Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 32329 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[EERE–2019–BT–STD–0030] 

RIN 1904–AE40 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for General 

Service Fluorescent Lamps 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed 

determination and request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’), prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various 

consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including general service fluorescent 

lamps (‘‘GSFLs’’). EPCA also requires 

the U.S. Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) 

to periodically determine whether morestringent, amended standards would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would result 

in significant energy savings. In this 

notice of proposed determination 

(‘‘NOPD’’), DOE has initially determined 

that amended energy conservation 

standards for GSFLs do not need to be 

amended and requests comment on this 

proposed determination and the 

associated analyses and results. 

DATES: 

Meeting: DOE will hold a webinar on 

Monday, July 11, 2022, from 1:00 p.m. 

to 4:00 p.m. See section VII, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for webinar registration 

information, participant instructions, 

and information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. 

Comments: Written comments and 

information are requested and will be 

accepted on or before August 1, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov, under docket 

number EERE–2019–BT–STD–0030. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. Alternatively, comments 

may be submitted by email to: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. Include docket number 

EERE–2019–BT–STD–0030 in the 

subject line of the message. 

No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

VII of this document. 

Although DOE has routinely accepted 

public comment submissions through a 

variety of mechanisms, including the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal, email, 

postal mail and hand delivery/courier, 

the Department has found it necessary 

to make temporary modifications to the 

comment submission process in light of 

the ongoing coronavirus 2019 (‘‘COVID– 

19’’) pandemic. DOE is currently 

suspending receipt of public comments 

via postal mail and hand delivery/ 

courier. If a commenter finds that this 

change poses an undue hardship, please 

contact Appliance Standards Program 

staff at (202) 586–1445 to discuss the 

need for alternative arrangements. Once 

the COVID–19 pandemic health 

emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates 

resuming all of its regular options for 

public comment submission, including 

postal mail and hand delivery/courier. 

Docket: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

However, not all documents listed in 

the index may be publicly available, 

such as information that is exempt from 

public disclosure. 

The docket web page can be found at 

www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2019-BT-STD0030. The docket web page contains 

instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. See section VII, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for further information 

on how to submit comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dr. Stephanie Johnson, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Building Technologies Office, EE–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1943. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–6122. Email: 

Celia.Sher@hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment or review other 

public comments and the docket contact 

the Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program staff at (202) 287– 

1445 or by email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. History of Standards Rulemakings for 

GSFLs 

C. Deviation from Appendix A 

III. General Discussion 

A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage 

B. Test Procedure 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

D. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

2. Significance of Savings 

E. Cost Effectiveness 

F. Further Considerations 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related 

Comments 

A. Overall 

B. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. Scope of Coverage 

2. Technology Options 

3. Screening Analysis 

a. Screened-Out Technologies 

b. Remaining Technologies 

4. Product Classes 

a. Existing Product Classes 

b. Summary 

C. Engineering Analysis 

1. Efficiency Analysis 

a. Representative Product Classes 

b. Baseline Lamps 

c. More Efficacious Substitutes 

d. Efficacy Levels 

e. Lamp-and-Ballast Systems 

f. Scaling to Other Product Classes 

2. Cost Analysis 

D. Energy Use Analysis 

E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

F. Shipments Analysis 

G. National Energy Savings 

1. Product Efficiency Trends 

2. National Energy Savings 

3. Net Present Value Analysis 

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

A. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

B. National Impact Analysis 

1. Significance of Energy Savings 

2. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

C. Proposed Determination 

1. Technological Feasibility 

2. Cost Effectiveness 

3. Significant Conservation of Energy 

4. Further Considerations 

5. Summary 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32330 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

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

2All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy Act 

of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which 

reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 

Parts A and A–1 of EPCA. 

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 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed 

Determination 

Title III, Part B1 of EPCA,2 established 

the Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309) 

These products include GSFLs, the 

subject of this NOPD. 

DOE is issuing this NOPD pursuant to 

the EPCA requirement that not later 

than 6 years after issuance of any final 

rule establishing or amending a 

standard, DOE must publish either a 

notification of determination that 

standards for the product do not need to 

be amended, or a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) including new 

proposed energy conservation standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) 

For this proposed determination, DOE 

analyzed GSFLs subject to standards 

specified in 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) part 430, subpart 

A, § 430.2. 

DOE first analyzed the technological 

feasibility of more energy efficient 

GSFLs. For those GSFLs for which DOE 

determined higher standards to be 

technologically feasible, DOE estimated 

energy savings that would result from 

potential energy conservation standards 

by conducting a national impact 

analysis (‘‘NIA’’). DOE evaluated 

whether higher standards would be cost 

effective by conducting life-cycle cost 

(‘‘LCC’’) and payback period (‘‘PBP’’) 

analyses, and estimated the net present 

value (‘‘NPV’’) of the total costs and 

benefits experienced by consumers. 

Based on the results of the analyses, 

summarized in section V of this 

document, DOE has tentatively 

determined that current standards for 

GSFLs do not need to be amended. 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying this proposed determination, 

as well as some of the historical 

background relevant to the 

establishment of standards for GSFLs. 

A. Authority 

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the 

energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of 

EPCA established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products Other Than Automobiles. 

These products include GSFLs, the 

subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 

6292(a)(14)) EPCA prescribed energy 

conservation standards for these 

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

directs DOE to conduct future 

rulemaking to determine whether to 

amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(i)(3)–(5)) 

The energy conservation program 

under EPCA consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the 

establishment of Federal energy 

conservation standards, and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. Relevant provisions of 

EPCA specifically include definitions 

(42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 

U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 

U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation 

standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the 

authority to require information and 

reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 

6296). 

Subject to certain criteria and 

conditions, DOE is required to develop 

test procedures to measure the energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of each covered 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 

U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of 

covered products must use the 

prescribed DOE test procedure as the 

basis for certifying to DOE that their 

products comply with the applicable 

energy conservation standards adopted 

under EPCA and when making 

representations to the public regarding 

the energy use or efficiency of those 

products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 42 

U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use 

these test procedures to determine 

whether the products comply with 

standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test 

procedures for GSFLs appear at 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart B, appendix R. 

Federal energy conservation 

requirements generally supersede State 

laws or regulations concerning energy 

conservation testing, labeling, and 

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

may, however, grant waivers of Federal 

preemption for particular State laws or 

regulations, in accordance with the 

procedures and other provisions set 

forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 

6297(d)) 

Pursuant to the amendments 

contained in the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 (‘‘EISA 2007’’), 

Public Law 110–140, any final rule for 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards promulgated after July 1, 

2010, is required to address standby 

mode and off mode energy use. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when 

DOE adopts a standard for a covered 

product after that date, it must, if 

justified by the criteria for adoption of 

standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and 

off mode energy use into a single 

standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt 

a separate standard for such energy use 

for that product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(3)(A)–(B)) DOE has determined 

that standby mode and off mode do not 

apply to GSFLs and that their energy 

use is accounted for entirely in the 

active mode. Therefore, DOE is not 

addressing standby and off modes, and 

will only address active mode in this 

proposed determination. In this analysis 

DOE considers only active mode in its 

determination of whether energy 

conservation standards need to be 

amended. 

DOE must periodically review its 

already established energy conservation 

standards for a covered product no later 

than 6 years from the issuance of a final 

rule establishing or amending a 

standard for a covered product. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(m)) This 6-year look-back 

provision requires that DOE publish 

either a determination that standards do 

not need to be amended or a NOPR, 

including new proposed standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) 

EPCA further provides that, not later 

than 3 years after the issuance of a final 

determination not to amend standards, 

DOE must publish either a notification 

of determination that standards for the 

product do not need to be amended, or 

a NOPR including new proposed energy 

conservation standards (proceeding to a 

final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(3)(B)) DOE must make the 

analysis on which a determination is 

based publicly available and provide an 

opportunity for written comment. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(m)(2)) 

A determination that amended 

standards are not needed must be based 

on consideration of whether amended 

standards will result in significant 

conservation of energy, are 

technologically feasible, and are cost 

effective. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 

42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) Additionally, any 

new or amended energy conservation 

standard prescribed by the Secretary for 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 32331 

any type (or class) of covered product 

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)) Among the factors DOE 

considers in evaluating whether a 

proposed standard level is economically 

justified includes whether the proposed 

standard at that level is cost effective, as 

defined under 42 U.S.C. 

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

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), an evaluation of cost 

effectiveness requires DOE to consider 

savings in operating costs throughout 

the estimated average life of the covered 

products in the type (or class) compared 

to any increase in the price, initial 

charges, or maintenance expenses for 

the covered products that are likely to 

result from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(n)(2) and 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE is publishing 

this NOPD in satisfaction of the 6-year 

review requirement in EPCA. 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

In a final rule published on January 

26, 2015, DOE prescribed the current 

energy conservation standards for 

GSFLs. 80 FR 4042 (‘‘January 2015 final 

rule’’). These standards are set forth in 

DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(n) 

and repeated in Table II.1. 

TABLE II.1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR GSFLS

Lamp type Correlated color temperature 

Minimum 

average lamp 

efficacy 

lumens per 

watt 

(‘‘lm/W’’) 

Four-Foot Medium Bipin (‘‘MBP’’) .............................................. ≤4,500 Kelvin (‘‘K’’) ..................................................................... 92.4 

>4,500 K and ≤7,000 K .............................................................. 88.7.

Two-Foot U-Shaped ................................................................... ≤4,500 K ..................................................................................... 85.0 

>4,500 K and ≤7,000 K .............................................................. 83.3.

Eight-Foot Single Pin (‘‘SP’’) Slimline ........................................ ≤4,500 K ..................................................................................... 97.0 

>4,500 K and ≤7,000 K .............................................................. 93.0.

Eight-Foot Recessed Double Contact (‘‘RDC’’) High Output ..... ≤4,500 K ..................................................................................... 92.0 

>4,500 K and ≤7,000 K .............................................................. 88.0.

Four-Foot Miniature Bipin Standard Output ............................... ≤4,500 K ..................................................................................... 95.0 

>4,500 K and ≤7,000 K .............................................................. 89.3.

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

>4,500 K and ≤7,000 K .............................................................. 76.9.

2. History of Standards Rulemakings for 

GSFLs 

Amendments to EPCA in the Energy 

Policy Act of 1992 (‘‘EPAct 1992’’; Pub. 

L. 102–486), established energy 

conservation standards for certain 

classes of GSFLs and incandescent 

reflector lamps (‘‘IRLs’’), and authorized 

DOE to conduct two rulemaking cycles 

to determine whether these standards 

should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(i)(1) and (3)–(4)) EPCA also 

authorized DOE to adopt standards for 

additional GSFLs, if such standards 

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

DOE completed the first of these 

rulemaking cycles in a final rule 

published on July 14, 2009, that adopted 

amended performance standards for 

GSFLs and IRLs manufactured on or 

after July 14, 2012. 74 FR 34080. That 

rule adopted standards for additional 

GSFLs, amended the definition of 

‘‘colored fluorescent lamp’’ and ‘‘rated 

wattage,’’ and also adopted test 

procedures applicable to the newly 

covered GSFLs. Id. DOE completed a 

second rulemaking cycle to amend the 

standards for GSFLs and IRLs by 

publishing a final rule on January 26, 

2015. 80 FR 4042. In this rule DOE 

amended standards for GSFLs; and 

concluded that amending standards for 

IRLs would not be economically 

justified. Id. The current energy 

conservation standards for GSFLs are 

located in 10 CFR 430.32(n). The 

currently applicable DOE test 

procedures appear at 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix R. 

In support of the present review of the 

GSFL energy conservation standards, 

DOE published a request for information 

(‘‘RFI’’), which identified various issues 

on which DOE sought comment to 

inform its determination of whether 

amended standards for GSFLs and IRLs 

are warranted. 85 FR 25326 (‘‘May 2020 

RFI’’). 

Subsequently, on May 9, 2022, DOE 

published a final rule expanding the 

definition of general service lamp 

(‘‘GSL’’) to include IRLs. 87 FR 27461 

May 2022 Final Rule. On that same day, 

DOE also published a final rule 

implementing a statutory backstop 

requirement applicable to GSLs which 

prohibits the sale of any GSL that is less 

than 45 lm/W. 87 FR 27439. Because 

IRLs, a newly covered GSL, cannot meet 

the 45 lm/W backstop requirement, DOE 

is no longer evaluating amended 

standards for IRLs and is only 

considering GSFLs in this NOPD. 

DOE received comments in response 

to the May 2020 RFI from the interested 

parties listed in Table II.2. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32332 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

3The parenthetical reference provides a reference 

for information located in the docket. (Docket No. 

EERE–2019–BT–STD–0030, which is maintained at 

www.regulations.gov/). The references are arranged 

as follows: (Commenter name, comment docket ID 

number at page of that document). 

TABLE II.2—WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE MAY 2020 RFI 

Commenter(s) Reference in this NOPD Commenter type 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Consumer Federation of America, National 

Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.

ASAP et al ..................................... Efficiency Organizations 

Attorneys General ................................................................................... Attorneys General .......................... State Official/Agency 

California Energy Commission ................................................................ CEC ............................................... State Official/Agency 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison.CA IOUs ........................................ Utilities 

Consumer Federation of America, Environment America, National 

Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra 

Club, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Earthjustice.

CFA et al ....................................... Consumer Advocacy Organizations 

Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law ................................. IPI .................................................. Think Tank 

National Electrical Manufacturers Association ........................................ NEMA ............................................ Trade Association 

A parenthetical reference at the end of 

a comment quotation or paraphrase 

provides the location of the item in the 

public record.3

C. Deviation From Appendix A 

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 

CFR part 430 subpart C, appendix A 

(‘‘appendix A’’), DOE notes that it is 

deviating from the provision in 

appendix A regarding the comment 

period for a notice of proposed 

rulemaking. Section 6(f)(2) of appendix 

A specifies that the length of the public 

comment period for a NOPR will not be 

less than 75 days. For this proposed 

determination, DOE has opted to instead 

provide a 60-day comment period. As 

stated previously, DOE requested 

comment in the May 2020 RFI on the 

technical and economic analyses that 

would be used to determine whether a 

more stringent standard would result in 

significant conservation of energy and is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. DOE has 

determined that a 60-day comment 

period, in conjunction with the prior 

May 2020 RFI, provides sufficient time 

for interested parties to review the 

proposed rule and develop comments. 

III. General Discussion 

DOE developed this proposed 

determination after considering 

comments, data, and information from 

interested parties that represent a 

variety of interests. This notice 

addresses issues raised by these 

commenters. 

A. Product Classes and Scope of 

Coverage 

When evaluating and establishing 

energy conservation standards, DOE 

divides covered products into product 

classes by the type of energy used or by 

capacity or other performance-related 

features that justify differing standards. 

In making a determination whether a 

performance-related feature justifies a 

different standard, DOE must consider 

such factors as the utility of the feature 

to the consumer and other factors DOE 

determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)) The product classes for this 

proposed determination are discussed 

in further detail in section IV.B.4 of this 

document. This proposed determination 

covers GSFLs defined as any fluorescent 

lamp which can be used to satisfy the 

majority of fluorescent lighting 

applications, but does not include any 

lamp designed and marketed for the 

following nongeneral application: (1) 

Fluorescent lamps designed to promote 

plant growth; (2) Fluorescent lamps 

specifically designed for cold 

temperature applications; (3) Colored 

fluorescent lamps; (4) Impact-resistant 

fluorescent lamps; (5) Reflectorized or 

aperture lamps; (6) Fluorescent lamps 

designed for use in reprographic 

equipment; (7) Lamps primarily 

designed to produce radiation in the 

ultra-violet region of the spectrum; and 

(8) Lamps with a Color Rendering Index 

of 87 or greater. 10 CFR 430.2. The 

scope of coverage is discussed in further 

detail in section IV.B.1 of this 

document. 

B. Test Procedure 

EPCA sets forth generally applicable 

criteria and procedures for DOE’s 

adoption and amendment of test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293) 

Manufacturers of covered products must 

use these test procedures to certify to 

DOE that their product complies with 

energy conservation standards and to 

quantify the efficiency of their product. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(s) and 42 U.S.C. 

6293(c)). DOE’s current energy 

conservation standards for GSFLs are 

expressed in terms of lumens per watt 

(‘‘lm/W’’). (See 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B, appendix R) 

On July 6, 2009, DOE published a 

final rule that updated citations to 

industry standards and made several 

other modifications to the GSFL test 

procedure. 74 FR 31829. DOE further 

amended the test procedures to update 

references to industry standards for 

GSFLs in a final rule published on 

January 27, 2012. 77 FR 4203. On 

August 8, 2017, DOE published a RFI 

seeking comments on the current test 

procedures for GSFLs, IRLs, and general 

service incandescent lamps (‘‘GSILs’’). 

82 FR 37031. On June 3, 2021, DOE 

published a NOPR proposing 

amendments to DOE’s GSFL, IRL and 

GSIL test procedures. 86 FR 29888. 

(‘‘June 2021 NOPR’’) With regards to 

GSFLs, in the June 2021 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to update to the latest versions 

of the referenced industry test standards 

and provide cites to specific sections of 

these standards; clarify definitions, test 

conditions and methods, and 

measurement procedures; clarify test 

frequency and inclusion of cathode 

power in measurements; allow 

manufacturers to make voluntary 

(optional) representations of GSFLs at 

high frequency settings; revise the 

sampling requirements; and align 

sampling and certification requirements 

with proposed test procedure 

terminology and with the Federal Trade 

Commission’s labeling program. 86 FR 

29888. DOE continues to review 

comments received in response to the 

June 2021 NOPR. 

The current test procedures for GSFLs 

are codified in appendix R to subpart B 

of 10 CFR part 430. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 32333 

4A model coded in the Python programming 

language to estimate lamp purchases, energy 

consumption, and national energy savings. 5The FFC metric is discussed in DOE’s statement 

of policy and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 

51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 

(Aug. 17, 2012). 

6See Executive Order 14008, 86 FR 7619 (Feb. 1, 

2021) (‘‘Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and 

Abroad’’). 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

In evaluating potential amendments 

to energy conservation standards, DOE 

conducts a screening analysis based on 

information gathered on all current 

technology options and prototype 

designs that could improve the 

efficiency of the products or equipment 

that are the subject of the determination. 

As the first step in such an analysis, 

DOE develops a list of technology 

options for consideration in 

consultation with manufacturers, design 

engineers, and other interested parties. 

DOE then determines which of those 

means for improving efficiency are 

technologically feasible. DOE considers 

technologies incorporated in 

commercially available products or in 

working prototypes to be 

technologically feasible. Sections 

6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A. 

After DOE has determined that 

particular technology options are 

technologically feasible, it further 

evaluates each technology option in 

light of the following additional 

screening criteria: (1) Practicability to 

manufacture, install, and service; (2) 

adverse impacts on product utility or 

availability; (3) adverse impacts on 

health or safety; and (4) unique-pathway 

proprietary technologies. Sections 

6(b)(3)(ii)–(v) and 7(b)(2)–(5) of 

appendix A. Section IV.B.3 of this 

document discusses the results of the 

screening analysis for GSFLs, 

particularly the designs DOE 

considered, those it screened out, and 

those that are the basis for the standards 

considered in this proposed 

determination. For further details on the 

screening analysis for this proposed 

determination, see chapter 4 of the 

NOPD technical support document 

(‘‘TSD’’). 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

As when DOE proposes to adopt an 

amended standard for a type or class of 

covered GSFLs, in this analysis it must 

determine the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency or maximum 

reduction in energy use that is 

technologically feasible for such a 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) 

Accordingly, in the engineering 

analysis, DOE determined the maximum 

technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) 

improvements in energy efficiency for 

GSFLs, using the design parameters for 

the most efficient products available on 

the market or in working prototypes. 

The max-tech levels that DOE 

determined for this analysis are 

described in section IV.C of this 

proposed determination and in chapter 

5 of the NOPD TSD. 

D. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

For each efficiency level (‘‘EL’’) 

evaluated, DOE projected energy savings 

from application of the EL to the GSFLs 

purchased in the 30-year period that 

begins in the assumed year of 

compliance with the potential standards 

(2026–2055). The savings are measured 

over the entire lifetime of the GSFLs 

purchased in the previous 30-year 

period. In order to account for wider 

market dynamics, DOE also modeled the 

purchases and energy consumption of 

tubular LEDs (‘‘TLEDs’’) over the same 

period that would compete for GSFL 

demand. DOE quantified the energy 

savings attributable to each EL as the 

difference in energy consumption of 

both GSFLs and TLEDs between each 

standards case and the no-newstandards case. The no-new-standards 

case represents a projection of energy 

consumption that reflects how the 

market for a product would likely 

evolve in the absence of amended 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

used its NIA spreadsheet model 4 to 

estimate national energy savings 

(‘‘NES’’) from potential amended or new 

standards for GSFLs. The NIA 

spreadsheet model (described in section 

IV.G of this document) calculates energy 

savings in terms of site energy, which is 

the energy directly consumed by 

products at the locations where they are 

used. For electricity, DOE reports NES 

in terms of primary energy savings, 

which is the savings in the energy that 

is used to generate and transmit the site 

electricity. DOE also calculates NES in 

terms of full-fuel-cycle (‘‘FFC’’) energy 

savings. The FFC metric includes the 

energy consumed in extracting, 

processing, and transporting primary 

fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum 

fuels), and thus presents a more 

complete picture of the impacts of 

energy conservation standards.5 DOE’s 

approach is based on the calculation of 

an FFC multiplier for each of the energy 

types used by covered products or 

equipment. For more information on 

FFC energy savings, see section IV.G of 

this document. 

2. Significance of Savings 

In determining whether amended 

standards are needed, DOE must 

consider whether such standards will 

result in significant conservation of 

energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A)) The 

significance of energy savings offered by 

a new or amended energy conservation 

standard cannot be determined without 

knowledge of the specific circumstances 

surrounding a given rulemaking. For 

example, the United States has now 

rejoined the Paris Agreement on 

February 19, 2021. As part of that 

agreement, the United States has 

committed to reducing GHG emissions 

in order to limit the rise in mean global 

temperature.6 As such, energy savings 

that reduce GHG emission have taken 

on greater importance. Additionally, 

some covered products and equipment 

have most of their energy consumption 

occur during periods of peak energy 

demand. The impacts of these products 

on the energy infrastructure can be more 

pronounced than products with 

relatively constant demand. In 

evaluating the significance of energy 

savings, DOE considers differences in 

primary energy and FFC effects for 

different covered products and 

equipment when determining whether 

energy savings are significant. Primary 

energy and FFC effects include the 

energy consumed in electricity 

production (depending on load shape), 

in distribution and transmission, and in 

extracting, processing, and transporting 

primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, 

petroleum fuels), and thus present a 

more complete picture of the impacts of 

energy conservation standards. 

Accordingly, DOE evaluates the 

significance of energy savings on a caseby-case basis. 

E. Cost Effectiveness 

Under EPCA’s six-year-lookback 

review provision for existing energy 

conservation standards at 42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(1), cost-effectiveness of 

potential amended standards is a 

relevant consideration both where DOE 

proposes to adopt such standards, as 

well as where it does not. In considering 

cost-effectiveness when making a 

determination of whether amended 

energy conservation standards do not 

need to be amended, DOE considers the 

savings in operating costs throughout 

the estimated average life of the covered 

product compared to any increase in the 

price of, or in the initial charges for, or 

maintenance expenses of, the covered 

product that are likely to result from a 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) 

(referencing 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2))) 

Additionally, any new or amended 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32334 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

energy conservation standard prescribed 

by the Secretary for any type (or class) 

of covered product 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) Cost-effectiveness is one of 

the factors that DOE considers under 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B) in determining 

whether new or amended standards are 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II))) 

In determining cost effectiveness of 

amending standards for GSFLs, DOE 

conducted LCC and PBP analyses that 

estimate the costs and benefits to users 

from standards. To further inform DOE’s 

consideration of the cost effectiveness of 

amended standards, DOE considers the 

NPV of total costs and benefits 

estimated as part of the NIA. The inputs 

for determining the NPV of the total 

costs and benefits experienced by 

consumers are (1) total annual installed 

cost, (2) total annual operating costs 

(energy costs and repair and 

maintenance costs), and (3) a discount 

factor to calculate the present value of 

costs and savings. 

F. Further Considerations 

Pursuant to EPCA, absent DOE 

publishing a notification of 

determination that energy conservation 

standards for GSFLs do not need to be 

amended, DOE must issue a NOPR that 

includes new proposed standards. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B)). The new 

proposed standards in any such NOPR 

must be based on the criteria established 

under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and follow the 

procedures established under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(p). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B)). The 

criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) require that 

standards 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)). In deciding whether a 

proposed standard is economically 

justified, DOE must determine whether 

the benefits of the standard exceed its 

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

DOE must make this determination after 

receiving comments on the proposed 

standard, and by considering, to the 

greatest extent practicable, the following 

seven statutory factors: 

(1) The economic impact of the 

standard on manufacturers and 

consumers of the products subject to the 

standard; 

(2) The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the covered products in the type (or 

class) compared to any increase in the 

price, initial charges for, or maintenance 

expenses of the covered products that 

are likely to result from the standard; 

(3) The total projected amount of 

energy (or as applicable, water) savings 

likely to result directly from the 

standard; 

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered products 

likely to result from 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 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)(I)–(VII)) 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of 

Related Comments 

This section addresses the analyses 

DOE has performed for this proposed 

determination with regard to GSFLs. 

Separate subsections address each 

component of DOE’s analyses. DOE 

used several analytical tools to estimate 

the impact of potential energy 

conservation standards. The first tool is 

a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC 

savings and PBP of potential energy 

conservation standards. The NIA uses a 

second spreadsheet set that provides 

shipments projections, and calculates 

NES and net present value of total 

consumer costs and savings expected to 

result from potential energy 

conservation standards. These 

spreadsheet tools are available on the 

website: www.regulations.gov/ 

docket?D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0030. 

A. Overall 

DOE received several comments from 

stakeholders in response to the May 

2020 RFI regarding whether DOE should 

amend standards for GSFLs. NEMA 

stated that sales of GSFLs have been in 

a decline which is expected to continue 

as light-emitting diode (‘‘LED’’) 

replacement products (including 

integrated LED fixtures and LED 

replacement lamps) continue to replace 

GSFLs through naturally occurring 

market adoption without regulation. 

NEMA noted that based on the current 

rate of market decline, there is very 

limited, meaningful energy savings that 

can be economically justified through 

revised energy conservation standards 

for GSFLs. (NEMA, No. 6 at p. 2) 

NEMA also stated that slightly 

increasing the efficacy of fluorescent 

lamps will not achieve the desired 

energy savings DOE seeks and will only 

make lighted areas brighter. NEMA 

notes that because new construction and 

renovations are shifting to costcompetitive LED lighting, DOE’s 

calculations in the previous rulemaking 

that show brighter fluorescent lamps 

will allow for fewer lamps, fixtures, and 

ballasts, are no longer realistic. As a 

result, NEMA notes that fluorescent 

lamps would not be used in fewer 

numbers and will still be driven at the 

rated wattage of the ballasts in existing 

fixtures, using the same amount of 

energy. (NEMA, No. 6 at p. 2) 

CEC agreed with DOE’s findings in 

the May 2020 RFI that indicated that 

GSFLs on the market are more energy 

efficient than current federal standards. 

CEC noted that setting higher efficiency 

levels is cost effective and can be 

achieved using either fluorescent or LED 

lighting sources. Additionally, CEC 

pointed out that manufacturing costs 

and retail prices of TLED lamps are 

dropping while their market share is 

increasing and that this trend is 

expected to continue. CEC determined 

that more stringent standards will result 

in significant conservation of energy, are 

technologically feasible, and are cost 

effective. CEC asserted that DOE should 

increase the minimum energy efficiency 

of GSFLs and consider the technologyneutral utility of replacement lamps by 

including TLED lamps as a feasible 

replacement option in its cost analysis. 

(CEC, No. 9 at p. 3) 

ASAP et al. and CA IOUs noted that 

new GSFLs on the market that are 

currently certified in DOE’s compliance 

certification database are more energy 

efficient than current federal standards 

and asserted that DOE should conduct 

a full analysis to determine whether 

standards for GSFLs should be amended 

as the market for GSFLs has changed 

substantially since the last rulemaking. 

(ASAP et al., No. 5 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 

8 at p. 2) ASAP et al. added that the new 

GSFL standards that required 

compliance in 2018 eliminated many 

lamp options and forced manufacturers 

to overhaul their product offerings. As 

a result, TLEDs have seen an increase in 

market supply, at a reduced price. 

(ASAP et al., No. 5 at p. 2) ASAP et al. 

added that raising the existing standards 

for GSFLs will affect their prices, 

resulting in a market shift to LED 

technology. ASAP et al. urged DOE to 

consider the economic and energy 

saving impacts in its evaluation of 

higher standards. (ASAP et al., No. 5 at 

p. 5) 

As discussed in section II.A of this 

document, DOE is required to 

periodically review its already 

established energy conservation 

standards for a covered product no later 

than 6 years from the issuance of a final 

rule establishing or amending a 

standard for a covered product. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(m)) This proposed 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 32335 

7On January 19, 2017, DOE published two related 

final rules amending the definitions of GSL and 

GSIL by discontinuing certain exemptions for some 

lamps that Congress originally excluded from those 

definitions. 82 FR 7276; 82 FR 7322 (‘‘January 2017 

Final Rules’’). DOE subsequently issued a final rule 

withdrawing the January 2017 final rules. 84 FR 

46661, 46664 (Sep. 5, 2019). The May 2022 Final 

Rule discussed in section II.B.2 of this document 

reinstated the amendments to the definitions of GSL 

and GSIL in the January 2017 Final Rules. 87 FR 

27461. 

determination represents the mandatory 

6-year review of standards for GSFLs. 

DOE discusses the methodology used to 

analyze potential standards in the 

following subsections of this section IV 

and the results of the analysis in section 

V of this document. DOE discusses the 

tentative conclusion regarding amended 

standards for GSFLs in section V.C of 

this document. 

ASAP et al. highlighted two potential 

market failures that may hinder 

adoption of energy efficient products. 

One of the market failures was a lack of 

information about potential savings 

causing consumers to focus on lower 

first costs. The other market failure was 

a scenario where the entity making the 

purchase decision, such as the landlord, 

is not incentivized to purchase slightly 

more expensive energy efficient 

products over the lowest cost products. 

(ASAP et al., No. 5 at pp. 5–6) DOE 

appreciates the feedback regarding 

potential market failures in the context 

of amended energy conservation 

standards for GSFLs. More efficient 

substitutes for GSFLs and their 

associated product prices are discussed 

in section IV.C of this document. The 

shipments analysis and life-cycle cost 

analysis are discussed in sections IV.F 

and IV.E of this document. 

B. Market and Technology Assessment 

DOE develops information in the 

market and technology assessment that 

provides an overall picture of the 

market for the products concerned, 

including the purpose of the products, 

the industry structure, manufacturers, 

market characteristics, and technologies 

used in the products. This activity 

includes both quantitative and 

qualitative assessments, based primarily 

on publicly available information. The 

subjects addressed in the market and 

technology assessment for this proposed 

determination include (1) a 

determination of the scope and product 

classes, (2) manufacturers and industry 

structure, (3) existing efficiency 

programs, (4) shipments information, (5) 

market and industry trends, and (6) 

technologies or design options that 

could improve the energy efficiency of 

GSFLs. The key findings of DOE’s 

market assessment are summarized in 

the following sections. See chapter 3 of 

the NOPD TSD for a complete 

discussion of the market and technology 

assessment. 

1. Scope of Coverage 

In this analysis, DOE relied on the 

definition of fluorescent lamp and 

general service fluorescent lamp in 10 

CFR 430.2. A fluorescent lamp is 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 4-foot medium bipin 

lamp with a rated wattage of 25 or more; 

(2) any 2-foot U-shaped lamp with a 

rated wattage of 25 or more; (3) any 8- 

foot high output (‘‘HO’’) lamp; (4) any 

8-foot slimline lamp with a rated 

wattage of 49 or more; (5) any 4-foot 

miniature bipin (‘‘miniBP’’) standard 

output (‘‘SO’’) lamp with a rated wattage 

of 25 or more; and (6) any 4-foot 

miniature bipin high output (‘‘HO’’) 

lamp with a rated wattage of 44 or more. 

10 CFR 430.2. GSFL is defined as any 

fluorescent lamp which can be used to 

satisfy the majority of fluorescent 

lighting applications, but does not 

include any lamp designed and 

marketed for the following nongeneral 

application: (1) Fluorescent lamps 

designed to promote plant growth; (2) 

fluorescent lamps specifically designed 

for cold temperature applications; (3) 

colored fluorescent lamps; (4) impactresistant fluorescent lamps; (5) 

reflectorized or aperture lamps; (6) 

fluorescent lamps designed for use in 

reprographic equipment; (7) lamps 

primarily designed to produce radiation 

in the ultra-violet region of the 

spectrum; and (8) lamps with a color 

rendering index (‘‘CRI’’) of 87 or greater. 

10 CFR 430.2. Any product meeting the 

definition of GSFL is included in DOE’s 

scope of coverage, though all products 

within the scope of coverage may not be 

subject to standards. 

In response to the May 2020 RFI, DOE 

received several comments regarding 

extending coverage to currently exempt 

lamp types. ASAP et al., CA IOUs and 

CEC agreed that DOE should expand the 

GSFL definition to include impactresistant fluorescent lamps, lamps with 

a CRI of 87 or greater, and lamps less 

than 4-foot in length. ASAP et al., CA 

IOUs and CEC noted that excluding 

these lamp types from the current 

definition of GSFL has created a 

significant loophole in the GSFL 

standard resulting in increased sales of 

inefficient T12 lamps mainly comprised 

of impact-resistant fluorescent lamps 

and lamps with a CRI of 87 or greater. 

(ASAP et al., No. 5 at pp. 2–4; CA IOUs, 

No. 8 at pp. 2–3; CEC, No. 9 at pp. 1– 

2) NEMA stated that majority of the 

lamps with a CRI of 87 or greater are 4- 

foot T12 lamps and are mainly used in 

residential applications, while 8-foot 

T12 lamps are mainly deployed in 

commercial spaces. (NEMA, No. 6 at p. 

12) NEMA commented that DOE could 

consider including less than 4-foot 

fluorescent lamps in the scope, 

however, this lamp category exhibits 

significantly lower energy use per lamp 

relative to 4-foot linear fluorescent 

lamps. NEMA added that it is unaware 

of any new fluorescent lamp or 

incandescent reflector lamp products 

coming to the market. (NEMA, No. 6 at 

p. 3) 

Regarding exempt GSFLs, CEC 

supports two final rules DOE published 

on January 19, 2017, amending the 

definitions of GSL and GSIL 7, which 

included a revised definition for 

‘‘designed and marketed’’ that would 

require markings to be prominently 

displayed. CEC asserted that DOE 

should reinstate the revised definition 

for ‘‘designed and marketed’’ in its 

evaluation of standards for GSFLs. CEC 

noted that the reinstated definition 

would require exempt GSFLs to be 

designed and marketed for their 

specialty application, limiting their use 

in general lighting applications. (CEC, 

No. 9 at pp. 3–4) ASAP et al. added that 

if DOE decides to not set standards for 

impact-resistant fluorescent lamps, DOE 

should add a definition for these lamps 

to prevent potential loopholes. (ASAP et 

al., No. 5 at p. 5) 

Based on information collected during 

manufacturer interviews, DOE 

determined that less than 4-foot 

fluorescent lamps are a small portion of 

the market and are decreasing in 

shipments. Therefore, DOE tentatively 

determined that standards for less than 

4-foot lamps were unlikely to result in 

significant energy savings. Further, 

because these lamps are not regulated 

and yet are decreasing in shipments, 

DOE tentatively concluded that 

continuing to exclude these lamp types 

from the GSFL definition would likely 

not create a loophole in current 

standards for GSFLs. Regarding lamps 

with a CRI of 87 or greater and impactresistant fluorescent lamps, these are 

exemptions stated in the statutory 

definition of ‘‘general service 

fluorescent lamp’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6291(30)(B)) and it is not within the 

scope of DOE’s authority in this 

rulemaking to modify these exemptions 

for GSFLs. Given that EPCA’s statutory 

definition of ‘‘general service 

fluorescent lamp’’ contains a number of 

express exclusions for certain categories 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32336 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

of fluorescent lamps, DOE finds no basis 

in the language of EPCA to support 

assertions that the agency’s authority to 

act under section 325(i)(5) of EPCA is 

unlimited. DOE believes section 

325(i)(5) covers additional GSFL that 

are not one of the enumerated 

specialized products that EPCA 

excludes from coverage (See 42 U.S.C. 

6291(30)(B)). 73 FR 13620, 13629 (Mar. 

13, 2008). (emphasis added). For these 

reasons, and for the additional reasons 

set forth in the March 2008 ANOPR, 

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’’ . . . (2) can be used 

to satisfy the majority of fluorescent 

lighting applications . . . ; (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. 74 

FR 16920, 16926–16928 (emphasis 

added). 

ASAP et al. commented that DOE 

should consider adopting a technologyagnostic approach that groups together 

all products that provide the same 

general lighting service. ASAP et al. 

pointed out that TLEDs have gained 

market share at the expense of GSFLs 

over time and are marketed as suitable 

substitutes for GSFLs. ASAP et al. noted 

that DOE has the broad authority to 

cover electric lights (42 U.S.C. 

6311(2)(B)(v)) and any products that 

meet certain minimum consumption 

thresholds (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1)). (ASAP 

et al, No. 5 at p. 3) 

DOE agrees with ASAP et al. that 

TLEDs have gained market share at the 

expense of GSFLs over time and are 

marketed as suitable substitutes for 

GSFLs. However, this proposed 

determination addresses only GSFLs 

defined in 10 CFR 430.2. DOE is not 

authorized to consider any product not 

meeting this definition, such as TLEDs, 

as a part of this proposed determination. 

2. Technology Options 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE identified 

several technology options that would 

be expected to improve the efficiency 

(i.e., efficacy or lumens per watt) of 

GSFLs, as measured by the DOE test 

procedure. To develop a list of 

technology options, DOE reviewed 

manufacturer catalogs, recent trade 

publications, technical journals, and the 

January 2015 final rule. 

In response to the May 2020 RFI, 

ASAP et al. commented that lamps 

currently covered by standards include 

technology options that can be applied 

to the lamp types that can be added to 

scope, and DOE should evaluate these 

technology options for potential scope 

additions. (ASAP et al., No. 5 at p. 5) As 

discussed in section IV.B.1 of this 

NOPD, DOE has tentatively determined 

that modifications to the scope of lamps 

included as GSFLs are either not 

possible or not likely to result in 

significant energy savings. 

DOE conducted research for this 

NOPD to identify new technology 

options for GSFLs. DOE identified 

mercury isotopes as a technology option 

that can be implemented to improve the 

efficiency of GSFLs. Mercury used in 

GSFLs is composed of seven different 

isotopes, each having a distinct excited 

state that provides ultraviolet (‘‘UV’’) 

light. The abundance of these isotopes 

can be altered to optimize the amount 

of UV light emitted and increase the 

efficiency of the lamp. For more detail 

on this technology option see chapter 3 

of the NOPD TSD. In summary, for this 

analysis, DOE considers the technology 

options shown in Table IV.1 of this 

document. These options are the same 

ones presented in the May 2020 RFI 

with the addition of mercury isotopes. 

Detailed descriptions of these 

technology options can be found in 

chapter 3 of the NOPD TSD. 

TABLE IV.1—GSFL TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

Technology option Description 

Highly Emissive Electrode Coatings ........................................ Improved electrode coatings allow electrons to be more easily removed from 

electrodes, reducing lamp power and increasing overall efficacy. 

Higher Efficiency Lamp Fill Gas Composition ......................... Fill gas compositions improve cathode thermionic emission or increase mobility 

of ions and electrons in the lamp plasma. 

Higher Efficiency Phosphors .................................................... Phosphors increase the conversion of UV light into visible light. 

Glass Coatings ......................................................................... Coatings on inside of bulb enable the phosphors to absorb more UV energy, so 

that they emit more visible light. 

Higher Efficiency Lamp Diameter ............................................ Optimal lamp diameters improve lamp efficacy. 

Multi-Photon Phosphors ........................................................... Phosphors emit more than one visible photon for each incident UV photon. 

Mercury Isotopes ...................................................................... The abundance of mercury isotopes can be altered to optimize the amount of UV 

light emitted and increase the efficiency of the lamp. 

3. Screening Analysis 

DOE uses the following five screening 

criteria to determine which technology 

options are suitable for further 

consideration in an energy conservation 

standards rulemaking: 

(1) Technological feasibility. 

Technologies that are not incorporated 

in commercial products or in working 

prototypes will not be considered 

further. 

(2) Practicability to manufacture, 

install, and service. If it is determined 

that mass production and reliable 

installation and servicing of a 

technology in commercial products 

could not be achieved on the scale 

necessary to serve the relevant market at 

the time of the projected compliance 

date of the standard, then that 

technology will not be considered 

further. 

(3) Impacts on product utility or 

product availability. If it is determined 

that 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 be considered 

further. 

(4) Adverse impacts on health or 

safety. If it is determined that a 

technology would have significant 

adverse impacts on health or safety, it 

will not be considered further. 

(5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary 

Technologies. If a design option utilizes 

proprietary technology that represents a 

unique pathway to achieving a given 

efficiency level, that technology will not 

be considered further due to the 

potential for monopolistic concerns. 

Sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b) of appendix 

A. In summary, if DOE determines that 

a technology, or a combination of 

technologies, fails to meet one or more 

of the listed five criteria, it will be 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 32337 

excluded from further consideration in 

the engineering analysis. 

a. Screened-Out Technologies 

For this analysis, DOE found that 

multi-photon phosphors are still not 

used in working prototypes or in 

commercially available products. DOE 

did not receive any comments on the 

screening analysis for GSFLs. In this 

NOPD, as it did in the January 2015 

final rule (80 FR 4042, 4061), DOE 

continues to screen out multi-photon 

phosphors. Regarding the new 

technology option identified for this 

NOPD, DOE was not able to find 

mercury isotopes utilized in working 

prototypes or in commercially available 

products. Therefore, in this NOPD, DOE 

has screened out mercury isotopes 

based on technological feasibility. See 

chapter 4 of the NOPD TSD for further 

details on the GSFL screening analysis. 

b. Remaining Technologies 

After reviewing each technology, DOE 

did not screen out the following 

technology options and considers them 

as design options in the engineering 

analysis: 

(1) Highly Emissive Electrode 

Coatings 

(2) Higher Efficiency Lamp Fill Gas 

Composition 

(3) Higher Efficiency Phosphors 

(4) Glass Coatings 

(5) Higher Efficiency Lamp Diameter 

DOE determined that these 

technology options are technologically 

feasible because they are being used or 

have previously been used in 

commercially available products or 

working prototypes. DOE also finds that 

all of the remaining technology options 

meet the other screening criteria (i.e., 

practicable to manufacture, install, and 

service and do not result in adverse 

impacts on consumer utility, product 

availability, health, or safety). For 

additional details, see chapter 4 of the 

NOPD TSD. 

4. Product Classes 

In general, when evaluating and 

establishing energy conservation 

standards, DOE divides the covered 

product into classes by (1) the type of 

energy used, (2) the capacity of the 

product, or (3) any other performancerelated feature that affects energy 

efficiency and justifies different 

standard levels, considering factors such 

as consumer utility. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) 

a. Existing Product Classes 

For GSFLs, the current energy 

conservation standards specified in 10 

CFR 430.32(n)(4) are based on 12 

product classes, separated according to 

the following three factors: (1) 

Correlated color temperature (‘‘CCT’’); 

(2) physical constraints of lamps (i.e., 

lamp shape and length); and (3) lumen 

package (i.e., standard output (‘‘SO’’) 

versus high output (‘‘HO’’)). 

NEMA and CA IOUs commented that 

there is no need for any changes to 

product classes or groupings, as the 

GSFL category is a mature and wellestablished technology and the current 

GSFL product classes adequately cover 

the GSFL products on the market today. 

NEMA commented that separating or 

combining any GSFL product classes 

would eliminate some features. (NEMA, 

No. 6 at p. 3) CA IOUs stated that any 

new GSFL product classes could create 

additional loopholes in the GSFL 

standards. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 3) DOE 

agrees that the existing product classes 

sufficiently cover the GSFLs on the 

market. Therefore, DOE is not proposing 

any amendments to the existing GSFL 

product classes. 

b. Summary 

In this analysis, DOE proposes to 

maintain separate product classes for 

GSFLs based on the following three 

factors: (1) CCT (i.e., less than or equal 

to versus greater than 4,500 K); (2) 

physical constraints of lamps (i.e., lamp 

shape and length); and (3) lumen 

package (i.e., standard output versus 

high output). In summary, DOE assesses 

the product classes shown in Table IV.2 

in its analysis. 

TABLE IV.2–GSFL PRODUCT CLASSES

Lamp Type CCT 

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

>4,500 K 

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

>4,500 K 

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

>4,500 K 

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

>4,500 K 

4-foot T5, miniature bipin 

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

>4,500 K 

4-foot T5, miniature bipin 

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

>4,500 K 

C. Engineering Analysis 

The purpose of the engineering 

analysis is to establish the relationship 

between efficiency and cost for GSFLs. 

There are two elements to consider in 

the engineering analysis; the selection of 

efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the 

‘‘efficiency analysis’’) and the 

determination of product cost at each 

efficiency level (i.e., the ‘‘cost 

analysis’’). In determining the 

performance of higher-efficiency 

products, DOE considers technologies 

and design option combinations not 

eliminated by the screening analysis. 

For each product class, DOE estimates 

the baseline cost, as well as the 

incremental cost for the product at 

efficiency levels above the baseline. The 

output of the engineering analysis is a 

set of cost-efficiency ‘‘curves’’ that are 

used in downstream analyses (i.e., the 

LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA). 

1. Efficiency Analysis 

DOE typically uses one of two 

approaches to develop energy efficiency 

levels for the engineering analysis: (1) 

Relying on observed efficiency levels in 

the market (i.e., the efficiency-level 

approach), or (2) determining the 

incremental efficiency improvements 

associated with incorporating specific 

design options to a baseline model (i.e., 

the design-option approach). Using the 

efficiency-level approach, the efficiency 

levels established for the analysis are 

determined based on the market 

distribution of existing products (in 

other words, based on the range of 

efficiencies and efficiency level 

‘‘clusters’’ that already exist on the 

market). Using the design option 

approach, the efficiency levels 

established for the analysis are 

determined through detailed 

engineering calculations and/or 

computer simulations of the efficiency 

improvements from implementing 

specific design options that have been 

identified in the technology assessment. 

DOE may also rely on a combination of 

these two approaches. For example, the 

efficiency-level approach (based on 

actual products on the market) may be 

extended using the design option 

approach to interpolate to define ‘‘gap 

fill’’ levels (to bridge large gaps between 

other identified efficiency levels) and/or 

to extrapolate to the max-tech level 

(particularly in cases where the maxtech level exceeds the maximum 

efficiency level currently available on 

the market). 

In this proposed determination, DOE 

is adopting an efficiency-level approach 

for GSFLs. In this NOPD, efficiency 

levels are referred to as efficacy levels 

(‘‘ELs’’) because GSFL efficiency is 

reported in terms of lumens per watt, 

which is known as the lamp’s efficacy. 

DOE derives efficacy levels in the 

efficiency analysis and end-user prices 

in the cost analysis. DOE estimates the 

end-user price of GSFLs directly 

because reverse-engineering a lamp is 

impractical as the lamps are not easily 

disassembled. By combining the results 

of the efficiency analysis and the cost 

analysis, DOE derives typical inputs for 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32338 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

use in the LCC and NIA. Section IV.C.2 

discusses the cost analysis (see chapter 

5 of the NOPD TSD for further details). 

The methodology for the efficiency 

analysis consists of the following steps: 

(1) Select representative product classes, 

(2) select baseline lamps, (3) identify 

more efficacious substitutes, (4) develop 

efficacy levels by directly analyzing 

representative product classes, and (5) 

scale efficacy levels to nonrepresentative product classes. The 

details of the efficiency analysis are 

discussed in chapter 5 of the NOPD 

TSD. 

NEMA commented that since GSFL 

technologies are fully mature, the 

previous analytical conclusions 

continue to be accurate when it comes 

to use of certain combinations of design 

options. NEMA strongly opposed any 

amendments to the current GSFL 

efficiency levels, stating that since any 

new research in this market segment is 

unlikely, the increase in efficiency 

levels threatens to significantly reduce 

the product offerings. (NEMA, No. 6 at 

pp. 7–8) 

DOE agrees with NEMA that 

fluorescent is a more mature technology 

than LED, meaning that the rates of 

product development for the former are 

much slower than the rate for the latter. 

In the efficiency analysis, DOE reviews 

products certified in DOE’s compliance 

certification database and offered in 

manufacturer catalogs and on retailer 

websites. DOE bases its more efficient 

substitutes on products currently or 

formerly offered for sale on the market. 

The more efficient substitutes and 

corresponding efficacy levels are 

discussed in more detail in the 

following sections. 

a. Representative Product Classes 

In the case where a covered product 

has multiple product classes, DOE 

identifies and selects certain product 

classes as ‘‘representative’’ and 

concentrates its analytical effort on 

those classes. DOE chooses product 

classes as representative primarily 

because of their high market volumes. 

DOE then scales its analytical findings 

for those representative product classes 

to other product classes that are not 

directly analyzed. Based on its 

assessment of product offerings, DOE 

analyzed as representative all GSFLs 

with CCTs less than or equal to 4,500 K 

with the exception of the 2-foot Ushaped lamps, as shown in gray in Table 

IV.3 of this document. DOE did not 

directly analyze GSFLs with CCTs 

greater than 4,500 K or GSFLs that are 

2-foot U-shaped lamps of any CCT due 

to low shipment volumes. 

TABLE IV.3—GSFL REPRESENTATIVE

PRODUCT CLASSES

Lamp type CCT 

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

>4,500 K 

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

>4,500 K 

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

>4,500 K 

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

>4,500 K 

4-foot T5, miniature bipin 

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

>4,500 K 

4-foot T5, miniature bipin 

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

>4,500 K 

b. Baseline Lamps 

For each representative product class, 

DOE generally selects a baseline model 

as a reference point for each class, and 

measures changes resulting from 

potential energy conservation standards 

against the baseline. The baseline model 

in each product class represents the 

characteristics of a product typical of 

that class (e.g., capacity, physical size). 

Generally, a baseline model is one that 

just meets current energy conservation 

standards, or, if no standards are in 

place, the baseline is typically the most 

common or least efficient unit on the 

market. Typically, the baseline lamp is 

the most common, least efficacious 

lamp that meets existing standards. In 

this analysis, DOE selected as baselines 

the least efficacious lamps meeting 

standards that have common attributes 

for lamps in each product class such as 

diameter, wattage, CCT, lumen output, 

and lifetime. 

NEMA commented that any review of 

reported lamp efficiencies for 

determining baseline models in each 

product class should start with DOE’s 

compliance certification database. 

(NEMA, No. 6 at p. 7). 

To identify baseline lamps for this 

analysis, DOE reviewed data in the 

compliance certification database, 

product offerings in catalogs and on 

retailer websites, and manufacturer 

feedback obtained during interviews. 

DOE used the efficacy values of lamps 

in the compliance certification database 

to select baseline lamps. For 

representative product classes without 

certification data at the baseline, DOE 

used catalog and retailer data to select 

a baseline lamp. Specifically, DOE 

selected a baseline lamp from a retailer 

for the 8-foot single pin (‘‘SP’’) slimline 

product class because DOE was unable 

to identify any lamp in the compliance 

certification database that just meets the 

existing standards with common 

attributes for lamps in the product class. 

DOE is proposing the GSFL baseline 

lamps specified in Table IV.4. See 

chapter 5 of the NOPD TSD for more 

detail. 

TABLE IV.4—GSFL BASELINE LAMPS

Representative product 

class Lamp diameter 

Nominal 

wattage 

W 

Efficacy ** 

lm/W 

Initial lumen 

output 

lm 

Mean lumen 

output 

lm 

Rated life *** 

hr CRI 

4-foot MBP ................... T8 32 92.4 3,050 2,910 24,000 85 

8-foot SP slimline ......... T8 59 98.2 5,900 5,430 15,000 82 

8-foot RDC HO ............ T8 86 94.6 8,000 7,520 18,000 78 

4-foot T5 MiniBP SO * .. T5 28 95.9 2,610 2,453 24,000 85 

4-foot T5 MiniBP HO * T5 54 83 4,500 4,140 30,000 85 

* 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO and HO initial lumen output, and mean lumen output given at 25 °C. Initial and mean lumens are calculated from catalog 

lumens at 35 °C by applying a 10 percent lumen reduction. 

** Efficacy is from the compliance certification database, if available, or catalog initial lumen output divided by the American National Standards 

Institute (‘‘ANSI’’) rated wattage if the lamp does not have certification data. 

*** Rated life is based on an instant start ballast with 3 hour starts for the 4-foot MBP and 8-foot SP slimline product classes and a programmed start ballasts with 3 hour starts for all other product classes. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 32339 

c. More Efficacious Substitutes 

As part of DOE’s analysis, the 

maximum available efficiency level is 

the highest efficiency unit currently 

available on the market. DOE also 

defines a ‘‘max-tech’’ efficiency level to 

represent the maximum possible 

efficiency for a given product. DOE 

selects more efficacious replacements 

for the baseline lamps considered 

within each representative product 

class. DOE considers only design 

options identified in the screening 

analysis. More efficacious substitutes 

were selected such that, where possible, 

potential substitutions maintained light 

output within 10 percent of the baseline 

lamp’s light output. DOE also sought to 

keep characteristics of substitute lamps, 

such as CCT, CRI, and lifetime, as 

similar as possible to the baseline 

lamps. DOE used efficacy data from the 

compliance certification database to 

identify more efficacious substitutes in 

all product classes. DOE ensured that all 

more efficacious substitutes selected 

showed an improvement in efficacy of 

at least one percent from the previous 

level. DOE identified more efficacious 

substitutes that typically represent a 

group of lamps in the compliance 

certification database with similar 

efficacy data. The GSFL representative 

lamps analyzed in the NOPR are shown 

in Table IV.5 of this document. 

The CA IOUs commented that DOE 

should consider new information 

regarding the energy efficiency of 

available GSFLs. The CA IOUs pointed 

out that new and more efficient 

fluorescent lamps exceed the max-tech 

efficiency levels established in January 

2015 final rule (e.g., 4-foot T8 lamps can 

achieve 97 to 100 lm/W compared to the 

2015 max-tech value of 92.4 lm/W). (CA 

IOUs, No. 8 at p. 2) 

However, NEMA pointed out in its 

comments that DOE, while in pursuit of 

higher efficiencies, should be aware of 

newer test procedures for fluorescent 

lamps and the possibility of incorrectly 

testing efficiency by using a high 

frequency ballast, thus yielding an 

inflated efficiency level. If DOE did 

decide to pursue a new, higher baseline 

efficiency, then NEMA strongly 

recommended that DOE verify selected 

representative products to ensure that 

the efficiency levels are not 

inadvertently inflated. (NEMA, No. 6 at 

pp. 7–8) 

NEMA concluded, upon review of the 

compliance certification database, that 

only T5 products have any opportunity 

for minimal efficiency gain and that 

although the T8 category may appear to 

have some room for improvement 

NEMA warns that efficiency gain 

opportunities may exist but at the 

expense of dimming functionality. 

(NEMA, No. 6 at pp. 12–13) Regarding 

dimming, NEMA stated that the fill gas 

in reduced wattage fluorescent lamps, 

krypton, adversely affects dimming 

capability and thus only 32 W 4-foot T8 

lamps are recommended for dimming 

applications. Although the demand for 

fluorescent lamps continues a 

downward trend, an amended standard 

that eliminates the 32 W category would 

leave consumers with little choice other 

than converting to dimmable solid-state 

lighting. NEMA states that this scenario 

must be included in the cost-benefit 

analysis. (NEMA, No. 6 at p. 4) 

For this analysis, DOE did consider 

new information regarding the efficacy 

of currently available GSFLs as 

compared to GSFLs available at the time 

of the January 2015 final rule. As 

described previously, DOE gathered 

recent product information from DOE’s 

compliance certification database, 

manufacturer catalogs, and retailer 

websites. As shown in Table IV.5, DOE 

did identify max-tech levels in certain 

product classes that are higher than the 

max-tech levels identified in the January 

2015 final rule. Regarding 4-foot T8 

lamps, reduced wattage lamps available 

at the max-tech level are around the 100 

lm/W value cited by the CA IOUs. 

However, as pointed out by NEMA, 

reduced wattage lamps do not maintain 

full dimming functionality due to the 

krypton fill gas. Therefore, DOE has 

established the efficacy level at the 

efficacy achieved by the most efficient 

32 W lamp. DOE notes that the max-tech 

value for the 32 W 4-foot T8 lamp in 

this NOPD is higher than the max-tech 

value for the same product class in the 

January 2015 final rule. 

TABLE IV.5—GSFL MORE EFFICACIOUS SUBSTITUTES

Product classes EL Lamp 

diameter 

Nominal 

wattage 

W 

Efficacy ** 

lm/W 

Initial light 

output 

lm 

Mean light 

output 

lm 

Rated life *** 

hr CRI 

4-foot MBP ....................... EL 1 T8 32 93.6 3,200 3,010 24,000 85 

EL 2 T8 32 94.6 3,100 2,915 24,000 85 

EL 2 T8 25 100.8 2,300 2,230 32,000 85 

EL 2 T8 28 100.3 2,725 2,560 24,000 85 

8-foot SP slimline ............. EL 1 T8 59 99.6 5,900 5,430 18,000 82 

EL 2 T8 59 102.8 6,100 5,730 24,000 85 

EL 2 T8 49 105.4 5,000 4,700 24,000 82 

8-foot RDC HO ................ EL 1 T8 86 99.0 8,200 7,800 18,000 85 

EL 2 T8 86 108.4 8,200 7,710 18,000 85 

T5 MiniBP SO * ................ EL 1 T5 28 97.0 2,610 2,394 30,000 85 

EL 2 T5 28 98.8 2,610 2,427 36,000 85 

EL 3 T5 28 100.8 2,610 2,408 24,000 82 

EL 3 T5 26 101.0 2,610 2,394 25,000 85 

T5 MiniBP HO * ................ EL1 T5 54 85.6 4,500 4,185 30,000 85 

EL 1 T5 49 88.8 4,365 4,140 36,000 85 

EL 2 T5 54 89.8 4,500 4,050 30,000 82 

EL 2 T5 47 90 4,320 3,969 30,000 84 

EL 3 T5 54 96.4 4,365 4,140 36,000 85 

EL 3 T5 49 96.5 4,500 4,005 30,000 85 

* 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO and HO rated efficacy, initial lumen output, and mean lumen output given at 25 °C. Initial and mean lumens are calculated from catalog lumens at 35°C by applying a 10 percent lumen reduction. 

** Efficacy is from the compliance certification database, if available, or catalog/retailer initial lumen output divided by the ANSI rated wattage if 

the lamp does not have certification data. 

*** Rated life is based on an instant start ballast with 3 hour starts for the 4-foot MBP and 8-foot SP slimline product classes and a programmed start ballasts with 3 hour starts for all other product classes. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32340 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

8BF is defined as the output of a ballast delivered 

to a reference lamp in terms of power or light 

divided by the output of the relevant reference 

ballast delivered to the same lamp (ANSI C82.13– 

2002). Because BF affects the light output of the 

system, manufacturers design ballasts with a range 

of ballast factors to allow consumers to vary the 

light output, and thus power consumed, of a 

fluorescent system. See the fluorescent lamp ballast 

(‘‘FLB’’) final determination (published on October 

22, 2019, 85 FR 81558) TSD Chapter 3. The FLB 

ECS final determination materials are available at 

www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2015-BTSTD-0006. 

9BLE is the ratio of the total lamp arc power to 

ballast input power, multiplied by the appropriate 

frequency adjustment factor. 

d. Efficacy Levels 

After identifying more efficacious 

substitutes for each of the baseline 

lamps, DOE develops ELs based on the 

consideration of several factors, 

including: (1) The design options 

associated with the specific lamps being 

studied (e.g., grades of phosphor); (2) 

the ability of lamps across wattages to 

comply with the standard level of a 

given product class; and (3) max-tech 

level. Although fluorescent lamps are a 

component of a system that often 

includes ballasts and fixtures, DOE 

based its ELs only on lamp performance 

because GSFLs are the subject of this 

proposed determination. DOE 

acknowledges, however, that the energy 

consumption of fluorescent lamps is 

related to the ballast on which they 

operate. Therefore, DOE pairs each lamp 

with an appropriate ballast to better 

approximate real-world conditions (see 

section IV.C.1.e of this document for 

more information). 

To determine appropriate ELs, DOE 

used efficacy values of lamps certified 

in its compliance certification database. 

DOE considered only ELs at which a full 

wattage version of the lamp type was 

available because reduced wattage 

lamps have limited dimming capability. 

Table IV.6 summarizes the ELs 

developed by the engineering analysis 

for GSFLs in this NOPD. 

TABLE IV.6—SUMMARY OF ELS FOR GSFL REPRESENTATIVE PRODUCT CLASSES

CCT Lamp type 

Efficacy level 

(lm/W) 

1 2 3 

≤4,500 K .......................................................... 4-foot MBP ..................................................... 93.6 94.6 N/A 

8-foot SP slimline ........................................... 99.6 102.8 N/A 

8-foot RDC HO ............................................... 99.0 108.4 N/A 

4-foot T5 MiniBP SO ...................................... 97.0 98.8 100.8 

4-foot T5 MiniBP HO ...................................... 85.6 89.8 96.4 

e. Lamp-and-Ballast Systems 

Because fluorescent lamps operate on 

a ballast in practice, DOE analyzed 

lamp-and-ballast systems in the 

engineering analysis. DOE determined 

that pairing a lamp with a ballast more 

accurately captures real-world energy 

use and light output. 

DOE considered two different 

scenarios in the engineering analysis: (1) 

A lamp replacement scenario in which 

the consumer selects a replacement 

lamp that can operate on the installed 

ballast and (2) a lamp-and-ballast 

replacement scenario in which the 

consumer selects a new lamp and also 

selects a new ballast with potentially 

different performance characteristics, 

such as ballast factor 8 (‘‘BF’’) or ballast 

luminous efficiency 9 (‘‘BLE’’). DOE 

only selected replacement systems that 

do not have higher energy consumption 

than the baseline system. 

For both substitution scenarios, DOE 

determined energy consumption by 

calculating the system input power of 

the lamp-and-ballast system. The system 

input power represents the energy 

consumption rate of both the lamp and 

ballast, and therefore is greater than the 

rated power of the lamp alone. In 

addition to the rated lamp power, the 

system input power is also affected by 

the number of lamps operated per 

ballast, BLE of ballast used, starting 

method, and the BF of that ballast. 

f. Scaling to Other Product Classes 

As noted previously, DOE analyzes 

the representative product classes 

directly. DOE then scales the levels 

developed for the representative 

product classes to determine levels for 

product classes not analyzed directly. 

For GSFLs, the representative product 

classes analyzed were all lamp types 

with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K, with the exception 

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

U-shaped product class, DOE scaled 

from the efficacy levels developed for 

the 4-foot MBP product class. 

Efficacy levels developed for lamp 

types with CCTs less than or equal to 

4,500 K were scaled to obtain levels for 

higher CCT product classes not 

analyzed. DOE found variation in the 

percent reduction in efficacy associated 

with increased CCT among product 

classes and therefore chose to develop a 

separate scaling factor for each product 

class. DOE developed scaling factors by 

identifying pairs and comparing the 

efficacies between the same lamp type 

from the same manufacturer within the 

same product class but that differed by 

CCT. 

For 2-foot U-shaped lamps, DOE 

compared catalog and certification data 

for 2-foot U-shaped lamps with 

equivalent 4-foot MBP lamps, and 

determined an average efficacy 

reduction of 6 percent from the 4-foot 

MBP lamps was appropriate. For the 

higher CCT product classes, DOE 

determined a 4 percent scaling factor for 

the 4-foot MBP product class, 2 percent 

scaling factor for the 2-foot U-shaped 

product class, 3 percent scaling factor 

for the 8-foot SP slimline product class, 

3 percent scaling factor for the 8-foot 

RDC HO product class, 6 percent scaling 

factor for the T5 SO product class, and 

6 percent scaling factor for the T5 HO 

product class were appropriate. 

Regarding the max efficacy achievable 

by 2-foot U-shaped lamps, NEMA 

commented that the information 

outlined in DOE’s compliance 

certification database is available and 

that the sales of U-shaped 1 5/8’’ lamps 

are lower than U-shaped 6’’ lamps sales. 

(NEMA, No. 6 at p. 4) NEMA further 

added that the scaling factors developed 

in the prior rulemaking pertaining to the 

average efficacy difference between 2- 

foot MBP and 4-foot MBP lamps, and 

between lamps with CCT less than 4,500 

K and CCT greater than 4,500 K, are still 

adequate and do not require any 

revision. (NEMA, No. 6 at p. 8) 

As described previously in this 

section, DOE has calculated scaling 

factors for each product class to scale 

from lamps with CCTs less than 4,500 

K to lamps with CCTs greater than 4,500 

K. These scaling factors are the same as 

those used in the January 2015 final rule 

with the exception of the scaling factors 

for the 8-foot RDC HO (3 percent instead 

of 4 percent) and T5 HO (6 percent 

instead of 7 percent) product classes. 

DOE also calculated a scaling factor for 

2-foot U-shaped lamps and found it to 

be 6 percent instead of the 8 percent 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 32341 

used in the January 2015 final rule. DOE 

determined the updated scaling factors 

by considering efficacy data for lamps in 

the compliance certification database 

and catalog data. DOE updated the 

scaling factor in cases where both data 

sources indicated that the existing 

scaling factors do not capture the 

difference in efficacy of the scaled lamp 

types. DOE determined that the updated 

scaling factors more accurately 

represent lamps currently on the 

market. Regarding the different leg 

spacings of 2-foot U-shaped lamps, DOE 

compared the scaled ELs to available 

certification data and confirmed that 2- 

foot U-shaped lamps with both 6-inch 

and 1 5/8-inch leg spacings can meet the 

analyzed ELs. Table IV.7 summarizes 

the ELs for all GSFL product classes. 

TABLE IV.7—SUMMARY OF ALL EFFICACY LEVELS FOR GSFLS

CCT Lamp type 

Efficacy level 

1 2 3 

≤4,500 K .......................................................... 4-foot medium bipin ....................................... 93.6 94.6 ........................

2-foot U-shaped ............................................. 88.0 88.9 ........................

8-foot single pin slimline ................................ 99.6 102.8 ........................

8-foot recessed double contact HO ............... 99.0 108.4 ........................

4-foot T5 miniature bipin SO .......................... 97.0 98.8 100.8 

4-foot T5 miniature bipin HO ......................... 85.6 89.8 96.4 

>4,500 K .......................................................... 4-foot medium bipin ....................................... 89.9 90.8 ........................

2-foot U-shaped ............................................. 86.2 87.1 ........................

8-foot single pin slimline ................................ 96.6 99.7 ........................

8-foot recessed double contact HO ............... 96.0 105.1 ........................

4-foot T5 miniature bipin SO .......................... 91.2 92.9 94.8 

4-foot T5 miniature bipin HO ......................... 80.5 84.4 90.6 

2. Cost Analysis 

The cost analysis portion of the 

Engineering Analysis is conducted 

using one or a combination of cost 

approaches. The selection of cost 

approach depends on a suite of factors, 

including the availability and reliability 

of public information, characteristics of 

the regulated product and the 

availability and timeliness of 

purchasing the GSFLs on the market. 

The cost approaches are summarized as 

follows: 

• Physical teardowns: Under this 

approach, DOE physically dismantles a 

commercially available product, 

component-by-component, to develop a 

detailed bill of materials for the product. 

• Catalog teardowns: In lieu of 

physically deconstructing a product, 

DOE identifies each component using 

parts diagrams (available from 

manufacturer websites or appliance 

repair websites, for example) to develop 

the bill of materials for the product. 

• Price surveys: If neither a physical 

nor catalog teardown is feasible (for 

example, for tightly integrated products 

such as fluorescent lamps, which are 

infeasible to disassemble and for which 

parts diagrams are unavailable) or costprohibitive and otherwise impractical 

(e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE 

conducts price surveys using publicly 

available pricing data published on 

major online retailer websites and/or by 

soliciting prices from distributors and 

other commercial channels. 

In the present case, DOE conducted 

the analysis using the price survey 

approach. Typically, DOE develops 

manufacturing selling prices (‘‘MSPs’’) 

for covered products and applies 

markups to create end-user prices to use 

as inputs to the LCC analysis and NIA. 

Because GSFLs are difficult to reverseengineer (i.e., not easily disassembled), 

DOE directly derives end-user prices for 

the lamps covered in this proposed 

determination. The end-user price refers 

to the product price a consumer pays 

before tax and installation. Because 

GSFLs operate with a ballast in practice, 

DOE also incorporated prices for 

ballasts that operate those lamps. 

In its review of publicly available 

prices for GSFLs, DOE observed a range 

of end-user prices paid for a lamp, 

depending on the distribution channel 

through which the lamp was purchased. 

DOE identified the following three main 

distribution channels: Small consumerbased distributors (i.e., internet retailers, 

drug stores); large retail distributors: 

(i.e., home centers, mass merchants, 

hardware stores, and electrical 

distributors); and state procurement. 

For each distribution channel, DOE 

calculated an average price for the 

representative lamp unit at each EL 

using prices for the representative lamp 

unit and similar lamp models at the 

same level. Because the lamps included 

in the calculation were equivalent to the 

representative lamp unit in terms of 

performance and utility (i.e., had similar 

wattage, CCT, shape, base type, CRI, and 

technology), DOE considered the pricing 

of these lamps to be representative of 

the technology of the EL. DOE 

developed average end-user prices for 

the representative lamp units sold in 

each of the three main distribution 

channels analyzed. DOE then calculated 

an average weighted end-user price 

using estimated shipments through each 

distribution channel. Table IV.8 

summarizes the weightings used for the 

GSFL main distribution channels. Table 

IV.9 summarizes the weightings within 

the large retail distributors. The cost 

analysis methodology is explained in 

more detail in chapter 5 of the NOPD 

TSD. 

TABLE IV.8—WEIGHTINGS FOR GSFL 

DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS

Main Channels Weighting 

(%) 

State Procurement ................ 10 

Large retail distributors ......... 70 

Online Retailers .................... 20 

TABLE IV.9—WEIGHTINGS WITHIN LARGE RETAIL DISTRIBUTOR CHANNEL

Main channels Description 

GSFL 

weighting 

(%) 

Large Retail Distributors ............................................................. Mass merchants and Home centers .......................................... 11 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32342 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

10 2015 U.S. Lighting Market Characterization. 

U.S. Department of Energy, available at 

www.energy.gov/eere/ssl/2015-us-lighting-marketcharacterization. 

11 DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as 

a proxy for national sales, as aggregate data on sales 

are lacking. In general, one would expect a close 

correspondence between shipments and sales. 

TABLE IV.9—WEIGHTINGS WITHIN LARGE RETAIL DISTRIBUTOR CHANNEL—Continued 

Main channels Description 

GSFL 

weighting 

(%) 

Hardware stores ......................................................................... 1 

Electrical distributors .................................................................. 88 

D. Energy Use Analysis 

The purpose of the energy use 

analysis is to determine the annual 

energy consumption of GSFLs at 

different efficiencies in representative 

U.S. single-family homes, multi-family 

residences, and commercial buildings, 

and to assess the energy savings 

potential of increased GSFL efficiency. 

The energy use analysis estimates the 

range of energy use of GSFLs in the field 

(i.e., as they are actually used by 

consumers). The energy use analysis 

provides the basis for other analyses 

DOE performed, particularly 

assessments of the energy savings and 

the savings in consumer operating costs 

that could result from adoption of 

amended or new standards. 

Tables 6.4.1 through 6.4.10 in section 

6.4 of the January 2015 final rule TSD 

present the average energy consumption 

for each GSFL product class and 

efficiency level. DOE has tentatively 

concluded that the current average 

energy consumption for these products 

is comparable to the estimates 

developed in the January 2015 final 

rule, as the wattage options have not 

changed substantially for most products 

classes. Max-tech parameters, including 

system arc power, BF, and BLE have 

been updated to account for the maxtech levels described in section IV.C of 

this proposed determination. NEMA 

suggested that the 2015 DOE Lighting 

Market Characterization Report 10 (2015 

LMC) should be used for operating 

hours for GSFLs. (NEMA, No. 6 at pp.8– 

9). DOE agrees that the operating hours 

in the 2015 LMC are appropriate. The 

8.1 average daily operating hours in the 

commercial sector from the 2015 LMC 

translate to lower energy use and thus 

lower potential energy savings from 

GSFLs compared to the estimated 11.1 

average daily operating hours in the 

commercial sector in the January 2015 

final rule. 

Chapter 6 of the NOPD TSD provides 

details on DOE’s energy use analysis for 

GSFLs. 

E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

DOE conducts LCC and PBP analyses 

to evaluate the economic impacts on 

individual consumers of potential 

energy conservation standards for 

GSFLs. The effect of new or amended 

energy conservation standards on 

individual consumers usually involves a 

reduction in operating cost and an 

increase in purchase cost. DOE typically 

uses the following two metrics to 

measure consumer impacts: 

• The LCC is the total consumer 

expense of an appliance or product over 

the life of that product, consisting of 

total installed cost (manufacturer selling 

price, distribution chain markups, sales 

tax, and installation costs) plus 

operating costs (expenses for energy use, 

maintenance, and repair). To compute 

the operating costs, DOE discounts 

future operating costs to the time of 

purchase and sums them over the 

lifetime of the product. 

• The PBP is the estimated amount of 

time (in years) it takes consumers to 

recover the increased purchase cost 

(including installation) of a moreefficient product through lower 

operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP 

by dividing the change in purchase cost 

at higher efficiency levels by the change 

in annual operating cost for the year that 

amended or new standards are assumed 

to take effect. 

Based on the rapidly declining 

shipments of GSFLs, limited and 

uncertain energy savings opportunity, 

and potential impacts on manufacturers, 

as discussed in sections IV.D, IV.F, and 

V.C of this NOPD, DOE did not conduct 

LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the 

economic impacts on individual 

consumers of amended GSFL energy 

conservation standards. 

F. Shipments Analysis 

DOE uses projections of annual 

product shipments to calculate the 

national impacts of potential amended 

or new energy conservation standards 

on energy use, NPV, and future 

manufacturer cash flows.11 The 

shipments model takes an accounting 

approach in tracking market shares of 

each product class and the vintage of 

units in the stock. Stock accounting uses 

product shipments as inputs to estimate 

the age distribution of in-service 

product stocks for all years. The age 

distribution of in-service product stocks 

is a key input to calculations of both the 

NES and NPV, because operating costs 

for any year depend on the age 

distribution of the stock. DOE used a 

model coded in the Python 

programming language to compute an 

estimate of shipments and stock in each 

projection year up through the end of 

the analysis period (2021–2055). DOE 

included 4-foot T8, 4-foot T5 standard 

output and 4-ft T5 high output 

representative lamps in its shipments 

model. While T8 lamps represent the 

largest part of the GSFL market, the T5 

product classes have engineering 

options with lower wattage options at 

higher ELs that may result in energy 

savings for consumers. The 8-foot 

recessed double-contact high-output 

product class does not include any lamp 

options at higher ELs that reduce energy 

compared to the baseline lamp, and the 

only lamp option in the 8-foot slimline 

product class that would reduce energy 

consumption does not offer the same 

utility as the other representative lamp 

options because its lumen output is 

more than 10 percent lower. These lamp 

categories with smaller markets and 

without potential energy savings at 

higher efficiency levels were excluded 

from analysis due to the fact that there 

would be either no or miniscule savings. 

DOE seeded this model with estimates 

of total historical shipments derived 

from the January 2015 final rule (up 

through data year 2015) and sales 

indices of the linear lamp market 

published by NEMA1 (for data years 

2015—2020). These indices show a 

steep decline of GSFL sales for lamps of 

all types over this five year period. In 

order to account for LED competition for 

GSFL applications, DOE included 

representative T8 and T5 LED 

replacement lamps in the shipments 

model (see the chapter 8 of the NOPD 

TSD for details). DOE assumed that in 

each shipments projection year, demand 

for replacements would be the only 

source of demand for new lamp 

purchases. Demand for replacement 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 32343 

12Steven Krull and Dan Freeman, ‘‘Next 

Generation Light Bulb Optimization’’ (Pacific Gas 

and Electric Company, February 10, 2012), https:// 

www.etcc-ca.com/sites/default/files/OLD/images/ 

stories/Lighting_Conjoint_Study_v020712f.pdf. 

13C.L.S. Kantner et al., ‘‘Impact of the EISA 2007 

Backstop Requirement on General Service Lamps’’ 

(Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory, December 2021), https://eta.lbl.gov/ 

publications/impact-eisa-2007-backstoprequirement. 

14Navigant Consulting, Inc., ‘‘Energy Savings 

Forecast of Solid-State Lighting in General 

Illumination Applications’’ (Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Energy, December 2019), https://

www.energy.gov/eere/ssl/downloads/2019-sslforecast-report. 

15The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states 

and Washington, DC. 

16Ecotope Inc. Residential Building Stock 

Assessment: Metering Study. 2014. Northwest 

Energy Efficiency Alliance: Seattle, WA. Report No. 

E14–283. (Last accessed December 5, 2019.) https:// 

neea.org/data/residential-building-stockassessment. 

17 KEMA, Inc. Final Evaluation Report: Upstream 

Lighting Program: Volume 2. 2010. California Public 

Utilities Commission, Energy Division: Sacramento, 

CA. Report No. CPU0015.02. (Last accessed March 

14, 2016.) https://www.calmac.org/publications/ 

FinalUpstreamLightingEvaluationReport_Vol2_

CALMAC.pdf. 

lamps in each year is allotted among 

available replacement options using a 

consumer choice model that derives 

market share based on the features of 

available representative lamps. This 

model includes consumer sensitivity to 

price, lifetime, energy savings, and 

mercury content as measured in a 

market study 12 of consumer preference 

for lamps. Though these parameters 

represent the preference of residential 

consumers, DOE adopted them for the 

linear lamp market in the absence of 

available alternatives. DOE expects that 

because these parameters place more 

weight on first-cost than other 

attributes, the model results in a 

conservative estimate of LED adoption 

since commercial and industrial 

consumers are more likely to weigh 

decreases in operating costs in 

purchasing decisions. 

DOE assumes that the purchase price 

of TLED lamp options will drop over the 

course of the analysis period due to 

price learning associated to cumulative 

shipments of LED lamps of all types 

(consistent with the price learning 

analysis detailed in a LBNL report on 

the impact of the GSL backstop 13). 

Further, DOE assumes that while 

consumers may replace fluorescent 

lamps with either a fluorescent or TLED 

lamp option, those with failing LEDs 

will only opt for an LED replacement. 

Lastly, DOE applies an efficiency trend, 

based on a fit to projections of linear 

fixture efficiency from the 2019 Solid 

State Lighting Report,14 to the most 

efficient LEDs available. Over the course 

of the shipments projection period, the 

application of this trend expands the 

range of available LED efficiencies and 

attempts to account for increases in LED 

market share that would occur as a 

result of this shift. Due in part to these 

assumptions, the shipments model 

projects that the linear lamp market 

continues to shift quickly towards LED 

over the analysis period in the no-newstandards case. See the chapter 8 of the 

NOPD TSD for more details. 

DOE also assumed that a fixed 

fraction of all tubular lamp stock in each 

year will leave the market due to 

retrofits or renovation with integrated 

LED fixtures. This assumption has the 

effect of reducing the number of lamps 

that might retire, and therefore the size 

of the market, in each year. 

NEMA commented that their data 

shows a much more aggressive decline 

than the assumption in the January 2015 

final rule which accounts for the 

penetration of LED lighting into GSFL 

markets. (NEMA, No. 6 at p. 10). 

Additionally, during manufacturer 

interviews, manufacturers commented 

that the market is shifting to LED 

technology in the GSFL markets. Most 

manufacturers commented that there 

has been a 20 to 40 percent decline in 

shipments for GSFLs each year that is 

expected to continue absent new 

standards for GSFLs. This decline is 

greater than that projected in the 

January 2015 final rule, and more in line 

with the projected market share 

estimated in this proposed 

determination. 

G. National Energy Savings 

The NIA assesses the NES and the 

NPV from a national perspective of total 

consumer costs and savings that would 

be expected to result from new or 

amended standards at specific efficiency 

levels.15 DOE calculates the NES and 

NPV for the potential standard levels 

considered based on projections of 

annual product shipments, along with 

the annual energy consumption and 

total installed cost data estimated or 

provided from other sources. For the 

present analysis, DOE projected the 

energy savings, operating cost savings, 

product costs, and NPV of consumer 

benefits over the lifetime of GSFLs sold 

from 2026 through 2055. 

DOE evaluates the effects of new or 

amended standards by comparing a case 

without such standards with standardscase projections. The no-new-standards 

case characterizes energy use and 

consumer costs for each GSFL class in 

the absence of new or amended energy 

conservation standards. The efficiency 

distribution is projected using a 

consumer-choice model, as discussed in 

section IV.F, and takes into account 

competition from TLED substitutes. 

DOE compares the no-new-standards 

case with projections characterizing the 

market for each product class if DOE 

adopted new or amended standards at 

specific energy efficiency levels (i.e., the 

ELs or standards cases) for that class. 

For the standards cases, consistent with 

the approach in the no-new-standards 

case, DOE considers how a given 

standard would likely affect the market 

shares of GSFLs with efficiencies greater 

than the standard and TLED substitutes 

using the consumer-choice model 

discussed previously. 

The only potential standard for which 

NES and NPV were calculated was the 

max-tech levels, where the standard for 

each GSFL product class is set at the 

maximum available level. NES and NPV 

at this candidate standard define an 

upper bound on how much savings 

could be realized at any lower standard. 

Because a LCC analysis was not 

performed for consumers of lamps 

covered under this analysis, DOE 

estimated the per-unit annual energy 

use of available GSFL options based on 

nominal wattages derived during the 

engineering analysis (described in 

section IV.C) and separate average 

hours-of-use (HOU) estimates for 

individual sectors. 

To estimate the HOU for linear lamps 

in the residential sector, DOE scaled the 

average HOU estimated for A-type 

medium screw-base lamps in DOE’s 

2016 GSL NOPR analysis. 81 FR 14528 

(Mar. 16, 2016) The national-average 

HOU for A-type lamps in the residential 

sector was estimated to be 2.3 hours/day 

based on DOE’s 2016 GSL NOPR 

analysis, which considered a number of 

field metering studies conducted across 

the U.S. DOE developed a scaling factor 

for linear lamps using the distribution of 

room types that linear lamps are 

typically installed in and the HOU 

associated with those room types, 

relative to the distribution of room types 

and associated HOU for A-type lamps. 

Room-specific average HOU data came 

from NEEA’s 2014 Residential Building 

Stock Assessment Metering Study 

(RBSAM) 16 and room distribution data 

by lamp type came from a 2010 KEMA 

report.17 DOE estimated the national 

weighted-average HOU of linear lamps 

to be 2.1 hours per day in the residential 

sector. See chapter 9 of this NOPD TSD 

for more detail. 

In order to estimate HOU for linear 

lamps in the commercial sector, DOE 

took HOU estimates from the 2015 LMC 

of linear fluorescent lamps for the 

commercial buildings present in that 

report. The building-specific HOU for 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32344 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

18For more information on NEMS, refer to The 

National Energy Modeling System: An Overview 

2009, DOE/EIA–0581(2009), October 2009. 

Available at www.eia.gov/analysis/pdfpages/ 

0581(2009)index.php (last accessed March 4, 2022). 

these lamps was weighted by the 

relative floor space of each building 

type as reported in the 2015 LMC. The 

national weighted-average HOU for 

linear lamps GSLs in the commercial 

sector were estimated at 8.1 hours per 

day. 

DOE derived LED alternatives to the 

T8 GSFL lamps represented in this 

analysis by looking at the efficiency and 

estimated cost of TLED lamps found in 

manufacturer catalogs and retailer 

websites (in order of data priority). DOE 

chose seven total TLED lamps ranging 

from 120 to 177 lumens per watt, and 

an estimated pre-tax price of $8.78 to 

$14.20 in 2021 USD. DOE assumed that 

the efficiency of T5 and 8-foot TLED 

lamps would be the same as LED T8 

lamps, and estimated their wattage by 

assuming they would have the same 

lumen output of their GSFL competitors 

described in the engineering analysis. 

Like with the GSFLs, the annual energy 

use of TLED lamps was estimated using 

average hours of use and wattage. The 

price of any given T5 or 8-foot LED 

alternative is estimated as the sum of (a) 

the cost of the least efficient GSFL 

option of that lamp type, and (b) the 

incremental cost between the least 

efficient T8 GSFL and the LED T8 with 

the same efficiency as the given lamp. 

See the chapter 8 and chapter 9 of the 

NOPD TSD for more details. 

DOE uses a model written in the 

python programming language to 

calculate the energy savings and the 

national consumer costs and savings 

from each EL. 

Table IV.10 summarizes the inputs 

and methods DOE used for the NIA 

analysis for the NOPD. 

TABLE IV.10—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

Inputs Method 

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

Modeled Compliance Date of Standard ................................... 2026. 

Annual Energy Consumption per Unit ..................................... Energy consumption values of modeled representative lamps are a function of 

EL. 

Total Installed Cost per Unit .................................................... Purchase price of modeled representative lamps. 

Electricity Prices ....................................................................... AEO2021 projections (to 2050) and extrapolation through 2055. 

Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC Conversion .......................... A time-series conversion factor based on AEO2021. 

Discount Rate ........................................................................... 3 percent and 7 percent. 

Present Year ............................................................................ 2022 (the year to which NPV is discounted). 

1. Product Efficiency Trends 

A key component of the NIA is the 

trend in energy efficiency projected for 

the no-new-standards case and each of 

the standards cases. DOE uses a 

shipments model that implements 

consumer choice over available lamp 

options in each year in order to compute 

the efficiency distribution. At each 

standard level and the no-newstandards case, the consumer choice 

model uses consumer sensitivity to 

price, relative energy savings, lamp 

lifetime, and mercury content to 

estimate the efficiency distribution of 

purchases in each year. 

2. National Energy Savings 

The NES analysis involves a 

comparison of national energy 

consumption of the considered products 

between each potential standards case 

and the case with no new or amended 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

calculated the national energy 

consumption by multiplying the 

number of units (stock) of each product 

(by vintage or age) by the unit energy 

consumption (also by vintage). DOE 

calculated annual NES based on the 

difference in national energy 

consumption for the no-new-standards 

case and for each higher efficiency 

standard case. DOE estimated energy 

consumption and savings based on site 

energy and converted the electricity 

consumption and savings to primary 

energy (i.e., the energy consumed by 

power plants to generate site electricity) 

using annual conversion factors derived 

from AEO2021. Cumulative energy 

savings are the sum of the NES for each 

year over the timeframe of the analysis. 

In 2011, in response to the 

recommendations of a committee on 

‘‘Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle 

Measurement Approaches to Energy 

Efficiency Standards’’ appointed by the 

National Academy of Sciences, DOE 

announced its intention to use FFC 

measures of energy use and greenhouse 

gas and other emissions in the NIA and 

emissions analyses included in future 

energy conservation standards 

rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 

2011). After evaluating the approaches 

discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, 

DOE published a statement of amended 

policy in which DOE explained its 

determination that EIA’s National 

Energy Modeling System (‘‘NEMS’’) is 

the most appropriate tool for its FFC 

analysis and its intention to use NEMS 

for that purpose. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 

2012). NEMS is a public domain, multisector, partial equilibrium model of the 

U.S. energy sector 18 that EIA uses to 

prepare its AEO. The FFC factors 

incorporate losses in production, and 

delivery in the case of natural gas, 

(including fugitive emissions) and 

additional energy used to produce and 

deliver the various fuels used by power 

plants. The approach used for deriving 

FFC measures of energy use and 

emissions is described in appendix 10B 

of the NOPD TSD. 

3. Net Present Value Analysis 

The inputs for determining the NPV 

of the total costs and benefits 

experienced by consumers are (1) total 

annual installed cost, (2) total annual 

operating costs (energy costs and repair 

and maintenance costs), and (3) a 

discount factor to calculate the present 

value of costs and savings. DOE 

calculates net savings each year as the 

difference between the no-newstandards case and each standards case 

in terms of total savings in operating 

costs versus total increases in installed 

costs. DOE calculates operating cost 

savings over the lifetime of each product 

shipped during the projection period. 

DOE assumed that the price of TLED 

lamps would decrease over the analysis 

period due to price learning, as 

described in section IV.F of this 

document, which affected the market 

share projected by the shipments model. 

The gradual decrease in LED prices also 

affects the total installed cost over the 

analysis period, and has the effect of 

reducing lamp costs in both the 

standards- and no-new-standards cases 

as well as the incremental cost of a 

standard. 

The operating cost savings are energy 

cost savings, which are calculated using 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 32345 

19United States Office of Management and 

Budget. Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. 

September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m03- 

21.html (last accessed March 4, 2022). 

20U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 

Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 

2003. Available at obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/ 

omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ (last accessed March 4, 

2022). 

21Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to review 

its standards at least once every 6 years, and 

requires, for certain products, a 3-year period after 

any new standard is promulgated before 

compliance is required, except that in no case may 

any new standards be required within 6 years of the 

compliance date of the previous standards. If DOE 

makes a determination that amended standards are 

not needed, it must conduct a subsequent review 

within three years following such a determination. 

As DOE is evaluating the need to amend the 

standards, the sensitivity analysis is based on the 

review timeframe associated with amended 

standards. While adding a 6-year review to the 3- 

year compliance period adds up to 9 years, DOE 

notes that it may undertake reviews at any time 

within the 6-year period and that the 3-year 

compliance date may yield to the 6-year backstop. 

A 9-year analysis period may not be appropriate 

given the variability that occurs in the timing of 

standards reviews and the fact that for some 

products, the compliance period is 5 years rather 

than 3 years. 

the estimated energy savings in each 

year and the projected price of the 

appropriate form of energy. To estimate 

energy prices in future years, DOE 

multiplied the average regional energy 

prices by the projection of annual 

national-average residential energy price 

changes in the Reference case from 

AEO2021, which has an end year of 

2050. To estimate price trends after 

2050, DOE assumed that prices would 

remain constant after 2050. 

In calculating the NPV, DOE 

multiplies the net savings in future 

years by a discount factor to determine 

their present value. For this NOPD, DOE 

estimated the NPV of consumer benefits 

using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent 

real discount rate. DOE uses these 

discount rates in accordance with 

guidance provided by the Office of 

Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) to 

Federal agencies on the development of 

regulatory analysis.19 The discount rates 

for the determination of NPV are in 

contrast to the discount rates used in the 

LCC analysis, which are designed to 

reflect a consumer’s perspective. The 7- 

percent real value is an estimate of the 

average before-tax rate of return to 

private capital in the U.S. economy. The 

3-percent real value represents the 

‘‘social rate of time preference,’’ which 

is the rate at which society discounts 

future consumption flows to their 

present value. 

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

The following section addresses the 

results from DOE’s analyses with 

respect to the considered energy 

conservation standards for GSFLs. It 

addresses the max tech levels examined 

by DOE and the projected impacts of 

these levels. Additional details 

regarding DOE’s analyses are contained 

in the NOPD TSD supporting this 

document. 

A. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

Based on the lack of energy savings 

and declining shipments of GSFLs, as 

discussed in sections IV.D and IV.F of 

this NOPD, DOE did not conduct LCC 

and PBP analyses to evaluate the 

economic impacts on individual 

consumers of amended GSFL energy 

conservation standards. 

B. National Impact Analysis 

This section presents DOE’s estimates 

of the NES and the NPV of consumer 

benefits that would result from each of 

the ELs considered as potential 

amended standards. 

1. Significance of Energy Savings 

To estimate the energy savings 

attributable to potential amended 

standards for GSFLs, DOE compared 

their energy consumption under the nonew-standards case to their anticipated 

energy consumption under the max-tech 

levels for 4-foot T8 and 4-foot standard 

and high output T5 GSFL product 

classes. The savings are measured over 

the entire lifetime of products 

purchased in the 30-year period that 

begins in the year of anticipated 

compliance with amended standards 

(2026–2055). 

The NIA model projected relatively 

low potential savings from a max-tech 

standard level and that the majority of 

savings realized by setting a GSFL 

standard are the result of incurring 

quicker market shift to LED alternatives, 

rather than the reduction in energy 

consumption of a constant GSFL market 

share. Further, because the entire 

tubular lamp market is projected to 

decline over the analysis period, most 

savings occur in the first decade of a 

potential standard. For more details, see 

chapters 9 and 10 of the NOPD TSD. 

Table V.1 presents DOE’s projections 

of the NES the max-tech levels 

considered for GSFLs. The savings were 

calculated using the approach described 

in section IV.G of this document. 

TABLE V.1—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR GSFLS (QUADS); 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS (2026–2034) AND

30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS (2026–2055) 

Max tech savings 

9 years 

shipments 

(2026–2034) 

30 years 

shipments 

(2026–2055) 

Site Energy .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.01 0.01 

FFC Energy ............................................................................................................................................................. 0.03 0.03 

OMB Circular A–4 20 requires 

agencies to present analytical results, 

including separate schedules of the 

monetized benefits and costs that show 

the type and timing of benefits and 

costs. Circular A–4 also directs agencies 

to consider the variability of key 

elements underlying the estimates of 

benefits and costs. For this proposed 

determination, DOE undertook a 

sensitivity analysis using 9 years, rather 

than 30 years, of product shipments. 

The choice of a 9-year period is a proxy 

for the timeline in EPCA for the review 

of certain energy conservation standards 

and potential revision of and 

compliance with such revised 

standards.21 The review timeframe 

established in EPCA is generally not 

synchronized with the product lifetime, 

product manufacturing cycles, or other 

factors specific to GSFLs. Thus, such 

results are presented for informational 

purposes only and are not indicative of 

any change in DOE’s analytical 

methodology. The NES sensitivity 

analysis results based on a 9-year 

analytical period are presented in Table 

V.1. The impacts are counted over the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32346 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

22U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 

Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 

2003. Available at obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/ omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ (last accessed March 4, 

2022). 

lifetime of GSFLs purchased in 2026– 

2034. 

2. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of 

the total costs and savings for 

consumers that would result from the 

max-tech levels considered for GSFLs. 

In accordance with OMB’s guidelines on 

regulatory analysis,22 DOE calculated 

NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3- 

percent real discount rate. Table V.2 

shows the consumer NPV results with 

impacts counted over the lifetime of 

products purchased in 2026–2055. 

TABLE V.2—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR GSFLS (BILLIONS OF 2021 USD); 9 YEARS

OF SHIPMENTS (2026–2034) AND 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS (2026–2055) 

Discount rate 

Maximum tech standard 

9 Years of 

shipments 

(2026–2034) 

30 Years of 

shipments 

(2026–2055) 

3 percent .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.21 0.26 

7 percent .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.15 0.18 

The NPV results based on the 

aforementioned 9-year analytical period 

are also presented in Table V.2. The 

impacts are counted over the lifetime of 

GSFLs purchased in 2026–2034. As 

mentioned previously, such results are 

presented for informational purposes 

only and are not indicative of any 

change in DOE’s analytical methodology 

or decision criteria. 

C. Proposed Determination 

As required by EPCA, this NOPD 

analyzes whether the Secretary should 

issue a notification of determination not 

to amend standards for GSFLs based on 

DOE’s consideration of whether 

amended standards would be 

technologically feasible, result in 

significant conservation of energy, and 

be cost effective. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) 

Any new or amended standards issued 

by the Secretary would be required to 

comply with the economic justification 

and other requirements of 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o). 

1. Technological Feasibility 

EPCA mandates that DOE consider 

whether amended energy conservation 

standards for GSFLs would be 

technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 

6295(n)(2)(B)) DOE has tentatively 

determined that there are technology 

options that would improve the efficacy 

of GSFLs. These technology options are 

being used in commercially available 

GSFLs and therefore are technologically 

feasible. Hence, DOE has tentatively 

determined that amended energy 

conservation standards for GSFLs are 

technologically feasible. 

2. Cost Effectiveness 

EPCA requires DOE to consider 

whether energy conservation standards 

for GSFLs would be cost effective 

through an evaluation of the savings in 

operating costs throughout the 

estimated average life of the covered 

GSFLs compared to any increase in the 

price of, or in the initial charges for, or 

maintenance expenses of, the covered 

GSFLs which are likely to result from 

the imposition of an amended standard. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. 

6295(n)(2)(C), and 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) In the absence of a 

LCC analysis, DOE considers NPV 

estimated by the NIA model to estimate 

the potential monetary benefits of 

amended standards for GSFLs. (See 

results in Table V.2) The inputs for 

determining the NPV are (1) total annual 

installed cost, (2) total annual operating 

costs (energy costs and repair and 

maintenance costs), and (3) a discount 

factor to calculate the present value of 

costs and savings. DOE observes that 

most of the estimated NPV resulting 

from a potential standard comes from 

operating cost savings associated to a 

slightly faster market transition to LED 

alternatives, rather than savings 

associated to lower energy consumption 

for GSFL consumers. 

3. Significant Conservation of Energy 

EPCA also mandates that DOE 

consider whether amended energy 

conservation standards for GSFLs would 

result in significant conservation of 

energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 

U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(A)) DOE observed that 

a max-tech FFC energy savings of 0.03 

quads over 30 years of shipments 

represents an approximately 1 percent 

decrease in total energy use of lamps 

shipped in the period 2026–2055. In 

addition, the model used to estimate 

these savings projects that most of this 

reduction comes in incurring a faster 

market shift to solid state lighting rather 

than a reduction in energy use among 

existing GSFL consumers. 

DOE also notes that GSFLs are 

manufactured and sold at standard 

wattage levels, which restricts the effect 

of efficiency gains to increasing the 

amount of light provided by GSFLs 

rather than directly reducing energy 

consumption. For 4-foot T8 GSFLs, 

which represent the bulk of GSFL 

shipments, the same wattage options are 

available at the max tech standard level 

as at the baseline, so there is no reason 

to believe that GSFL consumers will use 

less energy as a result of a standard. The 

0.02 FFC quads of potential energy 

savings associated with these lamps is 

thus uncertain, as consumers may 

simply continue to purchase a GSFL of 

the same wattage as their current lamp, 

rather than shift to a lower wattage lamp 

or different lighting technology. 

Consumers who have not already 

transitioned to LED lighting, once the 

vast majority of the market has done so, 

may be less inclined to do so than the 

typical consumer modeled by the 

consumer-choice model. 

The 8-foot recessed double-contact 

high-output product class and the 8-foot 

slimline product class do not include 

any lamp options at higher ELs that 

would reduce energy compared to the 

baseline lamp, with the exception of one 

lamp option in the 8-foot slimline 

product class that doesn’t offer the same 

utility as the other representative lamp 

options because its lumen output is 

more than 10 percent lower. Thus there 

is no potential energy savings from more 

efficient GSFLs for the 8-foot product 

classes. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 32347 

23 clasp, ‘‘Convention on Mercury Promises CFLs 

Phase-Out; Action on LFLs Delayed,’’ available at 

https://www.clasp.ngo/updates/convention-onmercury-agrees-to-phase-out-major-category-offluorescent-light-bulbs-but-last-minuteinterventions-delay-action-on-another/; UN 

Environment Programme, ‘‘Minamata COP–4 closes 

with global commitment to strengthen efforts 

against toxic mercury,’’ available at https://

www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/ 

minamata-cop-4-closes-global-commitmentstrengthen-efforts-against; UN Environment 

Programme, ‘‘Minamata Convention on Mercury,’’ 

available at https://www.mercuryconvention.org/en. 

The potential FFC energy savings 

from the remaining (4-foot T5 standard 

and high output) product classes is only 

0.01 quads over 30 years of shipments. 

While these product classes do offer a 

lower wattage option at max tech, in 

addition to an option with the same 

wattage as the baseline lamp, DOE notes 

that for standard output T5 lamps, the 

lower wattage lamp costs more than the 

baseline-equivalent wattage option, and 

for the high output T5 lamps, the lower 

wattage lamp costs similar to the 

baseline-equivalent option, again 

suggesting uncertainty that consumers 

will switch to a lower wattage lamp. 

Additionally, most potential energy 

savings would come from consumers 

switching to LEDs, and as with 4-foot T8 

GSFLs, there is no guarantee that 

consumers will switch to LEDs as a 

result of a standard, rather than 

continue to purchase GSFLs of the same 

wattage as their current lamp. 

Further, while consumers historically 

might save energy under a standard by 

retrofitting their systems with lower 

ballast factor ballasts to reduce the 

operating wattage of their lamps (while 

retaining light output), it appears 

unlikely in the current market that 

consumers would retrofit their ballasts 

in this way as opposed to installing a 

solid-state lighting solution. This 

removes the potential lamp-and-ballast 

replacement approach as a strategy to 

save energy, and consequently this 

approach was not modeled in this 

analysis of potential energy savings. 

4. Further Considerations 

As discussed previously, any 

amended standards for GSFLs would be 

required to comply with the economic 

justification and other requirements of 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Based on the: (1) 

Uncertainty of potential energy savings 

discussed in detail in section V.C.3 of 

this document; (2) the fact that an 

amended standard for GSFLs would 

require manufacturers to invest in the 

manufacture of more efficient GSFLs at 

a time when the market is already 

rapidly declining, as discussed in 

section IV.F; and (3) international 

uncertainty regarding the ability to sell 

GSFLs in the future following the 

second segment of the fourth meeting of 

the Conference of the Parties to the 

Minamata Convention on Mercury,23

DOE has tentatively determined that 

energy conservation standards for 

GSFLs would not be economically 

justified. 

5. Summary 

Based on the reasons stated in the 

foregoing discussion, DOE has 

tentatively determined that the energy 

conservation standards for GSFLs do not 

need to be amended because amended 

standards would not be economically 

justified. 

DOE will consider all comments 

received on this proposed determination 

in issuing any final determination. 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

and 13563 

Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ as 

supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 

13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 

2011), requires agencies, to the extent 

permitted by law, to (1) propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that its benefits justify its 

costs (recognizing that some benefits 

and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) 

tailor regulations to impose the least 

burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives, taking 

into account, among other things, and to 

the extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. DOE emphasizes as 

well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to 

use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible. In its guidance, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(‘‘OIRA’’) in the Office of Management 

and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) has emphasized 

that such techniques may include 

identifying changing future compliance 

costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes. For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, this proposed 

regulatory action is consistent with 

these principles. 

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also 

requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant 

regulatory actions’’ to OIRA for review. 

OIRA has determined that this proposed 

regulatory action does not constitute a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, 

this action was not submitted to OIRA 

for review under E.O. 12866. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (‘‘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 E.O. 13272, ‘‘Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s website (www.energy.gov/gc/ 

office-general-counsel). 

DOE recently conducted a focused 

inquiry into small business 

manufacturers of the products covered 

by this rulemaking. DOE used the Small 

Business Administration (‘‘SBA’’) size 

standards to determine whether any 

small entities would be subject to the 

requirements of the proposed 

determination. The small business size 

standards are listed by North American 

Industry Classification System 

(‘‘NAICS’’) code as well as by industry 

description and are available at 

www.sba.gov/document/support--tablesize-standards. Manufacturing GSFLs is 

classified under NAICS code 335110, 

‘‘electric lamp bulb and part 

manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets a 

threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer 

for an entity to be considered as a small 

business for this category. DOE used the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32348 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

24U.S. Department of Energy Compliance 

Certification Database, available at: 

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

Compliance Certification Database 24

and other publicly available information 

to create a list of manufacturers. DOE 

then used market research tools to 

determine whether any of the potential 

manufacturers met the SBA’s definition 

of a small entity, based on the total 

number of employees for each company 

including parent, subsidiary, and sister 

entities. DOE additionally screened out 

companies that are entirely or largely 

foreign owned and operated. DOE 

identified a total of 38 distinct potential 

small businesses that import or 

manufacturer GSFLs in the United 

States. 

DOE reviewed this proposed 

determination under the provisions of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

policies and procedures published on 

February 19, 2003. Because DOE is 

proposing not to amend standards for 

GSFLs, if adopted, the determination 

would not amend any energy 

conservation standards. On the basis of 

the foregoing, DOE certifies that the 

proposed determination, if adopted, 

would have no significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared an IRFA for this proposed 

determination. DOE will transmit this 

certification and supporting statement 

of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration for review under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Manufacturers of GSFLs must certify 

to DOE that their products comply with 

any applicable energy conservation 

standards. To certify compliance, 

manufacturers must first obtain test data 

for their products according to the DOE 

test procedures, including any 

amendments adopted for those test 

procedures. DOE has established 

regulations for the certification and 

recordkeeping requirements for all 

covered consumer products and 

commercial equipment, including 

microwave ovens. (See generally 10 CFR 

part 429.) The collection-of-information 

requirement for the certification and 

recordkeeping is subject to review and 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (‘‘PRA’’). This 

requirement has been approved by OMB 

under OMB control number 1910–1400. 

Public reporting burden for the 

certification is estimated to average 35 

hours per response, including the time 

for reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

current standards for GSFLs do not need 

to be amended. This proposed 

determination, if made final, would not 

impact the reporting burden approved 

under OMB control number 1910–1400. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

DOE is analyzing this proposed action 

in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(‘‘NEPA’’) and DOE’s NEPA 

implementing regulations (10 CFR part 

1021). DOE’s regulations include a 

categorical exclusion for actions which 

are interpretations or rulings with 

respect to existing regulations. 10 CFR 

part 1021, subpart D, appendix A4. DOE 

anticipates that this action qualifies for 

categorical exclusion A4 because it is an 

interpretation or ruling in regards to an 

existing regulation and otherwise meets 

the requirements for application of a 

categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 

1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA 

review before issuing the final action. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

E.O. 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR 

43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain 

requirements on Federal agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have federalism implications. The 

Executive order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive order also requires agencies to 

have an accountable process to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have Federalism 

implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 

published a statement of policy 

describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations. 65 FR 

13735. DOE has examined this proposed 

determination and has tentatively 

determined that it would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the GSFLs that are the subject of this 

proposed determination. States can 

petition DOE for exemption from such 

preemption to the extent, and based on 

criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6297) Therefore, no further action is 

required by E.O. 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 

12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ imposes 

on Federal agencies the general duty to 

adhere to the following requirements: 

(1) Eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguity, (2) write regulations to 

minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

rather than a general standard, and (4) 

promote simplification and burden 

reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). 

Regarding the review required by 

section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 

specifically requires that executive 

agencies make every reasonable effort to 

ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly 

specifies the preemptive effect, if any, 

(2) clearly specifies any effect on 

existing Federal law or regulation, (3) 

provides a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct while promoting 

simplification and burden reduction, (4) 

specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) 

adequately defines key terms, and (6) 

addresses other important issues 

affecting clarity and general 

draftsmanship under any guidelines 

issued by the Attorney General. Section 

3(c) of 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 

determination meets the relevant 

standards of E.O. 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 32349 

25 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking 

Peer Review Report.’’ 2007. Available at 

www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energyconservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-reviewreport-0 (last accessed March 4, 2022). 

26The report is available at 

www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-ofmethods-for-setting-building-and-equipmentperformance-standards. 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE 

published a statement of policy on its 

process for intergovernmental 

consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 

12820. DOE’s policy statement is also 

available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/ 

files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf. 

DOE examined this proposed 

determination according to UMRA and 

its statement of policy and determined 

that the proposed determination does 

not contain a Federal intergovernmental 

mandate, nor is it expected to require 

expenditures of $100 million or more in 

any one year by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector. As a result, the analytical 

requirements of UMRA do not apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

proposed determination, if finalized as 

proposed, 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 

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, 

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15, 1988), 

DOE has determined that this proposed 

determination, if finalized as proposed, 

would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides 

for Federal agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under information quality 

guidelines established by each agency 

pursuant to general guidelines issued by 

OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published 

at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 

DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 

FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to 

OMB Memorandum M–19–15, 

Improving Implementation of the 

Information Quality Act (April 24, 

2019), DOE published updated 

guidelines which are available at 

www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/ 

12/f70/DOE%20Final%20

Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20

Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has reviewed 

this NOPD under the OMB and DOE 

guidelines and has concluded that it is 

consistent with applicable policies in 

those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 

FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires 

Federal agencies to prepare and submit 

to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (‘‘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 

Executive 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. 

This proposed determination, which 

does not propose to amend energy 

conservation standards for GSFLs, is not 

a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it 

would not have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, nor has it been designated as 

such by the Administrator at OIRA. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (‘‘OSTP’’), 

issued its Final Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review (‘‘the 

Bulletin’’). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). 

The Bulletin establishes that certain 

scientific information shall be peer 

reviewed by qualified specialists before 

it is disseminated by the Federal 

Government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information,’’ 

which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific 

information the agency reasonably can 

determine will have, or does have, a 

clear and substantial impact on 

important public policies or private 

sector decisions.’’ Id. at 70 FR 2667. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal peer reviews of the 

energy conservation standards 

development process and the analyses 

that are typically used and has prepared 

Peer Review report pertaining to the 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking analyses.25 Generation of 

this report involved a rigorous, formal, 

and documented evaluation using 

objective criteria and qualified and 

independent reviewers to make a 

judgment as to the technical/scientific/ 

business merit, the actual or anticipated 

results, and the productivity and 

management effectiveness of programs 

and/or projects. Because available data, 

models, and technological 

understanding have changed since 2007, 

DOE has engaged with the National 

Academy of Sciences to review DOE’s 

analytical methodologies to ascertain 

whether modifications are needed to 

improve the Department’s analyses. 

DOE is in the process of evaluating the 

resulting report.26

VII. Public Participation 

DOE invites public participation in 

this process through participation in the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
32350 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

webinar and submission of written 

comments and information. After the 

webinar and the closing of the comment 

period, DOE will consider all timelysubmitted comments and additional 

information obtained from interested 

parties, as well as information obtained 

through further analyses. 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

The time and date of the webinar are 

listed in the DATES section at the 

beginning of this document. If no 

participants register for the webinar 

then it will be cancelled. Webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to webinar 

participants will be published on DOE’s 

website: www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/ 

standards.aspx?productid=22. 

Participants are responsible for ensuring 

their systems are compatible with the 

webinar software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

Any person who has an interest in the 

topics addressed in this NOPD, or who 

is representative of a group or class of 

persons that has an interest in these 

issues, may request an opportunity to 

make an oral presentation at the 

webinar. Such persons may submit 

requests to speak to 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. Persons who wish to speak 

should include with their request a 

computer file in WordPerfect, Microsoft 

Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format 

that briefly describes the nature of their 

interest in this proposed determination 

and the topics they wish to discuss. 

Such persons should also provide a 

daytime telephone number where they 

can be reached. 

C. Conduct of the Webinar 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the webinar/public meeting 

and may also use a professional 

facilitator to aid discussion. The 

meeting will not be a judicial or 

evidentiary-type public hearing, but 

DOE will conduct it in accordance with 

section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A 

court reporter will be present to record 

the proceedings and prepare a 

transcript. DOE reserves the right to 

schedule the order of presentations and 

to establish the procedures governing 

the conduct of the webinar/public 

meeting. There shall not be discussion 

of proprietary information, costs or 

prices, market share, or other 

commercial matters regulated by U.S. 

anti-trust laws. After the webinar/public 

meeting and until the end of the 

comment period, interested parties may 

submit further comments on the 

proceedings and any aspect of the 

proposed determination. 

The webinar/public meeting will be 

conducted in an informal, conference 

style. DOE will present a general 

overview of the topics addressed in this 

rulemaking, allow time for prepared 

general statements by participants, and 

encourage all interested parties to share 

their views on issues affecting this 

proposed determination. Each 

participant will be allowed to make a 

general statement (within time limits 

determined by DOE), before the 

discussion of specific topics. DOE will 

permit, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this proposed 

determination. The official conducting 

the webinar/public meeting will accept 

additional comments or questions from 

those attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

public meeting. 

A transcript of the webinar/public 

meeting will be included in the docket, 

which can be viewed as described in the 

Docket section at the beginning of this 

NOPD. In addition, any person may buy 

a copy of the transcript from the 

transcribing reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

determination no later than the date 

provided in the DATES section at the 

beginning of this NOPD. Interested 

parties may submit comments, data, and 

other information using any of the 

methods described in the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this 

document. 

Submitting comments via 

www.regulations.gov. The 

www.regulations.gov web page will 

require you to provide your name and 

contact information. Your contact 

information will be viewable to DOE 

Building Technologies staff only. Your 

contact information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment itself or in any 

documents attached to your comment. 

Any information that you do not want 

to be publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Otherwise, persons viewing comments 

will see only first and last names, 

organization names, correspondence 

containing comments, and any 

documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(‘‘CBI’’). Comments submitted through 

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

website will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through www.regulations.gov before 

posting. Normally, comments will be 

posted within a few days of being 

submitted. However, if large volumes of 

comments are being processed 

simultaneously, your comment may not 

be viewable for up to several weeks. 

Please keep the comment tracking 

number that www.regulations.gov 

provides after you have successfully 

uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email. 

Comments and documents submitted 

via email also will be posted to 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. With this 

instruction followed, the cover letter 

will not be publicly viewable as long as 

it does not include any comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. No faxes 

will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2022 / Proposed Rules 32351 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, that are written in English, and 

that are free of any defects or viruses. 

Documents should not contain special 

characters or any form of encryption 

and, if possible, they should carry the 

electronic signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

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 via email two well-marked 

copies: One copy of the document 

marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. DOE 

will make its own determination about 

the confidential status of the 

information and treat it according to its 

determination. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

(1) DOE seeks comment on the 

technology options identified and the 

ones selected as design options in the 

screening analysis. See sections IV.B.2 

and IV.B.3 of this document. 

(2) DOE seeks comment on the 

performance characteristics of the more 

efficacious substitutes. See section IV.C 

of this document. 

(3) DOE welcomes any relevant data 

and comment on the energy use analysis 

methodology. See section IV.D of this 

document. 

(4) DOE welcomes any relevant data 

and comment on the shipments analysis 

methodology. See section IV.F of this 

document. 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this notification of 

proposed determination and request for 

comment. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on May 23, 2022, by 

Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

pursuant to delegated authority from the 

Secretary of Energy. That document 

with the original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on May 24, 

2022. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11437 Filed 5–27–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[EERE–2019–BT–TP–0021] 

RIN 1904–AE75 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedures for Faucets and 

Showerheads 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and announcement of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’) proposes to amend the 

test procedures for faucets and 

showerheads to incorporate the current 

version of the referenced industry 

standard, American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers Standard 

A112.18.1–2018, ‘‘Plumbing Fixture 

Fittings.’’ DOE also proposes to add 

definitions for low-pressure water 

dispensers and pot fillers, and exclude 

them from the faucet definition. Finally, 

DOE proposes to provide further detail 

for conducting the flow rate 

measurement. DOE is seeking comment 

from interested parties on the proposal. 

DATES: 

Meeting: DOE will hold a webinar on 

Wednesday, June 22, 2022, from 1:00 

p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section V, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for webinar registration 

information, participant instructions, 

and information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. 

Comments: DOE will accept 

comments, data, and information 

regarding this proposal no later than 

August 1, 2022. See section V, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for details. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2019–BT–TP–0021, by 

any of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: to 

FaucetShowerhead2019TP0021. Include 

docket number EERE–2019–BT–TP– 

0021 in the subject line of the message. 

3. Postal Mail: Appliance and 

Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible, 

please submit all items on a compact 

disc (‘‘CD’’), in which case it is not 

necessary to include printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance 

and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza 

SW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible, 

please submit all items on a CD, in 

which case it is not necessary to include 

printed copies. 

No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

V of this document. 

Docket: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts (if a public 

meeting is held), comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at 

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

The docket web page can be found at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2019-BT-TP-0021. The docket web page 

contains instructions on how to access 

all documents, including public 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS