 

T5 miniature bipin HO lamps; 

(2) DOE’s decision to amend the 

definition of ‘‘colored fluorescent lamp’’ 

to exclude lamps with a CCT greater 

than 7,000K; 

(3) The appropriateness of 

establishing separate product classes for 

IRL by lamp diameter and rated lamp 

voltage; 

(4) The appropriateness of 

establishing separate product classes for 

4-foot T5 miniature bipin SO and 4-foot 

T5 miniature bipin HO lamps; 

(5) The added 4-foot MBP residential 

sector engineering analysis, particularly 

the choice of the baseline system (lamp 

and ballast); 

(6) The performance characteristics 

(e.g., lumen output, lifetime, wattage) 

established for both GSFL and IRL 

model lamps DOE used in the 

engineering analysis—specifically, the 

properties of the T5 halophosphor GSFL 

baseline lamps and the improved 

halogen IRL that uses xenon as a fill gas 

(the lamp established for TSL1); 

(7) The efficacy levels DOE 

considered for IRL, in particular the 

added EL1 and EL5; 

(8) The efficacy levels DOE used for 

each GSFL product class—particularly, 

DOE’s decision to use compliance report 

data to establish GSFL efficacy levels; 

(9) The methodology DOE used to 

scale efficacy levels from representative 

product classes to product classes DOE 

did not analyze (i.e., 2-foot U-shaped 

lamps and high CCT lamps for GSFL, 

modified spectrum lamps, lamps with 

diameters less than or equal to 2.5 

inches, lamps with rated voltage greater 

than 125V); 

(10) The choice of ballast lifetimes 

DOE used in the commercial, 

residential, and industrial sectors and 

operating hours for GSFL in the 

residential sector; 

(11) The growth rates DOE used in the 

residential sector IRL and GSFL 

shipments analysis, the market 

penetration of emerging technologies in 

the IRL and GSFL shipments analysis, 

and the T5 lamp shipment forecasts; 

(12) Base-case market-share matrices 

and standards-case market-share 

matrices for IRL and GSFL—particularly 

the percentage of GSFL consumers with 

sufficient lighting expertise (i.e., those 

consumers who will choose a lower-BF 

ballast or reduced-wattage lamp to 

maintain lumen output under 

standards) by market segment; 

(13) The methodology and inputs 

DOE used for the manufacturer impact 

analysis—specifically, DOE’s 

assumptions regarding markups, capital 

costs, conversion costs, and stranded 

assets; 

(14) The determination of the 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

rule—specifically, methods for valuing 

the CO2, NOX, SOX, and Hg emissions 

savings due to the proposed standards; 

(15) The appropriateness of trial 

standard levels DOE considered for 

GSFL and IRL, in particular the 

combinations of efficacy levels of each 

GSFL product class; 

(16) The proposed standard levels for 

GSFL and IRL; 

(17) Alternative scenarios for GSFL 

standards that could achieve greater 

energy savings. One example may be for 

DOE to adopt a more stringent standard 

level in the final rule that would 

eliminate T12 lamps, as described in 

17026 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

relation to TSL4 and TSL5. Another 

example may be for DOE to adopt a 

more stringent standard level in the 

final rule that, similar to TSL4 and 

TSL5, would eliminate T12 lamps, but 

allow an extended lead time before 

compliance would be required. A third 

example may be for DOE to adopt a 

more stringent standard level, while 

continuing to allow the sale of specially 

packaged or labeled T12 lamps in the 

residential sector only. 

(18) Other technology pathways that 

may be utilized to meet IRL TSL5, 

whether these pathways may have any 

adverse effects on consumer utility or 

the ability for the product to be massproduced, manufacturer costs associated 

with these pathways, and resulting 

consumer product prices for lamps that 

meet this standard level. 

IX. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Intergovernmental relations, Small 

businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC on March 23, 

2009. 

Steven G. Chalk, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE proposes to amend 

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. Section 430.2 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘colored 

fluorescent lamp,’’ ‘‘fluorescent lamp,’’ 

and ‘‘rated wattage’’ to read as follows: 

§ 430.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Colored fluorescent lamp means: 

(1) A fluorescent lamp designated and 

marketed as a colored lamp with a CRI 

less than 40, as determined according to 

the method given in CIE Publication 

13.2 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 430.3); 

(2) A fluorescent lamp designed and 

marketed as a colored lamp with a 

correlated color temperature (CCT) less 

than 2,500K; or 

(3) A fluorescent lamp with a CCT 

greater than 7,000K. 

* * * * * 

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 

52 or more; 

(5) Any straight-shaped lamp 

(commonly referred to as 4-foot 

miniature bipin standard output lamps) 

with miniature bipin bases of nominal 

length between 45 and 48 inches and 

rated wattage of 26 or more; and 

(6) Any straight-shaped lamp 

(commonly referred to 4-foot miniature 

bipin high output lamps) with miniature 

bipin bases of nominal length between 

45 and 48 inches and rated wattage of 

51 or more. 

* * * * * 

Rated wattage, with respect to general 

service fluorescent lamps, means: 

(1) If the lamp is listed in ANSI 

C78.81–2005 or ANSI C78.901–2005, 

the rated wattage of a lamp determined 

by the lamp designation of Clause 11.1 

of ANSI C78.81–2005 or ANSI C78.901– 

2005; 

(2) If the lamp is a residential straightshaped lamp, and not listed in ANSI 

C78.81–2005, the wattage of a lamp 

when operated on a reference ballast for 

which the lamp is designed; 

(3) If the lamp is neither listed in one 

of the ANSI guides referenced in (1) nor 

a residential straight-shaped lamp, the 

wattage of a lamp when measured 

according to the test procedures 

outlined in Appendix R to subpart B of 

this part; or 

(4) With respect to general service 

incandescent lamps and incandescent 

reflector lamps, the wattage measured 

according to the test procedures 

outlined in Appendix R to subpart B of 

this part. 

* * * * * 

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) 

and (n)(3) 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 ...................................................................................... > 35W 69 75.0 Nov. 1, 1995 

≤ 35W 45 75.0 Nov. 1, 1995. 

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

≤ 35W 45 64.0 Nov. 1, 1995. 

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

≤ 65W 45 80.0 May 1, 1994. 

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

≤ 100W 45 80.0 May 1, 1994. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 17027 

(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 C78.1–1978 or related 

supplements, or not 0.800 nominal 

amperes; or 

(iii) Any 8-foot slimline lamp not 

defined in ANSI C78.3–1978 (R1984) or 

related supplement ANSI C78.3a–1985. 

(3) Each of the following general 

service fluorescent lamps manufactured 

after June 30, 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 84 

> 4,500K 78 

2-foot U-shaped ....................................................................................................................................................... ≤ 4,500K 78 

> 4,500K 73 

8-foot slimline ........................................................................................................................................................... ≤ 4,500K 95 

> 4,500K 91 

8-foot high output ..................................................................................................................................................... ≤ 4,500K 88 

> 4,500K 84 

4-foot miniature bipin standard output ..................................................................................................................... ≤ 4,500K 103 

> 4,500K 97 

4-foot miniature bipin high output ............................................................................................................................ ≤ 4,500K 89 

> 4,500K 85 

(4) Except as provided in paragraph 

(n)(5) 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 

Nominal lamp wattage 

Minimum average 

lamp efficacy 

(lm/W) 

156–205 .......................... 15.0 

(5) Each of the following incandescent 

reflector lamps manufactured after June 

30, 2012, shall meet or exceed the lamp 

efficacy standards shown in the table: 

Lamp spectrum Lamp diameter Rated voltage 

Minimum 

average lamp 

efficacy 

(lm/W) 

Standard Spectrum ...................................................................................................................... > 2.5′′ ≥ 125V 7.1P0.27

< 125V 6.2P0.27

≤ 2.5′′ ≥ 125V 6.3P0.27

< 125V 5.5P0.27

Modified Spectrum ....................................................................................................................... > 2.5′′ ≥ 125V 5.8P0.27

< 125V 5.0P0.27

≤ 2.5′′ ≥ 125V 5.1P0.27

< 125V 4.4P0.27

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

(6)(i)(A) Subject to the exclusions in 

paragraph (6)(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 (6)(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. E9–7634 Filed 4–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P