This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

29954 

Vol. 86, No. 106 

Friday, June 4, 2021 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[EERE–2019–BT–STD–0040] 

RIN 1904–AE52 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Consumer 

Products/Certain Commercial and 

Industrial Equipment; Early 

Assessment Review; Ceiling Fan Light 

Kits 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’) is undertaking an early 

assessment review for amended energy 

conservation standards for ceiling fan 

light kits (‘‘CFLKs’’) to determine 

whether to amend applicable energy 

conservation standards for this product. 

Specifically, through this request for 

information (‘‘RFI’’), DOE seeks data 

and information to evaluate whether 

amended energy conservation standards 

would result in significant savings of 

energy; be technologically feasible; and 

be economically justified. DOE 

welcomes written comments from the 

public on any subject within the scope 

of this document (including those topics 

not specifically raised), as well as the 

submission of data and other relevant 

information concerning this early 

assessment review. 

DATES: Written comments and 

information will be accepted on or 

before July 6, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2019–BT–STD–0040, by 

any of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: to CFLK2019STD0040@

ee.doe.gov. Include docket number 

EERE–2019–BT–STD–0040 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 

III of this document. 

Although DOE has routinely accepted 

public comment submissions through a 

variety of mechanisms, including 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 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 for this activity, 

which includes Federal Register 

notices, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at https://

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the https://

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 

https://www.regulations.gov/ 

docket?D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0040. 

The docket web page contains 

instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. See section III for 

information on how to submit 

comments through https://

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. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–2588. Email: 

Amelia.Whiting@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. Introduction 

A. Authority and Background 

B. Rulemaking History 

II. Request for Information 

A. Significant Savings of Energy 

1. Energy Use Analysis 

2. Shipments 

3. National Impact Analysis 

B. Product Classes 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. Technology Assessment 

2. Screening Analysis 

3. Efficiency Analysis 

C. Economic Justification 

1. Cost Analysis 

2. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

3. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

III. Submission of Comments 

I. Introduction 

DOE has established an early 

assessment review process to conduct a 

more focused analysis to evaluate, based 

on statutory criteria, whether a new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

is warranted. Based on the information 

received in response to the RFI and 

DOE’s own analysis, DOE will 

determine whether to proceed with a 

rulemaking for a new or amended 

energy conservation standard. If DOE 

makes an initial determination that a 

new or amended energy conservation 

standard would satisfy the applicable 

statutory criteria, or DOE’s analysis is 

inconclusive, DOE would undertake the 

preliminary stages of a rulemaking to 

issue a new or amended energy 

conservation standard. If DOE makes an 

initial determination based upon 

available evidence that a new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

would not meet the applicable statutory 

criteria, DOE would engage in notice 

and comment rulemaking before issuing 

a final determination that new or 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 106 / Friday, June 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29955 

1All 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). 

2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

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

3Table V.10 outlines the Cumulative national 

Energy Savings for CFLKs during a 30 year period. 

Continued 

amended energy conservation standards 

are not warranted. 

A. Authority and Background 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes 

DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of 

a number of consumer products and 

certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6291–6317) Title III, Part B 2 of EPCA 

established the Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products Other 

Than Automobiles. These products 

include ceiling fan light kits (‘‘CFLKs’’), 

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

6295(ff); 42 U.S.C. 6291(50)) EPCA 

prescribed energy conservation 

standards for these products, and 

authorized DOE to consider whether to 

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

6295(ff)(2)–(5)) 

Under EPCA, DOE’s energy 

conservation program consists 

essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) 

labeling, (3) 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). 

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for covered products 

established under EPCA generally 

supersede State laws and regulations 

concerning energy conservation testing, 

labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6297(a)–(c)) DOE may, however, grant 

waivers of Federal preemption for 

particular State laws or regulations, in 

accordance with the procedures and 

other provisions set forth under 42 

U.S.C. 6297(d). 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing new or amended 

standards for covered products. EPCA 

requires that any new or amended 

energy conservation standard prescribed 

by the Secretary of Energy (‘‘Secretary’’) 

be designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy or water 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) The Secretary may 

not prescribe an amended or new 

standard that will not result in 

significant conservation of energy, or is 

not technologically feasible or 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)) 

EPCA also requires that, not later than 

6 years after the issuance of any final 

rule establishing or amending a 

standard, DOE evaluate the energy 

conservation standards for each type of 

covered product, including those at 

issue here, and publish either a notice 

of determination that the standards do 

not need to be amended, or a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) that 

includes new proposed energy 

conservation standards (proceeding to a 

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

6295(m)(1)) DOE is publishing this RFI 

in accordance with the 6-year lookback 

requirement. 

B. Rulemaking History 

EPCA initially established individual 

energy conservation standards for three 

groups of CFLKs manufactured on or 

after January 1, 2007: (1) Those having 

medium screw base sockets (‘‘Medium 

Screw Base product class’’); (2) those 

having pin-based sockets for fluorescent 

lamps (‘‘Pin-Based product class’’); and 

(3) any CFLKs other than those included 

in the Medium Screw Base product 

class or the Pin-Based product class, 

including candelabra screw base sockets 

(‘‘Other Base Type product class’’). (42 

U.S.C. 6295(ff)(2)–(4)) In a technical 

amendment published on October 18, 

2005, DOE codified the EPCA 

requirements for the Medium Screw 

Base and Pin-Based product classes. 70 

FR 60407, 60413. EPCA also specified 

that if DOE did not issue a final rule on 

energy conservation standards for Other 

Base Type product class CFLKs by 

January 1, 2007, a 190 watt (‘‘W’’) limit 

would apply to those products 

manufactured after January 1, 2009. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(ff)(4)(C)) DOE did not issue 

a final rule on standards for CFLKs by 

that date, and published a technical 

amendment that codified EPCA’s 

requirements for Other Base Type 

product class CFLKs, which applied to 

such CFLKs manufactured on or after 

January 1, 2009. 72 FR 1270, 1273–1274 

(Jan. 11, 2007). In another technical 

amendment final rule to adopt updates 

to EPCA from the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007, DOE added a 

provision that CFLKs with sockets for 

pin-based fluorescent lamps must be 

packaged with lamps to fill all sockets. 

74 FR 12058, 12069 (Mar. 3, 2009). (42 

U.S.C. 6295(ff)(4)(C)(ii)) 

On January 6, 2016, DOE published a 

final rule adopting amended 

performance standards for CFLKs 

manufactured on or after January 7, 

2019. 81 FR 580 (‘‘January 2016 Final 

Rule’’). The January 2016 Final Rule 

established a minimum efficacy 

requirement for all CFLKs, expressed in 

lumens per watt (‘‘lm/W’’) that is 

applicable based on the lumen output of 

each basic model of lamp packaged with 

the basic model of CFLK or each basic 

model of integrated solid-state lighting 

(‘‘SSL’’) in the CFLK basic model. Id. at 

81 FR 581. Subsequently, DOE 

published a final rule that changed the 

compliance date from January 7, 2019 to 

January 21, 2020 to comply with Public 

Law 115–161, ‘‘Ceiling Fan Energy 

Conservation Harmonization Act’’ (the 

‘‘Act’’), which was signed into law on 

April 3, 2018. 83 FR 22587 (May 16, 

2018). The Act amended the compliance 

date for the CFLK standards to establish 

a single compliance date for the energy 

conservation standards for both CFLKs 

and ceiling fans. Id. The current energy 

conservation standards are located in 

title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) part 430, 

§ 430.32(s)(6). 

On December 24, 2015, DOE 

published a final rule (‘‘December 2015 

Final Rule’’) updating the CFLK test 

procedure. 80 FR 80209. The currently 

applicable DOE test procedure for 

CFLKs appears at 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendices V and V1 

(‘‘appendices V and V1’’). 

II. Request for Information 

DOE is publishing this RFI to collect 

data and information during the early 

assessment review to inform its 

decision, consistent with its obligations 

under EPCA, as to whether the 

Department should proceed with an 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking. Below DOE has identified 

certain topics for which information and 

data are requested to assist in the 

evaluation of the potential for amended 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

also welcomes comments on other 

issues relevant to its early assessment 

that may not specifically be identified in 

this document. 

A. Significant Savings of Energy 

The January 2016 Final Rule 

established an energy conservation 

standard for CFLKs that is expected to 

result in 0.049 quadrillion British 

thermal units (‘‘quads’’) of full-fuelcycle (‘‘FFC’’) energy savings over a 30- 

year period. 81 FR 580, 582. 

Additionally, in the January 2016 Final 

Rule, DOE estimated that an energy 

conservation standard established at an 

efficiency level equivalent to that 

achieved using the maximum available 

technology (‘‘max-tech’’) would have 

resulted in 0.070 quads of FFC energy 

savings.3 81 FR 580, 620. 

29956 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 106 / Friday, June 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

The max-tech trial standard level was TSL 4, which 

DOE estimated would result in 0.070 quads of FFC 

energy. 81 FR 580, 620. 

4 DNV KEMA Energy and Sustainability and 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Residential 

Lighting End-Use Consumption Study: Estimation 

Framework and Initial Estimates. 2012. (Last 

accessed December 5, 2019.) https://

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ 

ssl/2012_residential-lighting-study.pdf. 

5 Kantner, C.L.S., S.J. Young, S.M. Donovan, and 

K. Garbesi. Ceiling Fan and Ceiling Fan Light Kit 

Use in the U.S.—Results of a Survey on Amazon 

Mechanical Turk. 2013. Lawrence Berkeley 

National Laboratory: Berkeley, CA. Report No. 

LBNL–6332E. (Last accessed June 14, 2016.) http:// 

www.escholarship.org/uc/item/3r67c1f9. 

6Navigant Consulting, Inc. 2010 U.S. Lighting 

Market Characterization. 2012. U.S. Department of 

Energy: Washington, DC (Last accessed May 4, 

2020.) https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

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

7U.S. Department of Energy–Energy Information 

Administration. 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy 

Consumption Survey (CBECS). 2003. (Last accessed 

June 15, 2016.) https://www.eia.gov/consumption/ 

commercial/data/2003/index.cfm?view=microdata. 

8Available at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document/EERE-2012-BT-STD-0045-0121. 

9Available at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document/EERE-2012-BT-STD-0045-0123. 

While DOE’s request for information 

is not limited to the following issues, 

DOE is particularly interested in 

comments, information, and data on the 

following. 

1. Energy Use Analysis 

The purpose of the energy use 

analysis is to determine the annual 

energy consumption of CFLKs at 

different efficiencies in representative 

U.S. homes and commercial buildings, 

and to assess the energy savings 

potential of increased CFLK efficacy. To 

develop annual energy use estimates in 

the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE 

multiplied CFLK input power by the 

hours of use (‘‘HOU’’) per year. The 

energy use analysis estimates the range 

of energy use of CFLKs in the field (i.e., 

as they are actually used by consumers). 

81 FR 580, 598. 

In the January 2016 Final Rule, to 

determine the average HOU of CFLKs in 

the residential sector, DOE used data 

from various field metering studies of 

GSL operating hours in the residential 

sector. To account for any difference in 

CFLK HOU compared to GSL HOU, 

DOE considered two factors: (1) The 

relative HOU for GSLs installed in 

ceiling light fixtures compared to all 

GSLs based on data from the Residential 

Lighting End-Use Consumption Study 

(‘‘RLEUCS’’),4 and (2) the HOU 

associated with the specific room types 

in which CFLKs are installed based on 

installation location data from a 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

survey of ceiling fan and CFLK owners 

(‘‘LBNL survey’’) 5 and room-specific 

HOU data from RLEUCS. DOE assumed 

that CFLK operating hours do not vary 

by light source technology. DOE 

estimated that CFLKs are used an 

average of 2.0 hours per day in the 

residential sector. 81 FR 580, 598. 

For the commercial sector, the HOU 

for CFLKs in commercial buildings were 

developed using lighting data for 15 

commercial building types obtained 

from the 2010 U.S. Lighting Market 

Characterization (‘‘LMC’’).6 For each 

commercial building type presented in 

the LMC, DOE determined average HOU 

based on the fraction of installed lamps 

utilizing each of the light source 

technologies typically used in CFLKs 

and the HOU for each of these light 

source technologies. A national-average 

HOU for the commercial sector was then 

estimated by weighting the buildingspecific HOU for lamps used in CFLKs 

by the relative floor space of each 

building type as reported in the 2003 

Energy Information Administration 

(‘‘EIA’’) Commercial Buildings Energy 

Consumption Survey (‘‘CBECS’’).7 81 FR 

580, 598–599. DOE calculated that, 

nationwide, CFLKs are used an average 

of 10.7 hours per day in the commercial 

sector (see chapter 6 of the January 2016 

Final Rule technical support document 

[‘‘TSD’’] 8). 

In the January 2016 Final Rule TSD, 

DOE did not consider the industrial 

sector in the analysis because DOE 

determined that CFLKs are designed 

almost solely for the low-volume (i.e. 

low air flow) ceiling fan market, which 

are not suitable for the large spaces 

characteristic of most industrial 

buildings (see chapter 6 of the January 

2016 Final Rule TSD). 

DOE developed its estimate of the 

power consumption of CFLKs by scaling 

the input power and lumen output of 

the representative lamp units from the 

engineering analysis to account for the 

lumen output of CFLKs in the market. 

DOE estimated average CFLK lumen 

output based on a weighted average of 

CFLK models from data collected in 

2014 from in-store shelf surveys and 

product offerings on the internet. DOE 

estimated the market share of each 

identified CFLK model based on price. 

81 FR 580, 599. 

In the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE 

assumed that the only lighting controls 

used with CFLKs are dimmers. DOE 

further assumed that CFLKs did not 

have dimmable CFLs due to technical 

issues associated with CFL dimmability. 

DOE estimated CFLKs with dimmable 

incandescent and LED light sources to 

be an equal fraction and total 11 

percent, and assumed that dimmable 

CFLKs have an average energy reduction 

of 30 percent. DOE used these 

percentages for both the residential and 

commercial sector in determining the 

energy consumption. 81 FR 580, 599. 

(See chapter 6 of the January 2016 Final 

Rule TSD). 

For further details regarding the prior 

energy use methodology, see chapter 6 

of the January 2016 Final Rule TSD. 

Issue 1: DOE requests comments on 

whether the methodology and data 

sources for determining residential and 

commercial HOU for CFLKs need to be 

changed, beyond updating to more 

recent versions of the sources if updated 

versions exist. 

Issue 2: DOE seeks feedback on its 

methodology used to determine impact 

of lighting controls for CFLKs in the 

January 2016 Final Rule, and whether it 

is appropriate for future potential 

analyses. 

Issue 3: DOE requests information on 

the percent of CFLKs that incorporate 

lighting controls, the types of lighting 

controls incorporated, and data on how 

the controls affect typical energy 

consumption. 

2. Shipments 

DOE develops shipments forecasts of 

CFLKs to calculate the national impacts 

of potential amended energy 

conservation standards on energy 

consumption. DOE shipment 

projections are based on available 

historical data and an analysis of key 

market drivers for each product. 

Historical shipment data are used to 

build up a product stock and to calibrate 

the shipments model. 

The shipments model projects 

shipments over a 30-year analysis 

period for the base case (no-newstandards) and for all standards cases. In 

the January 2016 Final Rule, shipments 

were calculated for the residential and 

commercial sectors by assigning 95 

percent of shipments to the residential 

sector and 5 percent to the commercial 

sector. DOE further assumed in its 

analysis that CFLKs are primarily found 

on standard and hugger ceiling fans. 

DOE also assumed that the distribution 

of CFLKs by light source technology in 

the commercial sector is the same as the 

light source technology distribution in 

the residential sector. 81 FR 580, 603. 

Specifically, the January 2016 Final 

Rule projected the breakout of 

shipments across years 2017 through 

2020, as shown in Table II.1. (See 

January 2016 Final Rule Ceiling Fan 

Light Kits Final Rule National Impact 

Analysis (NIA) Spreadsheets.9) 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 106 / Friday, June 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29957 

TABLE II.1—PROJECTED CFLK SHIPMENTS FROM THE JANUARY 2016 

FINAL RULE

(Millions of units) 

2017 2018 2019 2020 

17.2 17.6 17.7 18.1 

For further details regarding the prior 

shipments analysis, see chapter 9 of the 

January 2016 Final Rule TSD. 

Issue 4: DOE seeks feedback on how 

the shipments in the years shown in 

Table II.1 compare to actual shipments 

of CFLKs in those years. DOE also 

requests data and information on 

historical shipments of CFLKs and/or 

suggestions for data sources to use. 

Issue 5: DOE requests information on 

the percent of CFLKs sold with a ceiling 

fan versus without a ceiling fan and the 

percent of CFLKs sold into the 

residential sector versus the commercial 

sector. DOE also requests feedback on 

whether these percentages have changed 

over time or whether they are expected 

to change in the future. 

Issue 6: DOE requests information on 

any potential market trends that may 

affect future shipments of CFLKs and/or 

ceiling fans. DOE also seeks information 

regarding data that might reasonably 

and substantively inform the 

distribution forecast of efficacy levels 

for CFLKs. 

3. National Impact Analysis 

The purpose of the national impact 

analysis (‘‘NIA’’) is to estimate the 

aggregate impacts of potential efficiency 

standards at the national level. DOE 

evaluates the impacts of potential 

amended standards by comparing a nonew-standards-case projection with 

standards-case projections. The no-newstandards-case projection characterizes 

energy use and consumer costs in the 

absence of amended energy 

conservation standards, whereas the 

standards-case projections make the 

same characterizations while 

eliminating products from the market 

that don’t meet the standard. DOE 

develops market share distributions for 

CFLKs at each efficacy level (‘‘EL’’) in 

the no-new-standards case and each of 

the standards cases in its shipments 

analysis. 

Table II.2 summarizes the inputs and 

methods DOE used in the NIA for the 

January 2016 Final Rule. See chapter 10 

of the January 2016 Final Rule TSD for 

further details. 

TABLE II.2—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS IN THE JANUARY 2016 FINAL

RULE

Inputs Method 

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

No-new-standards Case Forecasted Efficacies Estimated by market-share module of shipments model including impact of SSL incursion. 

Standards Case Forecasted Efficacies .............. Estimated by market-share module of shipments model including impact of SSL incursion. 

Annual Energy Consumption per Unit ................ Annual weighted-average values are a function of energy use at each EL, including impacts of 

replacing CFLK lamps over the CFLK lifetime. 

Total Installed Cost per Unit ............................... Annual weighted-average values are a function of cost at each EL. Incorporates projection of 

future LED lamp prices based on historical data. 

Annual Energy Cost per Unit .............................. Annual weighted-average values as a function of the annual energy consumption per unit and 

energy prices. 

Repair and Maintenance Cost per Unit .............. Annual values do not change with EL. Replacement lamp costs are calculated for each EL 

over the analysis period. 

Energy Prices ..................................................... AEO 2015 forecasts (to 2040) and extrapolation through 2048. 

Energy Site-to-Primary and full fuel cycle (FFC) 

Conversion.

A time-series conversion factor based on AEO 2015. 

Discount Rate ..................................................... Three and seven percent. 

Issue 7: DOE requests whether the 

methodologies employed in the NIA for 

the January 2016 Final Rule remain 

appropriate. If not, DOE requests 

information and data on changes to the 

methodologies that should be 

considered. 

Issue 8: DOE requests feedback on 

whether potential standards for CFLKs 

may cause consumers to purchase nonCFLK lighting products. 

B. Product Classes 

When evaluating and establishing 

energy conservation standards, DOE 

may divide covered products into 

product classes by the type of energy 

used, or by capacity or other 

performance-related features that justify 

a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) 

In making a determination whether 

capacity or another 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 deems 

appropriate. (Id.) 

CFLKs manufactured on or after 

January 21, 2020, must be packaged 

with lamps to fill all sockets, and each 

basic model of lamp packaged with the 

basic model of CFLK and each basic 

model of integrated SSL in the CFLK 

basic model must meet a minimum 

efficacy (specified in lm/W) that is 

determined based on the lumen output 

of the basic model of lamp or integrated 

SSL. 10 CFR 430.32(s)(6). CFLKs are not 

separated into product classes for the 

purpose of the minimum efficacy 

requirement. For CFLKs with medium 

screw base sockets that are packaged 

with compact fluorescent lamps 

(‘‘CFLs’’), the CFLs must meet specified 

lumen maintenance, rapid cycle stress, 

and lifetime requirements. 10 CFR 

430.32(s)(6)(i). CFLKs with pin base 

fluorescent lamps must use an 

electronic ballast. 10 CFR 

430.32(s)(6)(ii). 

Issue 9: DOE requests feedback on 

whether the current single product class 

for CFLKs under the minimum efficacy 

requirements is appropriate. 

Specifically, DOE requests feedback on 

whether integrated SSL circuitry offers 

features not available in light emitting 

diode (‘‘LED’’) lamps that may be 

packaged with a CFLK and whether 

such features impact the efficacy of 

integrated SSLs as compared to LEDs (if 

efficacy is impacted, please quantify the 

impact). 

Issue 10: DOE seeks information 

regarding any new product classes it 

should consider for inclusion in its 

analysis. Specifically, DOE requests 

information on the performance-related 

features (e.g., base type, lamp length, 

etc.) that provide unique consumer 

utility and data detailing the 

corresponding impacts on efficacy that 

would justify separate product classes 

(i.e., explanation for why the presence 

29958 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 106 / Friday, June 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

of these performance-related features 

would decrease efficacy). 

C. Technological Feasibility 

During the January 2016 Final Rule, 

DOE considered a number of technology 

options that manufacturers could use to 

reduce energy consumption in CFLKs. 

81 FR 580, 591. 

Issue 11: DOE seeks comment on any 

changes to these technology options that 

could affect whether DOE could propose 

a ‘‘no-new-standards’’ determination, 

such as an insignificant increase in the 

range of efficiencies and performance 

characteristics of these technology 

options. DOE also seeks comment on 

whether there are any other technology 

options that 

Issue 12: DOE should consider in its 

analysis. 

While DOE’s request for information 

is not limited to the following issues, 

DOE is particularly interested in 

comment, information, and data on the 

following. 

1. Technology Assessment 

In analyzing the feasibility of 

potential new or amended energy 

conservation standards, DOE uses 

information about existing and past 

technology options and prototype 

designs to help identify technologies 

that manufacturers could use to meet 

and/or exceed a given set of energy 

conservation standards under 

consideration. In consultation with 

interested parties, DOE intends to 

develop a list of technologies to 

consider in its analysis. That analysis 

will likely include a number of the 

technology options DOE previously 

considered during its most recent 

rulemaking for CFLKs. A complete list 

of those prior options appears in Table 

II.3. 

TABLE II.3—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR CFLKS CONSIDERED IN THE JANUARY 2016 FINAL RULE

Lamp type Name of technology 

option Description 

CFL .................... 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 ................... Techniques to increase the conversion of ultraviolet (‘‘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. 

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

Cold Spot Optimization ........................... Improve cold spot design to maintain optimal temperature and improve light output. 

Improved Ballast Components ................ Use of higher-grade components to improve efficiency of integrated ballasts. 

Improved Ballast Circuit Design .............. Better circuit design to improve efficiency of integrated ballasts. 

Change in Technology ............................ Replace CFL with LED technology. 

LED lamp ........... Efficient Down Converters ....................... New high-efficiency wavelength conversion materials, such as optimized phosphor conversion, quantum-dots, have the potential for creating warm-white 

LEDs with improved spectral efficiency, high color quality, and improved thermal stability. 

Improved Package Architectures ............ Novel package architectures such as color mixing (RGB+) and hybrid architecture 

to improve package efficacy. 

Improved Emitter Materials ..................... The development of efficient red, green, or amber LED emitters, will allow for optimization of spectral efficiency with high color quality over a range of correlated 

color temperature (CCT) and which also exhibit color and efficiency stability 

with respect to operating temperature. 

Alternative Substrate Materials ............... Alternative substrates such as gallium nitride (GaN), silicon carbide to enable 

high-quality epitaxy for improved device quality and efficacy. 

Improved Thermal Interface Materials 

(‘‘TIMs’’).

TIMs that enable high-efficiency thermal transfer for long-term reliability and performance optimization of the LED device. 

Optimized Heat Sink Design ................... Improve thermal conductivity and heat dissipation from the LED chip, thus reducing efficacy loss from rises in junction temperature. 

Active Thermal Management Systems ... Devices such as internal fans and vibrating membranes to improve thermal dissipation from the LED chip. 

Device-Level Optics ................................ Enhancements to the primary optic of the LED package such as surface etching

that would optimize extraction of usable light from the LED package and reduce 

losses due to light absorption at interfaces. 

Increased Light Utilization (Secondary 

Optics).

Reduce or eliminate optical losses from the lamp housing, diffusion, beam shaping, and other secondary optics to increase efficacy using mechanisms such as 

reflective coatings and improved diffusive coatings. 

Improved Driver Design .......................... Increase driver efficiency through novel and intelligent circuit design. 

AC LEDs .................................................. Eliminate the requirements of a driver and therefore reduce efficiency losses from 

the driver. 

Reduced Current Density ........................ Driving LED chips at lower currents while maintaining light output, and thereby reducing the efficiency losses associated with efficacy droop. 

Issue 13: DOE seeks information on 

the technologies listed in Table II.3 of 

this document regarding their 

applicability to the current market and 

how these technologies may impact the 

efficacy of light sources in CFLKs as 

measured according to the DOE test 

procedure. DOE also seeks information 

on how these technologies may have 

changed since they were considered in 

the January 2016 Final Rule analysis. 

Specifically, DOE seeks information on 

the range of efficiencies or performance 

characteristics that are currently 

available for each technology option. 

Issue 14: DOE seeks information on 

the technologies listed in Table II.3 of 

this document regarding their market 

adoption, costs, and any concerns with 

incorporating them into products (e.g., 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 106 / Friday, June 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29959 

impacts on consumer utility, potential 

safety concerns, manufacturing/ 

production/implementation issues, etc.), 

particularly as to changes that may have 

occurred since the January 2016 Final 

Rule. 

Issue 15: DOE seeks comment on 

other technology options that it should 

consider for inclusion in its analysis 

and whether these technologies impact 

product features or consumer utility. 

2. Screening Analysis 

The purpose of the screening analysis 

is to evaluate the technologies that 

improve the efficacy of light sources to 

determine which technologies will be 

eliminated from further consideration 

and which will be passed to the 

engineering analysis for further 

consideration. DOE determines whether 

to eliminate certain technology options 

from further consideration based on the 

following criteria: 

(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 of a technology in 

commercial products and reliable 

installation and servicing of the 

technology could not be achieved on the 

scale necessary to serve the relevant 

market at the time of the compliance 

date of the standard, then that 

technology will not be considered 

further. 

(3) Impacts on product utility or 

product availability. If a technology is 

determined to have significant adverse 

impact on the utility of the product to 

significant subgroups of consumers, or 

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 will 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(c)(3) and 7(b) of the 

Process Rule. 

Technology options identified in the 

technology assessment are evaluated 

against these criteria using DOE 

analyses and inputs from interested 

parties (e.g., manufacturers, trade 

organizations, and energy efficiency 

advocates). Technologies that pass 

through the screening analysis are 

referred to as ‘‘design options’’ in the 

engineering analysis. Technology 

options that fail to meet one or more of 

the five criteria are eliminated from 

consideration. 

Table II.4 summarizes the technology 

options that DOE screened out in the 

January 2016 Final Rule, and the 

applicable screening criteria. 

TABLE II.4—SCREENED-OUT TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FROM THE JANUARY 2016 FINAL RULE

Lamp type Screened-out technology option 

EPCA criteria 

(X = basis for screening out) 

Technological 

feasibility 

Practicability to 

manufacture, 

install, and 

service 

Adverse 

impact on 

product utility 

Adverse 

impacts on 

health and 

safety 

CFL ................... Multi-Photon Phosphors ............................................... X 

LED ................... Colloidal Quantum Dot Phosphors ............................... X 

Improved Emitter Materials .......................................... X 

In the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE 

considered AC LEDs as a design option. 

81 FR 580, 592. AC LEDs remove the 

need for a driver component, potentially 

reducing efficiency losses. However, in 

the March 2016 NOPR for general 

service lamps, DOE screened out this 

technology option. DOE concluded that 

because commercial products were only 

offered by one company, are not 

available across a range of lumen 

packages, and are limited to G-shape 

lamps, the technology option did not 

meet the criteria of practicability to 

manufacture, install, and service and 

adverse impacts on product utility or 

product availability. 81 FR 14528, 14566 

(March 17, 2016). DOE has reviewed the 

current market and continued to 

identify only one company that is 

producing AC LED lamp models. The 

models are offered with limited 

characteristics: GU10 base and 400 

lumens; candle-shaped and around 260 

lumens; and G-shaped and around 290 

lumens. 

Issue 16: DOE requests feedback on 

the technological feasibility of AC LED 

lamp products—including details on 

shapes, bases, and lumen ranges. DOE 

also requests information on whether 

other manufacturers already offer or are 

planning to introduce AC LED lamps to 

the market. 

Issue 17: DOE requests feedback on 

what impact, if any, the five screening 

criteria described in this section would 

have on each of the technology options 

listed in Table II.3 of this document 

with respect to their potential use in 

CFLKs. Similarly, DOE seeks 

information regarding how these same 

criteria would affect any other 

technology options not already 

identified in this document with respect 

to their potential use in CFLKs. 

Issue 18: With respect to the screenedout technology options listed in Table 

II.4 of this document, DOE seeks 

information on whether these options 

would, based on current and projected 

assessments regarding each of them, 

remain screened out under the five 

screening criteria described in this 

section. With respect to each of these 

technology options, what steps, if any, 

could be (or have already been) taken to 

facilitate the introduction of each option 

as a means to improve the energy 

performance of CFLKs and the potential 

to impact consumer utility of the CFLK. 

3. 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 

29960 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 106 / Friday, June 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

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 the January 2016 Final Rule DOE 

used an efficiency-level approach, 

determining efficiency levels based 

generally on commercially available 

lamps that incorporate the design 

options identified in the technology 

assessment and screening analysis. 81 

FR 580, 592. For each established 

product class, DOE selects a baseline 

model as a reference point against 

which any changes resulting from new 

or amended energy conservation 

standards can be measured. The 

baseline model in each product class 

represents the characteristics of 

common or typical products in that 

class. Typically, a baseline model is one 

that meets the current minimum energy 

conservation standards and provides 

basic consumer utility. The current 

standards for CFLKs are based on 

efficacy and are found at 10 CFR 

430.32(s)(6). 

Issue 19: DOE requests feedback on 

whether the current established energy 

conservation standards are appropriate 

baselines for CFLKs to evaluate whether 

to amend the current energy 

conservation standards for these 

products. 

Issue 20: DOE requests data and 

information regarding the most common 

models of CFLKs (i.e. whether they use 

lamps or integrated SSL circuitry, the 

number of light sources, the total lumen 

output of the fixture, etc.). DOE requests 

information on the percent of CFLKs 

that have sockets for lamps versus the 

percent that have integrated SSL 

circuitry. 

Issue 21: DOE requests feedback on 

the common characteristics of light 

sources found in CFLKs (i.e., 

technology, base type, wattage, efficacy, 

color rendering index (‘‘CRI’’), 

correlated color temperature (‘‘CCT’’), 

and lifetime). DOE requests information 

on the percent of CFLKs with sockets 

that are shipped with CFLs versus LED 

lamps. 

Issue 22: DOE requests feedback on 

the appropriate baseline models for any 

newly analyzed product classes that are 

not currently in place, as discussed in 

section II.B.1 of this document. For 

newly analyzed product classes, DOE 

requests energy use data to develop a 

baseline relationship between energy 

use and adjusted volume. 

In the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE 

selected a baseline and more-efficacious 

substitutes taking into consideration 

two different substitution scenarios: (1) 

A lamp replacement scenario and (2) a 

light kit replacement scenario (i.e., 

accounting for changes to the fixture). In 

both scenarios, the baseline lamp was 

kept the same and the baseline fixture 

was assumed to have the most common 

total socket number of two for CFLKs. 

In the lamp replacement scenario, the 

more-efficacious substitute was required 

to have the same base type as the 

baseline lamp and no changes to the 

fixture were made. In the light kit 

replacement scenario, a moreefficacious fixture was chosen, allowing 

for a more-efficacious lamp substitute 

with a different base type than the 

baseline lamp and with a different 

number of sockets than the baseline 

fixture. For additional discussion of the 

baseline selected for the January 2016 

Final Rule, see chapter 5 of the January 

2016 Final Rule TSD. 81 FR 580, 594– 

595. 

In the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE 

ensured potential substitutions 

maintained lumen output within 10 

percent of the baseline lamp lumen 

output (for the lamp replacement 

scenario) and within 10 percent of the 

baseline fixture lumen output (for the 

light kit replacement scenario). 81 FR 

580, 594. In the January 2016 Final Rule 

TSD, DOE ensured that a wide variety 

of design options would be available at 

all efficacy levels (‘‘ELs’’) (e.g., E12, E17, 

and G9 bases and candle, flame tip, and 

torpedo shapes). DOE also ensured that 

dimmable lamps and lamps with a range 

of CCTs and lumen packages were 

available at all ELs. Further, DOE 

confirmed that CFLKs with consumerreplaceable and non-consumer 

replaceable LED modules and drivers 

would meet EL 3. See chapter 5 of the 

January 2016 Final Rule TSD. 

In the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE 

developed a continuous equation to 

establish ELs, specifying a minimum 

lamp efficacy for a lumen package. To 

develop the general form of the 

equation, DOE evaluated lamps with 

similar characteristics, such as 

technology, bulb shape, and lifetime, 

across a range of lumen outputs. 81 FR 

580, 596. 

The maximum available efficacies 

analyzed in the January 2016 Final Rule 

are provided in Table II.5 and Table II.6 

of this document. The maximum 

available efficacy level is the highest 

efficacy unit currently available on the 

market. 

TABLE II.5—MAX TECH EFFICACY FROM THE JANUARY 2016 FINAL RULE

[Lamp replacement scenario] 

Lamp type Base type Bulb shape Wattage 

W 

Initial lumen 

output 

lm 

Efficacy 

lm/W CRI CCT K 

Lamp 

Lifetime 

hr 

LED ............................................................. E26 ............... A19 ............... 8 820 102.5 80 2,700 25,000

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 106 / Friday, June 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29961 

TABLE II.6—MAX TECH EFFICACY FROM THE JANUARY 2016 FINAL RULE

[Light Kit Replacement Scenario] 

Lamp type Base type Bulb 

shape 

Fixture 

sockets 

Lamp 

watt-age 

W 

Fixture 

wattage 

W 

Lamp 

initial 

lumen 

output 

lm 

Fixture 

initial 

lumen 

output 

lm 

Efficacy 

lm/W CRI CCT K 

Lamp 

life 

hr 

LED .................................. E26 ........... A21 ........... 1 15 15 1,600 1,600 106.7 82 2,700 25,000 

Issue 23: DOE seeks input on whether 

the max-tech levels are appropriate and 

technologically feasible for potential 

consideration as possible energy 

conservation standards for the products 

at issue—and if not, why not. 

Issue 24: DOE seeks feedback on what 

design options would be incorporated at 

a max-tech efficacy level, and the 

efficacies associated with those levels. 

As part of this request, DOE also seeks 

information as to whether there are 

limitations on the use of certain 

combinations of design options. 

Issue 25: DOE seeks information on 

the efficacy of available CFLKs, from 

baseline model to max tech level, and 

the percent of CFLKs available at each 

level of efficacy. DOE also seeks 

feedback on whether the efficacy 

distribution varies based on whether the 

CFLK includes individual lamps or 

integrated SSL circuitry and whether 

the efficacy distribution is expected to 

change over time. 

D. Economic Justification 

In determining whether a proposed 

energy conservation standard is 

economically justified, DOE analyzes, 

among other things, the potential 

economic impact on consumers, 

manufacturers, and the Nation. DOE 

seeks comment on whether there are 

economic barriers to the adoption of 

more-stringent energy conservation 

standards. DOE also seeks comment and 

data on any other aspects of its 

economic justification analysis from the 

January 2016 Final Rule that may 

indicate whether a more-stringent 

energy conservation standard would be 

economically justified or cost effective. 

While DOE’s request for information 

is not limited to the following issues, 

DOE is particularly interested in 

comment, information, and data on the 

following. 

1. 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 availability and reliability of 

public information, characteristics of 

the regulated product, and the 

availability and timeliness of 

purchasing the CFLK 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 January 2016 Final Rule TSD, 

DOE used a price-survey approach to 

develop consumer prices for the 

representative lamp unit at each EL. To 

do so, DOE determined the consumer 

price of the CFLK and then determined 

the portion of that price attributable to 

the lamp packaged with the CFLK. 

Based on feedback from manufacturer 

interviews, DOE identified three main 

distribution channels for CFLKs: 

Electrical/specialty centers, home 

centers, and lighting showrooms. DOE 

compared the consumer prices from 

each channel to manufacturer-suggested 

distributor net prices of ceiling fans sold 

with CFLKs to determine premiums for 

each distribution channel. Then using 

estimated shipments going through each 

channel based on manufacturer 

interviews, DOE applied the following 

weightings to develop one premium: 

Electrical/specialty channel at 12 

percent, home center channel at 80 

percent, and lighting showroom channel 

at 8 percent. DOE applied the average 

shipment-weighted premium to the 

distributor net prices of the ceiling fans 

sold with CFLKs to obtain their 

consumer price. DOE then applied 20 

percent to this price to determine the 

consumer price of just the CFLK. See 

chapter 7 of the January 2016 Final Rule 

TSD. 

Finally, DOE applied the percentage 

that comprises the lamp component of 

the CFLK to the CFLK consumer price. 

Based on manufacturer feedback and 

stakeholder comments, DOE applied 15 

percent for a CFLK with a 13 W spiral 

CFL to obtain the consumer price of the 

lamp component of the CFLK. For other 

representative lamp units, DOE applied 

ratios of their consumer prices and the 

13 W spiral CFL consumer price. See 

chapter 7 of the January 2016 Final Rule 

TSD. 

For the light kit fixture scenario, DOE 

also included the incremental cost due 

to changes in socket configuration when 

applicable. 81 FR 580, 598. Based on 

manufacturer feedback, DOE estimated 

that medium screw base (E26) sockets 

cost $0.15 to the manufacturer and 

GU24 and pin-base sockets cost $0.35 to 

the manufacturer. See chapter 7 of the 

January 2016 Final Rule TSD. 

For additional discussion regarding 

the development of end-user prices for 

the January 2016 Final Rule, see chapter 

6 of the January 2016 Final Rule TSD. 

Issue 26: DOE requests comments on 

the whether the described methodology 

for the pricing analysis is appropriate as 

well as information on the existence of 

any distribution channels other than 

those described and their assigned 

weighting. 

Issue 27: DOE also requests 

information on the percentage of 

consumer price the CFLK comprises of 

a ceiling fan; and the percentage of 

consumer price the lamp component(s) 

comprises of a CFLKs and whether they 

are different for different lamp types 

(e.g., CFL, LED lamp). 

Issue 28: DOE requests information on 

the consumer price of a socket in a 

CFLK and whether they are different for 

different socket types (e.g., E12, GU24, 

pin-base). 

Issue 29: DOE requests information on 

the difference in cost (if any) between a 

CFLK providing a certain light output 

using individual lamps and a CFLK 

providing the same light output using 

integrated SSL circuitry. What are the 


I I I I I I I I I I I 
29962 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 106 / Friday, June 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

primary factors affecting the cost of a 

CFLK using integrated SSL circuitry? 

1. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

DOE conducts the life-cycle cost 

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

analysis to evaluate the economic effects 

of potential energy conservation 

standards for CFLKs on individual 

consumers. 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. For 

any given EL, DOE measures the PBP 

and the change in LCC relative to an 

estimated baseline level. The LCC is the 

total consumer expense of a product 

over its lifetime, consisting of total 

installed cost (product price, 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 more-efficient 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. 

For each potential standard level, 

DOE measures the change in LCC based 

on the estimated change in efficacy 

distribution in the standards case 

relative to the estimated efficacy 

distribution in the no-new-standards 

case. These efficacy distributions 

include market trends for products that 

may exceed the efficacy associated with 

a given standard level as well as the 

current energy conservation standards. 

In contrast, the PBP for a given EL is 

measured relative to the baseline 

product. 

Table II.7 summarizes the approach 

and data DOE used to derive inputs to 

the LCC and PBP calculations for CFLKs 

in the January 2016 Final Rule. See 

chapter 8 of the January 2016 Final Rule 

TSD and its appendices for more detail. 

TABLE II.7—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS IN THE JANUARY 2016 FINAL RULE * 

Inputs Source/method 

Product Cost ** .................................................... Multiplied the weighted-average consumer price of each CFLK lamp and socket (determined in 

the product price determination) with a scaling factor to account for the total weighted-average CFLK lumen output. For LED lamps, DOE used a price learning analysis to project 

CFLK lamp prices to the compliance year. 

Sales Tax ............................................................ Derived 2019 population-weighted-average tax values for each state based on Census population projections and sales tax data from Sales Tax Clearinghouse. 

Disposal Cost ...................................................... Assumed 35% of commercial CFLs are disposed of at a cost of $0.70 per CFL. Assumptions 

based on industry expert feedback and a Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection mercury lamp recycling rate report. 

Annual Energy Use ............................................. Derived in the energy use analysis. Varies by geographic location and room type in the residential sector and by building type in the commercial sector. 

Energy Prices ..................................................... Electricity: Based on 2014 marginal electricity price data from the Edison Electric Institute. 

Variability: Marginal electricity prices vary by season, U.S. region, and baseline electricity consumption level. 

Energy Price Trends ........................................... Based on AEO 2015 price forecasts. 

Lamp Replacements ........................................... For lamp failures during the lifetime of the CFLK, consumers replace lamps with lamp options 

available in the market that have the same base type and provide a similar lumen output to 

the initially packaged lamps. 

Residual Value .................................................... Represents the value of surviving lamps at the end of the CFLK lifetime. DOE discounts the 

residual value to the start of the analysis period and calculates it based on the remaining 

lamp’s lifetime and price in the year the CFLK is retired. 

Product Lifetime .................................................. Based on a ceiling fan lifetime distribution, with a mean of 13.8 years. 

Discount Rates ................................................... Approach involves identifying all possible debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase the considered appliances, or might be affected indirectly. Primary data source was 

the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances. 

Efficacy Distribution ............................................ Estimated by the market-share module of shipments model. 

* See chapter 8 of the January 2016 Final Rule TSD for references for the data sources mentioned in this table. 

** DOE did not take into account installation cost as one of the total installed cost inputs. DOE assumed that the installation cost, which represents all costs required to install the CFLK, was not affected by changes in product efficacy and was therefore the same for all ELs for both 

the residential and commercial sectors. 

Issue 30: DOE requests comment on 

whether the methodology described in 

the January 2016 Final Rule is 

appropriate. 

Issue 31: DOE requests comments on 

whether the inputs described in Table 

II.7 of this document need to be changed 

beyond updating to a more recent 

version of the source cited in the table 

if an updated version exists. 

3. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

The purpose of the manufacturer 

impact analysis (‘‘MIA’’) is to estimate 

the financial impact of amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of CFLKs, and to evaluate 

the potential impact of such standards 

on direct employment and 

manufacturing capacity. The MIA 

includes both quantitative and 

qualitative aspects. The quantitative 

part of the MIA primarily relies on the 

Government Regulatory Impact Model 

(‘‘GRIM’’), an industry cash-flow model 

adapted for the product in this analysis, 

with the key output of industry net 

present value (‘‘INPV’’). The qualitative 

part of the MIA addresses the potential 

impacts of energy conservation 

standards on manufacturing capacity 

and industry competition, as well as 

factors such as product characteristics, 

impacts on particular subgroups of 

firms, and important market and 

product trends. 

As part of the MIA, DOE analyzes 

impacts of amended energy 

conservation standards on subgroups of 

manufacturers of covered products, 

including small business manufacturers. 

DOE uses the Small Business 

Administration’s (‘‘SBA’s’’) small 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 106 / Friday, June 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 29963 

10Available online at https://www.sba.gov/ 

document/support—table-size-standards. 

business size standards to determine 

whether manufacturers qualify as small 

businesses, which are listed by the 

applicable North American Industry 

Classification System (‘‘NAICS’’) code.10

Manufacturing of CFLKs is classified 

under NAICS 335210, ‘‘Small Electrical 

Appliance Manufacturing,’’ and the 

SBA sets a threshold of 1,500 employees 

or less for a domestic entity to be 

considered as a small business. This 

employee threshold includes all 

employees in a business’ parent 

company and any other subsidiaries. 

One aspect of assessing manufacturer 

burden involves examining the 

cumulative impact of multiple DOE 

standards and the product-specific 

regulatory actions of other Federal 

agencies that affect the manufacturers of 

a covered product or equipment. While 

any one regulation may not impose a 

significant burden on manufacturers, 

the combined effects of several existing 

or impending regulations may have 

serious consequences for some 

manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, 

or an entire industry. Assessing the 

impact of a single regulation may 

overlook this cumulative regulatory 

burden. For these reasons, DOE 

conducts an analysis of cumulative 

regulatory burden as part of its 

rulemakings pertaining to appliance 

efficiency. 

Issue 32: To the extent feasible, DOE 

seeks the names and contact 

information of any domestic or foreignbased manufacturers that distribute 

CFLKs in the United States. 

Issue 33: DOE identifies small 

businesses as a subgroup of 

manufacturers that could be 

disproportionally impacted by amended 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

requests the names and contact 

information of small business 

manufacturers, as defined by the SBA’s 

size threshold, of CFLKs that 

manufacture products in the United 

States. In addition, DOE requests 

comment on any other manufacturer 

subgroups that could be 

disproportionally impacted by amended 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

requests feedback on any potential 

approaches that could be considered to 

address impacts on manufacturers, 

including small businesses. 

Issue 34: DOE requests information 

regarding the cumulative regulatory 

burden impacts on manufacturers of 

CFLKs associated with (1) other DOE 

standards applying to different products 

that these manufacturers may also make 

and (2) product-specific regulatory 

actions of other Federal agencies. DOE 

also requests comment on its 

methodology for computing cumulative 

regulatory burden and whether there are 

any flexibilities it can consider that 

would reduce this burden while 

remaining consistent with the 

requirements of EPCA. 

III. Submission of Comments 

DOE invites all interested parties to 

submit in writing by the date under the 

DATES heading, comments and 

information on matters addressed in this 

notification and on other matters 

relevant to DOE’s early assessment of 

whether more-stringent energy 

conservation standards are warranted 

for ceiling fan light kits. 

Submitting comments via https://

www.regulations.gov. The https://

www.regulations.gov web page requires 

you to provide your name and contact 

information. Your contact information 

will be viewable to DOE Building 

Technologies Office 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 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. 

Following such instructions 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 https://

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 https://

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 https://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 https://

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 https:// 

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 on a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. Faxes 

will not be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, written in English and free of 

any defects or viruses. Documents 

should not contain special characters or 

any form of encryption and, if possible, 

they should carry the electronic 

signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit via email two wellmarked 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, 

29964 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 106 / Friday, June 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

DOE considers public participation to 

be a very important part of the process 

for developing energy conservation 

standards. DOE actively encourages the 

participation and interaction of the 

public during the comment period in 

each stage of this process. Interactions 

with and between members of the 

public provide a balanced discussion of 

the issues and assist DOE. Anyone who 

wishes to be added to the DOE mailing 

list to receive future notices and 

information about this process or would 

like to request a public meeting should 

contact Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program staff at (202) 287– 

1445 or via email at 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on May 26, 2021, by 

Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting 

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 27, 

2021. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2021–11583 Filed 6–3–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[EERE–2019–BT–STD–0043] 

RIN 1904–AE61 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Consumer 

Products; Early Assessment Review; 

Dehumidifiers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’) is undertaking an early 

assessment review for amended energy 

conservation standards for 

dehumidifiers to determine whether to 

amend applicable energy conservation 

standards for this product. Specifically, 

through this request for information 

(‘‘RFI’’), DOE seeks data and 

information that could enable the 

agency to determine whether DOE 

should propose a ‘‘no-new-standard’’ 

determination because a more stringent 

standard: Would not result in a 

significant savings of energy; is not 

technologically feasible; is not 

economically justified; or any 

combination of the foregoing. DOE 

welcomes written comments from the 

public on any subject within the scope 

of this document (including those topics 

not specifically raised in this RFI), as 

well as the submission of data and other 

relevant information concerning this 

early assessment review. 

DATES: Written comments and 

information will be accepted on or 

before July 6, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2019–BT–STD–0043, by 

any of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: To 

Dehumidifiers2019STD0043@

ee.doe.gov. Include docket number 

EERE–2019–BT–STD–0043 in the 

subject line of the message. 

No telefacsimilies (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

III of this document. 

Although DOE has routinely accepted 

public comment submissions through a 

variety of mechanism, including the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal, email, 

postal mail, or hand delivery/courier, 

the Department has found it necessary 

to make temporary modifications to the 

comment submission process in light of 

the ongoing 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 for this activity, 

which includes Federal Register 

notices, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at https://

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the https://

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 

https://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2019-BT-STD0043. The docket web page contains 

instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. See section III for 

information on how to submit 

comments through https://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Bryan Berringer, 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) 586– 

0371. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9496. Email: 

Peter.Cochran@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: