4042 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket Number EERE–2011–BT–STD– 

0006] 

RIN 1904–AC43 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for General 

Service Fluorescent Lamps and 

Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as 

amended, prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various 

consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including general service fluorescent 

lamps (GSFLs) and incandescent 

reflector lamps (IRLs). EPCA also 

requires the U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE) to determine whether morestringent standards would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would save 

a significant amount of energy. In this 

final rule, DOE is adopting morestringent energy conservation standards 

for GSFLs. It has determined that the 

amended energy conservation standards 

for these products would result in 

significant conservation of energy, and 

are technologically feasible and 

economically justified. DOE concluded 

in this final rule that amending energy 

conservation standards for IRLs would 

not be economically justified. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

March 27, 2015. Compliance with the 

amended standards established for 

GSFLs and IRLs in this final rule is 

January 26, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

found at: www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/

rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/24. The 

regulations.gov Web page will contain 

simple instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1604. Email: 

General_Service_Fluorescent_Lamps@

ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–7796. Email: 

Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

C. National Benefits 

D. Conclusion 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. Corrections to Codified Standards 

3. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

General Service Fluorescent Lamps and 

Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

4. Test Procedure 

a. Standby and Off Mode Energy 

Consumption 

III. General Discussion 

A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage 

B. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

C. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

2. Significance of Savings 

D. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and 

Consumers 

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to 

Increase in Price 

c. Energy Savings 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

f. Need for National Energy Conservation 

g. Other Factors 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

IV. Issues Affecting Rulemaking Schedule 

V. Issues Affecting Scope 

A. Clarifications of General Service 

Fluorescent Lamp Definition 

B. General Service Fluorescent Lamp 

Scope of Coverage 

1. Additional General Service Fluorescent 

Lamp Types 

2. Additional General Service Fluorescent 

Lamp Wattages 

C. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Scope of 

Coverage 

1. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Types 

2. Incandescent Reflector Wattages 

D. Summary of Scope of Coverage 

VI. Methodology and Discussion 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. General Service Fluorescent Lamp 

Technology Options 

a. Highly Emissive Coatings 

b. Higher Efficiency Lamp Fill Gas 

Composition 

c. Higher Efficiency Phosphors 

d. Summary of GSFL Technology Options 

2. Incandescent Reflector Lamp 

Technology Options 

a. Thinner Filaments 

b. Efficient Filament Coiling 

c. Efficient Filament Orientation 

d. Higher Efficiency Inert Fill Gas 

e. Higher Pressure Tungsten-Halogen 

Lamps 

f. Infrared Glass Coatings 

g. Efficient Filament Placement 

h. Integrally Ballasted Low Voltage Lamps 

i. Summary of IRL Technology Options 

B. Screening Analysis 

1. General Service Fluorescent Lamp 

Design Options 

2. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Design 

Options 

a. Higher Temperature Operation 

b. Thinner Filaments 

c. Higher Efficiency Reflector Coatings 

d. Higher Pressure Tungsten-Halogen 

Lamps 

C. Product Classes 

1. General Service Fluorescent Lamp 

Product Classes 

a. Two-Foot U-Shaped Lamps 

b. Long-Life Lamps 

c. Summary of GSFL Product Classes 

2. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Product 

Classes 

a. Rated Voltage 

b. Modified Spectrum 

c. Summary of IRL Product Classes 

D. Engineering Analysis 

1. General Approach 

2. General Service Fluorescent Lamp 

Engineering 

a. Data Approach 

b. Representative Product Classes 

c. Baseline Lamps 

d. More Efficacious Substitutes 

e. General Service Fluorescent Lamp 

Systems 

f. Max Tech 

g. Efficacy Levels 

h. Scaling to Other Product Classes 

i. Rare Earth Phosphors 

3. Incandescent Reflector Lamp 

Engineering 

a. Representative Product Classes 

b. Baseline Lamps 

c. More Efficacious Substitutes 

d. Max Tech 

e. Efficacy Levels 

f. Scaling to Other Product Classes 

g. Xenon 

h. Proprietary Technology 

E. Product Pricing Determination 

F. Energy Use 

1. Operating Hours 

2. Lighting Controls 

a. General Service Fluorescent Lamp 

Lighting Controls 

b. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Lighting 

Controls 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4043 

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 American 

Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act 

(AEMTCA), Pub. L. 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012). 

G. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis and Payback 

Period Analysis 

1. Consumer Product Price 

2. Sales Tax 

3. Installation Cost 

4. Annual Energy Use 

5. Product Energy Consumption Rate 

6. Electricity Prices 

7. Electricity Price Projections 

8. Replacement and Disposal Costs 

9. Lamp Purchase Events 

10. Product Lifetime 

a. Lamp Lifetime 

b. Ballast Lifetime 

11. Discount Rates 

12. Analysis Period 

13. Compliance Date of Standards 

14. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Life-Cycle 

Cost Results in the NOPR 

H. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

I. Shipments Analysis 

J. National Impact Analysis—National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

Analysis 

1. National Energy Savings 

2. Net Present Value of Consumer Benefit 

a. Total Annual Installed Cost 

b. Total Annual Operating Cost Savings 

K. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Manufacturer Production Costs 

2. Shipment Projections 

3. Markup Scenarios 

4. Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

5. Other Comments From Interested Parties 

a. High Cost to Manufacturers versus 

Relatively Low Energy Savings 

b. Impacts on Competition 

c. Impact of GSFL and IRL Standards on 

Alternative Lighting Technologies 

6. Manufacturer Interviews 

L. Emissions Analysis 

M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon 

Values 

c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions 

2. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

N. Utility Impact Analysis 

O. Employment Impact Analysis 

P. Proposed Standards in April 2014 NOPR 

1. GSFLs Proposed Standards 

2. IRL Proposed Standards 

VII. Analytical Results 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

c. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results 

b. Impacts on Employment 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

c. Alternative Scenario Analyses 

d. Indirect Impacts on Employment 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Equipment 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy 

7. Summary of National Economic Impacts 

C. Conclusions 

1. Benefits and Burdens of Trial Standard 

Levels Considered for General Service 

Fluorescent Lamps 

2. Summary of Benefits and Costs 

(Annualized) of the Adopted Standards 

for General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

3. Benefits and Burdens of Trial Standard 

Levels Considered for Incandescent 

Reflector Lamps 

VIII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

1. Description and Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

a. Methodology for Estimating the Number 

of Small Entities 

b. Manufacturer Participation 

c. GSFL Industry Structure and Nature of 

Competition 

d. Comparison Between Large and Small 

Entities 

2. Description and Estimate of Compliance 

Requirements 

3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With 

Other Rules and Regulations 

4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under the Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review 

M. Congressional Notification 

IX. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its 

Benefits 

Title III, Part B1 of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or 

the Act), Pub. L. 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 

6291–6309, as codified), established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles.2 These products include 

GSFLs and IRLs, the subject of this final 

rule. 

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

must be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that DOE determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or 

amended standard must result in 

significant conservation of energy. (42 

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

these and other statutory provisions 

discussed in this rule, DOE is adopting 

amended energy conservation standards 

for GSFLs. The amended standards, 

which are the minimum lumen output 

per watt of a lamp, are shown in Table 

I.1. These amended standards apply to 

all products listed in Table I.1, and 

manufactured in, or imported into, the 

United States on or after January 26, 

2018. For IRLs, DOE considered an 

efficacy level (EL) as a means of 

increasing energy savings. However, 

based on the analyses presented in this 

final rule, DOE concluded that 

standards for IRLs are not economically 

justified and therefore, is not amending 

IRL standards. On July 14, 2009, DOE 

published a final rule in the Federal 

Register, which prescribed the current 

energy conservation standards for 

GSFLs and IRLs manufactured on or 

after July 14, 2012. 74 FR 34080. 

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

[Compliance starting January 26, 2018] 

Lamp type 

Covered 

wattages 

W 

Correlated color 

temperature 

Kelvin 

Adopted level 

lm/W * 

Percent 

increase over 

current 

standards 

4-Foot Medium Bipin .......................................... ≥25 W .... ≤4,500 K .............................................................

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

92.4 

88.7 

3.8 

0.8 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4044 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

3All monetary values in this section are 

expressed in 2013 dollars and are discounted to 

2014. 

4A quad is equal to 1015 British thermal units 

(Btu). 

5A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. 

Results for NOX and Hg are presented in short tons. 6 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to 

the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2014 Reference 

case, which generally represents current legislation 

and environmental regulations for which 

implementing regulations were available as of 

October 31, 2013. 

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

[Compliance starting January 26, 2018] 

Lamp type 

Covered 

wattages 

W 

Correlated color 

temperature 

Kelvin 

Adopted level 

lm/W * 

Percent 

increase over 

current 

standards 

2-Foot U-Shaped ................................................ ≥25 W .... ≤4,500 K .............................................................

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

85.0 

83.3 

1.2 

2.8 

8-Foot Slimline .................................................... ≥49 W .... ≤4,500 K .............................................................

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

97.0 

93.0 

0.0 

0.0 

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

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

92.0 

88.0 

0.0 

0.0 

4-Foot Miniature Bipin Standard Output ............. ≥25 W .... ≤4,500 K .............................................................

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

95.0 

89.3 

10.5 

10.2 

4-Foot Miniature Bipin High Output .................... ≥44 W .... ≤4,500 K .............................................................

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

82.7 

76.9 

8.8 

6.8 

* A ‘‘lumen’’ is a measurement of the radiometric energy emission from a light source weighted by the response function of a human eye, 

called the photopic spectral luminous efficiency function, V(λ). Test procedures for measuring lumens are also specified at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix R. 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

Table I.2 presents DOE’s evaluation of 

the economic impacts of these standards 

on consumers of GSFLs, as measured by 

the average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings 

and the median payback period (PBP). 

The weighted-average LCC savings are 

positive for all product classes with 

amended standards. 

TABLE I.2—IMPACTS OF ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS ON CONSUMERS OF GENERAL SERVICE FLUORESCENT

LAMPS

Product class 

Weighted-average 

LCC savings 

2013$ 

Weighted-average 

mean payback 

period * 

years 

4-foot medium bipin ≤4,500 K ................................................................................................................. 5.98 3.1 

4-foot T5 miniature bipin standard output ≤4,500 K ............................................................................... 5.68 4.0 

4-foot T5 miniature bipin high output ≤4,500 K ....................................................................................... 4.74 2.8 

8-foot single pin slimline ≤4,500 K .......................................................................................................... **0.00 **0.0 

8-foot recessed double contact HO ≤4,500 K ......................................................................................... **0.00 **0.0 

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

consumer from recovering the increased purchase cost. 

** Standards were not amended. 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

The industry net present value (INPV) 

is the sum of the discounted cash flows 

to the industry from the base year 

through the end of the analysis period 

(2015 to 2047). Using a real discount 

rate of 9.2 percent, DOE estimates that 

the INPV for manufacturers of GSFLs is 

$1,551.6 million in 2013$. Under these 

standards, DOE expects that 

manufacturers may lose up to 21.3 

percent of their INPV, which is 

approximately $330.0 million. 

Additionally, based on DOE’s 

interviews with the manufacturers of 

GSFLs, DOE does not expect any plant 

closings or significant loss of 

employment. 

C. National Benefits 3

DOE’s analyses indicate that these 

standards would save a significant 

amount of energy. The energy savings 

over the entire lifetime of GSFLs 

installed during the 30-year period that 

begins in the year of compliance with 

amended standards (2018–2047), in 

comparison to the base case without 

amended standards, amount to 2.5 

quadrillion Btu (quads) 4 for GSFLs. 

This represents a savings of 7.1 percent 

relative to the energy use of this product 

in the base case without amended 

standards. No savings are realized for 

IRLs, as DOE is not amending the 

standards for IRLs. 

The cumulative net present value 

(NPV) of total consumer costs and 

savings of these standards for GSFLs 

ranges from $2.0 billion (at a 7-percent 

discount rate) to $5.5 billion (at a 3- 

percent discount rate). This NPV 

expresses the estimated total value of 

future operating-cost savings minus the 

estimated increased product costs for 

products purchased in 2018–2047. 

In addition, these standards for GSFLs 

would have significant environmental 

benefits. The energy savings from the 

30-year product purchase period with 

these standards, relative to the base case 

without amended standards, would 

result in cumulative greenhouse gas 

emission reductions of approximately 

160 million metric tons (Mt) 5 of carbon 

dioxide (CO2), 650 thousand tons of 

methane, 140 thousand tons of sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), 230 thousand tons of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), 2.0 thousand 

tons of nitrous oxide (N2O), and 0.43 

tons of mercury (Hg).6 The cumulative 

reduction in CO2 emissions through 

2030 amounts to 90 Mt, which is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4045 

7Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon 

for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive 

Order 12866. Interagency Working Group on Social 

Cost of Carbon, United States Government. May 

2013; revised November 2013. http://www.

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

inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-forregulator-impact-analysis.pdf. 8The values only include CO2 emissions, not CO2

equivalent emissions; other gases with global 

warming potential are not included. 

9 DOE is currently investigating valuation of 

avoided Hg and SO2 emissions for future rule 

makings. 10To convert the time-series of costs and benefits 

into annualized values, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2014, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the 

benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated 

with each year’s shipments in the year in which the 

shipments occur (e.g., 2020 or 2030), and then 

discounted the present value from each year to 

2014. The calculation uses discount rates of 3 and 

7 percent for all costs and benefits except for the 

value of CO2 reductions, for which DOE used casespecific discount rates. Using the present value, 

DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over 

a 30-year period, starting in the compliance year, 

that yields the same present value. 

equivalent to the emissions associated 

with annual electricity use of 

approximately 12 million homes. 

The value of the CO2 reductions is 

calculated using a range of values per 

metric ton of CO2 (otherwise known as 

the Social Cost of Carbon, or SCC) 

developed by a recent Federal 

interagency process.7 The derivation of 

the SCC values is discussed in section 

VI.M.1. Using discount rates appropriate 

for each set of SCC values, DOE 

estimates that the net present monetary 

value of the CO2 emissions reductions 

for GSFLs is between $1.36 billion and 

$17.6 billion, with a value of $5.72 

billion using the central SCC case 

represented by $40.5/t in 2015.8 DOE 

also estimates that the net present 

monetary value of the NOX emissions 

reductions is $400 million at a 3-percent 

discount rate, and $240 million at a 7- 

percent discount rate.9

Table I.3 summarizes the national 

economic costs and benefits expected to 

result from these standards for GSFLs. 

TABLE I.3—SUMMARY OF NATIONAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS

FOR GENERAL SERVICE FLUORESCENT LAMPS * 

Category Present value 

Billion 2013$ 

Discount rate 

(%) 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................................................................... 11.2 

18.9 

7 

3 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($12.0/t case) ** ...................................................................................... 1.3 5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($40.5/t case) ** ...................................................................................... 5.72 3 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($62.4/t case) ** ...................................................................................... 8.92 2.5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($119/t case) ** ....................................................................................... 17.6 3 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,684/ton) ....................................................................................... 0.24 

0.40 

7 

3 

Total Benefits † ............................................................................................................................................ 17.1 

25.1 

7 

3 

Costs 

Incremental Installed Costs ‡ ....................................................................................................................... 9.17 

13.5 

7 

3 

Including Emissions Reduction Monetized Value † ..................................................................................... 7.96 

11.6 

7 

3 

* This table presents the costs and benefits associated with GSFLs shipped in 2018–2047. These results include impacts on consumers that 

accrue after 2047 from the products purchased in 2018–2047. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. 

** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The 

first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series incorporate an escalation factor. 

† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount rate ($40.5/

t case). 

The benefits and costs of these 

standards, for products sold in 2018– 

2047, can also be expressed in terms of 

annualized values. The annualized 

monetary values are the sum of (1) the 

annualized national economic value of 

the benefits from operating the product 

that meets the amended standard 

(consisting primarily of operating cost 

savings from using less energy, minus 

increases in product purchase prices 

and installation costs), which is another 

way of representing consumer NPV, and 

(2) the annualized monetary value of the 

benefits of emission reductions, 

including CO2 emission reductions.10

Although adding the value of 

consumer savings to the values of 

emission reductions provides a valuable 

perspective, two issues should be 

considered. First, the national operating 

cost savings are domestic U.S. consumer 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of market transactions, whereas the 

value of CO2 reductions is based on a 

global value. Second, the assessments of 

operating cost savings and CO2 savings 

are performed with different methods 

that use different time frames for 

analysis. The national operating cost 

savings is measured for the lifetime of 

GSFLs shipped in 2018–2047. The SCC 

values, on the other hand, reflect the 

present value of all future climaterelated impacts resulting from the 

emission of one metric ton of carbon 

dioxide in each year. These impacts 

continue well beyond 2100. 

Estimates of annualized benefits and 

costs of these standards for GSFLs are 

shown in Table I.4. The results under 

the primary estimate are as follows. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

benefits and costs other than CO2

reduction, for which DOE used a 3- 

percent discount rate along with the 

SCC series that has a value of $40.5/t in 

2015, the cost of the standards in this 

rule is $841 million per year in 

increased equipment costs, while the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4046 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

11The annualized consumer operating cost 

savings, NOX reduction monetized value, and 

consumer incremental product costs are higher with 

a 7-percent discount rate than with a 3-percent 

discount rate. This is in contrast to the present 

values in Table I.3. Under certain conditions, 

different present values may lead to similar 

annualized values when calculated with different 

discount rates. In this case, the combined effects of 

(a) projecting to 2018 the present values that DOE 

calculated in 2014, and (b) annualizing the 

projected values with 3 percent and 7 percent 

discount rates over the 30-year analysis period, lead 

to similar annualized values. For consumer 

incremental product costs, the effect is more 

pronounced because the time series covers only 30 

years, instead of the longer period covered for 

operating cost savings and NOX reduction 

monetized value. 

benefits are $1,030 million per year in 

reduced equipment operating costs, 

$310 million in CO2 reductions, and 

$22.4 million in reduced NOX

emissions. In this case, the net benefit 

amounts to $516 million per year. Using 

a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits 

and costs and the SCC series that has a 

value of $40.5/t in 2015, the cost of the 

standards in this rule is $724 million 

per year in increased equipment costs, 

while the benefits are $1,020 million per 

year in reduced operating costs, $310 

million in CO2 reductions, and $21.6 

million in reduced NOX emissions. In 

this case, the net benefit amounts to 

$627 million per year.11

TABLE I.4—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR GENERAL

SERVICE FLUORESCENT LAMPS * 

Discount rate 

million 2013$/year 

Primary estimate LowNet benefits 

estimate 

HighNet benefits 

estimate 

Benefits 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ........................................... 7% ...........................

3% ...........................

1,030 

1,020 

1,010 

1,000 

1,050 

1,050 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($12.0/t case) ** .................... 5% ........................... 97.5 97.1 97.5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($40.5/t case) ** .................... 3% ........................... 310 308 310 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($62.4/t case) ** .................... 2.5% ........................ 448 446 448 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($119/t case) ** ..................... 3% ........................... 950 946 950 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,684/ton) ** .................. 7% ...........................

3% ...........................

22.4 

21.6 

22.3 

21.5 

22.4 

21.6 

Total Benefits † ........................................................................... 7% plus CO2 range 1,150 to 2,000 1,130 to 1,980 1,170 to 2,030 

7% ........................... 1,360 1,340 1,390 

3% plus CO2 range 1,140 to 2,000 1,120 to 1,970 1,170 to 2,030 

3% ........................... 1,360 1,330 1,390 

Costs 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ....................................... 7% ...........................

3% ...........................

841 

724 

882 

763 

841 

724 

Net Benefits 

Total † ......................................................................................... 7% plus CO2 range 300 to 1,160 241 to 1,090 328 to 1,180 

7% ........................... 516 452 540 

3% plus CO2 range 415 to 1,270 350 to 1,200 443 to 1,300 

3% ........................... 627 561 655 

* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with GSFLs shipped in 2018¥2047. These results include benefits to consumers that accrue after 2047 from the products purchased in 2018¥2047. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The Primary Benefits Estimate assumes 

the Reference case energy prices from AEO 2014 and decreasing incremental product cost, due to price learning. The Low Benefits Estimate 

uses the Low Economic Growth energy prices from AEO 2014 and constant real product prices. The High Benefits Estimate assumes the Low 

Economic Growth energy price estimates from AEO 2014 and the same decreasing incremental product costs as in the Primary Benefits Estimate. 

** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The 

first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporate an escalation factor. The value for NOX is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis. 

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

($40.5/t case). In the rows labeled ‘‘7% plus CO2 range’’ and ‘‘3% plus CO2 range,’’ the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the 

labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values. 

D. Conclusion 

Based on the analyses culminating in 

this final rule, DOE found that for 

GSFLs the benefits to the nation of the 

standards (energy savings, consumer 

LCC savings, positive NPV of consumer 

benefit, and emission reductions) 

outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV and 

LCC increases for some users of these 

products). DOE has concluded that the 

standards in this rule represent the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

would result in significant conservation 

of energy. 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying this rule, as well as some of 

the relevant historical background 

related to the establishment of existing 

standards for GSFLs and IRLs. 

A. Authority 

Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or 

the Act), Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 

6291–6309, as codified) established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles, a program covering most 

major household appliances 

(collectively referred to as ‘‘covered 

products’’), which includes the types of 

GSFLs and IRLs that are the subject of 

this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(14)) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4047 

EPCA prescribed energy conservation 

standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 

6295(i)(1)), and directed DOE to conduct 

further rulemakings to determine 

whether to amend these standards. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(i)(3)–(5)) On July 14, 2009, 

DOE published a final rule in the 

Federal Register, which completed the 

first rulemaking cycle to amend energy 

conservation standards for GSFLs and 

IRLs (hereafter the ‘‘2009 Lamps Rule’’). 

74 FR 34080. That rule adopted 

standards for additional GSFLs, 

amended the definition of ‘‘colored 

fluorescent lamp’’ and ‘‘rated wattage,’’ 

and also adopted test procedures 

applicable to the newly covered GSFLs. 

Information regarding the 2009 Lamps 

Rule can be found on regulations.gov, 

docket number EERE–2006–STD–0131 

at www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2006-STD-0131. 

This rulemaking encompasses DOE’s 

second cycle of review to determine 

whether the standards in effect for 

GSFLs and IRLs should be amended, 

including whether the standards should 

be applicable to additional GSFLs. (DOE 

notes that under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), the 

agency must periodically review its 

already established energy conservation 

standards for a covered product. Under 

this requirement, the next review that 

DOE would need to conduct must occur 

no later than six years from the issuance 

of a final rule establishing or amending 

a standard for a covered product.) 

Pursuant to EPCA, DOE’s energy 

conservation program for covered 

products consists essentially of four 

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

establishment of federal energy 

conservation standards; and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. The Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) is primarily 

responsible for labeling, and DOE 

implements the remainder of the 

program. Subject to certain criteria and 

conditions, DOE is required to develop 

test procedures to measure the energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of each covered 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6293) Manufacturers 

of covered products must use the 

prescribed DOE test procedure as the 

basis for certifying to DOE that their 

products comply with the applicable 

energy conservation standards adopted 

under EPCA and when making 

representations to the public regarding 

the energy use or efficiency of those 

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

6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these 

test procedures to determine whether 

the products comply with standards 

adopted pursuant to EPCA. Id. The DOE 

test procedures for GSFLs and IRLs 

currently appear at title 10 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 430, 

subpart B, appendix R. 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing amended 

standards for covered products. As 

indicated above, any amended standard 

for a covered product must be designed 

to achieve the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may 

not adopt any standard that would not 

result in the significant conservation of 

energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) Moreover, 

DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) 

For certain products, including GSFLs 

and IRLs, if no test procedure has been 

established for the product, or (2) if DOE 

determines by rule that the amended 

standard is not technologically feasible 

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

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

an amended standard is economically 

justified, DOE must determine whether 

the benefits of the standard exceed its 

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

DOE must make this determination after 

receiving comments on the proposed 

standard, and by considering, to the 

greatest extent practicable, the following 

seven statutory factors: 

1. The economic impact of the 

standard on manufacturers and 

consumers of the products subject to the 

standard; 

2. The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the covered products in the type (or 

class) compared to any increase in the 

price, initial charges, or maintenance 

expenses for the covered products that 

are likely to result from the imposition 

of the standard; 

3. The total projected amount of 

energy, or as applicable, water, savings 

likely to result directly from the 

imposition of the standard; 

4. Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered products 

likely to result from the imposition of 

the standard; 

5. The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing 

by the Attorney General, that is likely to 

result from the imposition of the 

standard; 

6. The need for national energy and 

water conservation; and 

7. Other factors the Secretary of 

Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII)) 

EPCA, as codified, also contains what 

is known as an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ 

provision, which prevents the Secretary 

from prescribing any amended standard 

that either increases the maximum 

allowable energy use or decreases the 

minimum required energy efficiency of 

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

6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not 

prescribe an amended or new standard 

if interested persons have established by 

a preponderance of the evidence that 

the standard is likely to result in the 

unavailability in the United States of 

any covered product type (or class) of 

performance characteristics (including 

reliability), features, sizes, capacities, 

and volumes that are substantially the 

same as those generally available in the 

United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) 

Further, EPCA, as codified, 

establishes a rebuttable presumption 

that a standard is economically justified 

if the Secretary finds that the additional 

cost to the consumer of purchasing a 

product complying with an energy 

conservation standard level will be less 

than three times the value of the energy 

savings during the first year that the 

consumer will receive as a result of the 

standard, as calculated under the 

applicable test procedure. See 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii). 

Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) 

specifies requirements when 

promulgating a standard for a type or 

class of covered product that has two or 

more subcategories. DOE must specify a 

different standard level than that which 

applies generally to such type or class 

of products for any group of covered 

products that have the same function or 

intended use if DOE determines that 

products within such group (A) 

consume a different kind of energy from 

that consumed by other covered 

products within such type (or class); or 

(B) have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have and such feature justifies a 

higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a 

performance-related feature justifies a 

different standard for a group of 

products, DOE must consider such 

factors as the utility to the consumer of 

such a feature and other factors DOE 

deems appropriate. Id. Any rule 

prescribing such a standard must 

include an explanation of the basis on 

which such higher or lower level was 

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

Federal energy conservation 

requirements generally supersede state 

laws or regulations concerning energy 

conservation testing, labeling, and 

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

may, however, grant waivers of federal 

preemption for particular state laws or 

regulations, in accordance with the 

procedures and other provisions set 

forth under 42 U.S.C. 6297(d)). 

Finally, pursuant to the amendments 

contained in section 310(3) of the 

Energy Independence and Security Act 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4048 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

of 2007 (EISA 2007), any final rule for 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards promulgated after July 1, 

2010, are required to address standby 

mode and off mode energy use. (42 

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

DOE adopts a standard for a covered 

product after that date, it must, if 

justified by the criteria for adoption of 

standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and 

off mode energy use into the standard, 

or, if that is not feasible, adopt a 

separate standard for such energy use 

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

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

that standby mode and off mode do not 

apply to GSFLs and IRLs and that their 

energy use is accounted for entirely in 

the active mode. Therefore, DOE is not 

addressing standby and off modes, and 

will only address active mode in this 

rulemaking. 

DOE has also reviewed this regulation 

pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 

13563, issued on January 18, 2011 (76 

FR 3281, Jan. 21, 2011). E.O. 13563 is 

supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms 

the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ 58 

FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). To the extent 

permitted by law, agencies are required 

by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) 

Propose or adopt a regulation only upon 

a reasoned determination that its 

benefits justify its costs (recognizing 

that some benefits and costs are difficult 

to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to 

impose the least burden on society, 

consistent with obtaining regulatory 

objectives, taking into account, among 

other things, and to the extent 

practicable, the costs of cumulative 

regulations; (3) select, in choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

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

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. 

DOE emphasizes as well that 

Executive Order 13563 requires agencies 

to use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible. In its guidance, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) has emphasized that such 

techniques may include identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes. For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE believes that this rule is 

consistent with these principles, 

including the requirement that, to the 

extent permitted by law, benefits justify 

costs and that net benefits are 

maximized. Consistent with E.O. 13563, 

and the range of impacts analyzed in 

this rulemaking, the energy-efficiency 

standard adopted herein by DOE 

achieves maximum net benefits. For 

further discussion of how this 

rulemaking achieves maximum net 

benefits, see section VII. 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

In the 2009 Lamps Rule, DOE 

prescribed the current energy 

conservation standards for GSFLs and 

IRLs manufactured on or after July 14, 

2012 (hereafter the ‘‘July 2012 

standards’’). 74 FR 34080. The current 

standards are set forth in Table II.1 and 

Table II.2. 

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

Lamp type Correlated color temperature 

Minimum 

average lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

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

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

89 

88 

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

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

84 

81 

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

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

97 

93 

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

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

92 

88 

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

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

86 

81 

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

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

76 

72 

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

Rated lamp 

wattage Lamp spectrum Lamp diameter inches Rated voltage 

Minimum 

average lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

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

<125 V 

6.8*P0.27

5.9*P0.27

≤2.5 ≥125 V 

<125 V 

5.7*P0.27

5.0*P0.27

40–205 ......... Modified Spectrum .......................................................................... >2.5 12 ≥125 V 

<125 V 

5.8*P0.27

5.0*P0.27

≤2.5 ≥125 V 

<125 V 

4.9*P0.27

4.2*P0.27

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

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4049 

12Shown correctly in this table; erroneously 

written as ‘‘≤125V’’ in the CFR. 

2. Corrections to Codified Standards 

In this final rule, DOE is correcting 

errors in the codified standards for 

GSFLs and IRLs. In particular, DOE is 

correcting the typographical errors in 

the sections of the CFR that lay out the 

GSFL standards specified in EPCA and 

the IRL standards established by the 

2009 Lamps Rule. Specifically, for the 

GSFL standards codified at 10 CFR 

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

35 W’’ associated with the 8-foot single 

pin (SP) slimline lamp type should 

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

slimline product class with a minimum 

color rendering index (CRI) of 45 and a 

minimum average lamp efficacy of 80.0 

lumens per watt (lm/W), the rated 

wattage should be less than or equal to 

65 W, not greater than 65 W. The 

revised table will read as follows: 

TABLE II.3—GSFL STANDARDS PRESCRIBED BY EPACT

Lamp type Nominal lamp 

wattage Minimum CRI 

Minimum average lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Effective 

date 

4-foot medium bipin ........................................................................................... >35 W 

≤35 W 

69 

45 

75.0 

75.0 

Nov. 1, 1995. 

Nov. 1, 1995. 

2-foot U-shaped ................................................................................................. >35 W 

≤35 W 

69 

45 

68.0 

64.0 

Nov. 1, 1995. 

Nov. 1, 1995. 

8-foot slimline ..................................................................................................... >65 W 

≤65 W 

69 

45 

80.0 

80.0 

May 1, 1994. 

May 1, 1994. 

8-foot high output ............................................................................................... >100 W 

≤100 W 

69 

45 

80.0 

80.0 

May 1, 1994. 

May 1, 1994. 

For the IRL standards adopted by the 

2009 Lamps Rule that are codified in 10 

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

efficacy of 5.8P0.27 is for lamps with a 

rated wattage of 40–205 W, modified 

spectrum, diameter greater than 2.5 

inches, and rated voltage of ‘‘greater 

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

than or equal to 125 V.’’ The revised 

table will read as follows: 

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

Rated lamp wattage Lamp spectrum Lamp diameter 

inches Rated voltage 

Minimum average 

lamp efficacy 

lm/W 

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

<125 V 

6.8*P0.27

5.9*P0.27

≤2.5 ≥125 V 

<125 V 

5.7*P0.27

5.0*P0.27

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

<125 V 

5.8*P0.27

5.0*P0.27

≤2.5 ≥125 V 

<125 V 

4.9*P0.27

4.2*P0.27

3. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

General Service Fluorescent Lamps and 

Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

As mentioned in the previous section, 

EPCA, as amended, established energy 

conservation standards for certain 

classes of GSFLs and IRLs, and required 

DOE to conduct two rulemaking cycles 

to determine whether these standards 

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

6295(i)(1) and (3)–(4)) EPCA also 

authorized DOE to adopt standards for 

additional GSFLs if such standards were 

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

DOE completed the first cycle of 

amendments by publishing a final rule 

in the Federal Register in July 2009. 74 

FR 34080 (July 14, 2009). The 2009 

Lamps Rule amended existing GSFL and 

IRL energy conservation standards and 

adopted standards for additional GSFLs. 

That rule also amended the definition of 

‘‘colored fluorescent lamp’’ and ‘‘rated 

wattage,’’ and adopted test procedures 

applicable to the newly covered GSFLs. 

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct 

1992, Pub. L. 102–486) amendments to 

EPCA added as covered products IRLs 

with wattages of 40 watts (W) or higher. 

In defining the term ‘‘incandescent 

reflector lamp,’’ EPAct 1992 excluded 

lamps with elliptical reflector (ER) and 

bulged reflector (BR) bulb shapes, and 

with diameters of 2.75 inches or less. 

Therefore, such IRLs were neither 

included as covered products nor 

subject to EPCA’s standards for IRLs. 

Section 322(a)(1) of the EISA 2007 

subsequently amended EPCA to expand 

the Act’s definition of ‘‘incandescent 

reflector lamp’’ to include lamps with a 

diameter between 2.25 and 2.75 inches, 

as well as lamps with ER, BR, bulged 

parabolic aluminized reflector (BPAR), 

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

6291(30)(C)(ii) and (F)) Section 322(b) of 

EISA 2007, in amending EPCA to set 

forth revised standards for IRLs in new 

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

these standards the following categories 

of IRLs: (1) Lamps rated 50 W or less 

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

lamps rated 65 W that are BR30, BR40, 

or ER40 lamps; and (3) R20 IRLs rated 

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

refers to these three categories of lamps 

collectively as certain R, ER, and BR 

IRLs. 

DOE has concluded, for the reasons 

that follow, that it has the authority 

under EPCA to adopt standards for these 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4050 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

13 DOE published a notice announcing the 

availability of the framework document, ‘‘Energy 

Conservation Standards Rulemaking Framework 

Document for General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

and Incandescent Reflector Lamps,’’ and a public 

meeting in the Federal Register on September 14, 

2011. 76 FR 56678. The framework document and 

public meeting information are available at 

regulations.gov under docket number EERE–2011– 

BT–STD–0006. 

14The NOPR TSD is available at regulations.gov 

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

15Supporting spreadsheets for the NOPR TSD are 

available at regulations.gov under docket number 

EERE–2011–BT–STD–0006. 

R, ER, and BR IRLs, and that these 

lamps are covered by the directive in 42 

U.S.C. 6295(i)(3) to amend EPCA’s 

standards for IRLs. First, by amending 

the definition of ‘‘incandescent reflector 

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

(F)), EISA 2007 effectively brought these 

R, ER, and BR IRLs into the federal 

energy conservation standards program 

as covered products, thereby subjecting 

them to DOE’s regulatory authority. 

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

exempts these R, ER, and BR IRLs from 

the standards specified in 42 U.S.C. 

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

amend the standards laid out in 42 

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

subparagraph (C). As a result, the 

statutory text exempted these bulbs only 

from the standards specified in 42 

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

regulation. Consequently, DOE began 

considering energy conservation 

standards for these R, ER, and BR IRLs. 

DOE initiated a new rulemaking for 

these products by completing a 

framework document and publishing a 

notice announcing its availability. 75 FR 

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

meeting on May 26, 2010 to seek input 

from interested parties on its 

methodologies, assumptions, and data 

sources. 

To initiate the second rulemaking 

cycle to consider amended energy 

conservation standards for GSFLs and 

IRLs (other than the certain R, ER, and 

BR IRLs discussed in the preceding 

paragraphs), on September 14, 2011, 

DOE published a notice announcing the 

availability of the framework document, 

‘‘Energy Conservation Standards 

Rulemaking Framework Document for 

General Service Fluorescent Lamps and 

Incandescent Reflector Lamps,’’ and a 

public meeting to discuss the proposed 

analytical framework for the 

rulemaking. 76 FR 56678. DOE also 

posted the framework document on its 

Web site, in which DOE described the 

procedural and analytical approaches 

DOE anticipated using to evaluate the 

establishment of energy conservation 

standards for GSFLs and IRLs. 

DOE held the public meeting for the 

framework document on October 4, 

2011 13 to present the framework 

document, describe the analyses it 

planned to conduct during the 

rulemaking, seek comments from 

stakeholders on these subjects, and 

inform stakeholders about and facilitate 

their involvement in the rulemaking. At 

the public meeting, and during the 

comment period, DOE received many 

comments that both addressed issues 

raised in the framework document and 

identified additional issues relevant to 

this rulemaking. 

DOE issued the preliminary analysis 

for this rulemaking on February 20, 

2013 and published it in the Federal 

Register on February 28, 2013. 78 FR 

13563 (February 28, 2013). DOE posted 

the preliminary analysis, as well as the 

complete preliminary technical support 

document (TSD), on its Web site. The 

preliminary TSD included the results of 

the following preliminary analyses: (1) 

Market and technology assessment; (2) 

screening analysis; (3) engineering 

analysis; (4) energy-use characterization; 

(5) product price determinations; (6) 

LCC and PBP analyses; (7) shipments 

analysis; and (8) national impact 

analysis (NIA). In the preliminary 

analysis, DOE described and sought 

comment on the analytical framework, 

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

national energy savings [NES] 

spreadsheets) DOE used to analyze the 

impacts of energy conservation 

standards for GSFLs and IRLs. DOE held 

a public meeting on April 9, 2013, to 

present the methodologies and results 

for the preliminary analyses. 

Manufacturers, trade associations, and 

environmental advocates attended the 

meeting. The participants discussed 

multiple issues, including the 

methodology and results of the market 

and technology assessment, screening 

analysis, engineering analysis, product 

price determination, energy use, LCC 

analysis, shipments analysis, and NIA. 

In April 2014, DOE published a notice 

of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) in the 

Federal Register proposing new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

for GSFLs and IRLs. 79 FR 24068 (April 

29, 2014). In conjunction with the 

NOPR, DOE also published on its Web 

site the complete TSD for the proposed 

rule.14 The NOPR TSD included 

updated results of the analyses 

conducted in the preliminary analysis 

stage as well as the following additional 

analyses: 1) LCC subgroup analysis, 2) 

manufacturer impact analysis (MIA), 3) 

employment impact analysis, 4) utility 

impact analysis, 5) emissions analysis, 

6) monetization of emission reduction 

benefits, and 7) regulatory impact 

analysis (RIA). The NOPR TSD was 

accompanied by the LCC spreadsheet, 

the NIA spreadsheet, and the MIA 

spreadsheet—all of which are available 

on regulations.gov.15 In the NOPR DOE 

invited comment on these analyses and 

related issues. DOE held a NOPR public 

meeting on May 1, 2014, to hear oral 

comments on and solicit information 

relevant to the proposed rule (hereafter 

the NOPR public meeting). DOE 

considered the comments received in 

response to the NOPR after its 

publication and at the NOPR public 

meeting when developing this final rule, 

and responds to these comments in this 

rule. 

4. Test Procedure 

EPCA sets forth generally applicable 

criteria and procedures for DOE’s 

adoption and amendment of test 

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

Manufacturers of covered products must 

use these test procedures to certify to 

DOE that their product complies with 

EPCA energy conservation standards 

and to quantify the efficiency of their 

product. Similarly, DOE uses the test 

procedure to determine compliance 

with energy conservation standards. 

DOE’s test procedures for fluorescent 

and incandescent reflector lamps are set 

forth in title 10 of the CFR, part 430, 

subpart B, appendix R. These test 

procedures provide instructions for 

measuring GSFL and IRL performance, 

largely by incorporating industry 

standards. The test procedures were 

updated in a final rule published in July 

2009. 74 FR 31829 (July 6, 2009). The 

rule updated citations to industry 

standards and made several other 

modifications. DOE further amended the 

test procedures to update references to 

industry standards for GSFLs in a final 

rule published in January 2012. 77 FR 

4203 (January 27, 2012). 

a. Standby and Off Mode Energy 

Consumption 

EPCA requires energy conservation 

standards adopted for a covered product 

after July 1, 2010 to address standby 

mode and off mode energy use. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) EPCA defines active 

mode as the condition in which an 

energy-using piece of equipment is 

connected to a main power source, has 

been activated, and provides one or 

more main functions. (42 U.S.C. 

6295)(gg)(1)(A)) Standby mode is 

defined as the condition in which an 

energy-using piece of equipment is 

connected to a main power source and 

offers one or more of the following useroriented or protective functions: 

Facilitating the activation or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4051 

16 DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that 

considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year 

period. 

17 In the past DOE presented energy savings 

results for only the 30-year period that begins in the 

year of compliance. In the calculation of economic 

impacts, however, DOE considered operating cost 

savings measured over the entire lifetime of 

products purchased in the 30-year period. DOE has 

chosen to modify its presentation of national energy 

savings to be consistent with the approach used for 

its national economic analysis. 

deactivation of other functions 

(including active mode) by remote 

switch (including remote control), 

internal sensor, or timer; or providing 

continuous functions, including 

information or status displays 

(including clocks) or sensor-based 

functions. Id. Off mode is defined as the 

condition in which an energy-using 

piece of equipment is connected to a 

main power source, and is not providing 

any standby or active mode function. Id. 

To satisfy the EPCA definitions of 

standby mode and off mode (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(1)), the lamp must not be 

providing any active mode function 

(i.e., emitting light). However, to reach 

such a state, the lamp must be entirely 

disconnected from the main power 

source (i.e., switched off), thereby not 

satisfying the requirements of operating 

in off mode or standby mode. Further, 

neither GSFLs nor IRLs covered under 

this rulemaking provide any secondary 

user-oriented or protection functions or 

continuous standby mode functions. 

Thus, these lamps do not satisfy the 

EPCA definition of standby mode. 

While EPCA allows DOE to amend the 

mode definitions (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(1)(B)), DOE believes that the 

energy use of GSFLs and IRLs is 

accounted for entirely in the active 

mode. Therefore, DOE is not addressing 

lamp operation in the standby and off 

modes in this rulemaking. 

III. General Discussion 

A. Product Classes and Scope of 

Coverage 

When evaluating and establishing 

energy conservation standards, DOE 

divides covered products into product 

classes by the type of energy used or by 

capacity or other performance-related 

features that justifies a different 

standard. In making a determination 

whether a performance-related feature 

justifies a different standard, DOE must 

consider such factors as the utility to the 

consumer of the feature and other 

factors DOE determines are appropriate. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) For further details 

on the scope of coverage for this 

rulemaking, see section V. For further 

details on product classes, see section 

VI.C and chapter 3 of the final rule TSD. 

B. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

In each energy conservation standards 

rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening 

analysis based on information gathered 

on all current technology options and 

prototype designs that could improve 

the efficiency of the products or 

equipment that are the subject of the 

rulemaking. As the first step in such an 

analysis, DOE develops a list of 

technology options for consideration in 

consultation with manufacturers, design 

engineers, and other interested parties. 

DOE then determines which of those 

means for improving efficiency are 

technologically feasible. DOE considers 

technologies incorporated in 

commercially available products or in 

working prototypes to be 

technologically feasible. 10 CFR part 

430, subpart C, appendix A, section 

4(a)(4)(i). 

After DOE has determined that 

particular technology options are 

technologically feasible, it further 

evaluates each technology option in 

light of the following additional 

screening criteria: (1) Practicability to 

manufacture, install, and service; (2) 

adverse impacts on product utility or 

availability; and (3) adverse impacts on 

health or safety. 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart C, appendix A, section 

4(a)(4)(ii)–(iv). Section VI.B of this 

notice discusses the results of the 

screening analysis for GSFLs and IRLs, 

particularly the designs DOE 

considered, those it screened out, and 

those that are the basis for the trial 

standard levels (TSLs) in this 

rulemaking. For further details on the 

screening analysis for this rulemaking, 

see chapter 4 of the final rule TSD. 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

When DOE proposes to adopt an 

amended standard for a type or class of 

covered product, it must determine the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency or maximum reduction in 

energy use that is technologically 

feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the 

engineering analysis, DOE determined 

the maximum technologically feasible 

(‘‘max-tech’’) improvements in energy 

efficacy for GSFLs and IRLs, using the 

design parameters for the most efficient 

products available on the market or in 

working prototypes. (See chapter 5 of 

the final rule TSD.) The max-tech levels 

that DOE determined for this 

rulemaking are described in section 

VI.D.2.f and VI.D.3.d, respectively for 

GSFLs and IRLs, of this final rule. 

C. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

For each TSL, DOE projected energy 

savings from the products that are the 

subject of this rulemaking purchased in 

the 30-year period that begins in the 

year of compliance with amended 

standards (2018–2047).16 The savings 

are measured over the entire lifetime of 

products purchased in the 30-year 

analysis period.17 DOE quantified the 

energy savings attributable to each TSL 

as the difference in energy consumption 

between each standards case and the 

base case. The base case represents a 

projection of energy consumption in the 

absence of amended mandatory 

efficiency standards and the standards 

case represents a projection of energy 

consumption if amended standards take 

effect. As described in section VI.I of 

this notice, the projections start from the 

current efficiency distribution on the 

market and consider various market 

forces, in addition to amended 

standards, that may affect future 

demand for more efficient products. 

DOE used its NIA spreadsheet model 

to estimate energy savings from 

amended standards for the products that 

are the subject of this rulemaking. The 

NIA spreadsheet model (described in 

section VI.J of this notice) calculates 

energy savings in site energy, which is 

the energy directly consumed by 

products at the locations where they are 

used. For electricity, DOE reports 

national energy savings in terms of the 

savings in the energy that is used to 

generate and transmit the site 

electricity. For electricity and natural 

gas and oil, DOE also calculates fullfuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings. As 

discussed in DOE’s statement of policy 

and notice of policy amendment, the 

FFC metric includes the energy 

consumed in extracting, processing, and 

transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, 

natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus 

presents a more complete picture of the 

impacts of energy-efficiency standards. 

76 FR 51281 (August 18, 2011), as 

amended at 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 

2012). 

To calculate this quantity, DOE 

derives annual conversion factors from 

the model used to prepare the Energy 

Information Administration’s (EIA) most 

recent Annual Energy Outlook (AEO). 

For FFC energy savings, DOE’s approach 

is based on the calculation of an FFC 

multiplier for the electricity used by 

covered products or equipment. For 

more information, see section VI.L. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4052 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

2. Significance of Savings 

To adopt standards for a covered 

product, DOE must determine that such 

action would result in ‘‘significant’’ 

energy savings. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). 

Although the term ‘‘significant’’ is not 

defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 

1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), indicated that 

Congress intended ‘‘significant’’ energy 

savings in the context of EPCA to be 

savings that were not ‘‘genuinely 

trivial.’’ The energy savings for these 

adopted standards of 2.5 quads over a 

30-year product purchase period 

(presented in section VII.B.3) are 

nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE 

considers them ‘‘significant’’ within the 

meaning of section 325 of EPCA. 

D. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

EPCA provides seven factors to be 

evaluated in determining whether a 

potential energy conservation standard 

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

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The following sections 

discuss how DOE has addressed each of 

those seven factors in this rulemaking. 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

and Consumers 

In determining the impacts of a 

potential amended standard on 

manufacturers, DOE conducts a MIA, as 

discussed in section VI.K. DOE first uses 

an annual cash-flow approach to 

determine the quantitative impacts. This 

step includes both a short-term 

assessment—based on the cost and 

capital requirements during the period 

between when a regulation is issued and 

when entities must comply with the 

regulation—and a long-term assessment 

over a 30-year period. The industrywide impacts analyzed include INPV, 

which values the industry based on 

expected future cash flows; cash flows 

by year; changes in revenue and income; 

and other measures of impact, as 

appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and 

reports the impacts on different types of 

manufacturers, including impacts on 

small manufacturers. Third, DOE 

considers the impact of standards on 

domestic manufacturer employment and 

manufacturing capacity, as well as the 

potential for standards to result in plant 

closures and loss of capital investment. 

Finally, DOE takes into account 

cumulative impacts of various DOE 

regulations and other regulatory 

requirements on manufacturers. 

For individual consumers, measures 

of economic impact include the changes 

in LCC and payback period (PBP) 

associated with new or amended 

standards. These measures are 

discussed further in the following 

section. For consumers in the aggregate, 

DOE also calculates the national net 

present value of the economic impacts 

applicable to a particular rulemaking. 

DOE also evaluates the LCC impacts of 

potential standards on identifiable 

subgroups of consumers that may be 

affected disproportionately by a national 

standard. 

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared 

to Increase in Price 

EPCA requires DOE to consider the 

savings in operating costs throughout 

the estimated average life of the covered 

product compared to any increase in the 

price of the covered product that are 

likely to result from the imposition of 

the standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this 

comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis. 

The LCC is the sum of the purchase 

price of a product (including its 

installation) and the operating expense 

(including energy, maintenance, and 

repair expenditures) discounted over 

the lifetime of the product. To account 

for uncertainty and variability in 

specific inputs, such as product lifetime 

and discount rate, DOE uses a 

distribution of values, with probabilities 

attached to each value. For its analysis, 

DOE assumes that consumers will 

purchase the covered products in the 

first year of compliance with amended 

standards. 

The LCC savings and the PBP for the 

considered efficacy levels are calculated 

relative to the baseline. DOE’s LCC and 

PBP analysis is discussed in further 

detail in section VI.G. 

c. Energy Savings 

Although significant conservation of 

energy is a separate statutory 

requirement for adopting an energy 

conservation standard, EPCA requires 

DOE, in determining the economic 

justification of a standard, to consider 

the total projected energy savings that 

are expected to result directly from the 

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

As discussed in section VI.J, DOE uses 

the NIA spreadsheet to project national 

site energy savings. 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

In establishing classes of products, 

and in evaluating design options and 

the impact of potential standard levels, 

DOE evaluates standards that would not 

lessen the utility or performance of the 

considered products. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data 

available to DOE, the standards adopted 

in this rule would not reduce the utility 

or performance of the products under 

consideration in this rulemaking. 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider the 

impact of any lessening of competition, 

as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General, that is likely to result 

from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) It also directs the 

Attorney General to determine the 

impact, if any, of any lessening of 

competition likely to result from a 

standard and to transmit such 

determination to the Secretary within 60 

days of the publication of a proposed 

rule, together with an analysis of the 

nature and extent of the impact. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE 

transmitted a copy of its proposed rule 

to the Attorney General with a request 

that the Department of Justice (DOJ) 

provide its determination on this issue. 

DOJ’s response, that the proposed 

energy conservation standards are 

unlikely to have a significant adverse 

impact on competition, is reprinted at 

the end of this notice. 

f. Need for National Energy 

Conservation 

In evaluating the need for national 

energy conservation, DOE expects that 

the energy savings from amended 

standards are likely to provide 

improvements to the security and 

reliability of the nation’s energy system. 

Reductions in the demand for electricity 

also may result in reduced costs for 

maintaining the reliability of the 

nation’s electricity system. DOE 

conducts a utility impact analysis to 

estimate how standards may affect the 

nation’s needed power generation 

capacity. 

The amended standards also are likely 

to result in environmental benefits in 

the form of reduced emissions of air 

pollutants and greenhouse gases 

primarily associated with fossil-fuel 

based energy production. DOE reports 

the emissions impacts from these 

standards, and from each TSL it 

considered, in section VII.B.6 of this 

notice. DOE also reports estimates of the 

economic value of emissions reductions 

resulting from the considered TSLs, as 

discussed in section VII.B.7. 

g. Other Factors 

EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, 

in determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, to consider any 

other factors that the Secretary deems to 

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

(VII)) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4053 

18A notation in this form provides a reference for 

information that is in the docket of DOE’s 

rulemaking to develop energy conservation 

standards for GSFLs and IRLs (Docket No. EERE– 

2011–BT–STD–0006), which is maintained at 

www.regulations.gov. This notation indicates that 

the statement preceding the reference is document 

number 49 in the docket for the GSFL and IRL 

energy conservation standards rulemaking, and 

appears at page 29 of that document. 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a 

rebuttable presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified if the additional cost to the 

consumer of a product that meets the 

standard is less than three times the 

value of the first year’s energy savings 

resulting from the standard, as 

calculated under the applicable DOE 

test procedure. DOE’s LCC and PBP 

analyses generate values used to 

calculate the effect potential amended 

energy conservation standards would 

have on the payback period for 

consumers. These analyses include, but 

are not limited to, the 3-year payback 

period contemplated under the 

rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, 

DOE routinely conducts an economic 

analysis that considers the full range of 

impacts to consumers, manufacturers, 

the nation, and the environment, as 

required under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this 

analysis serve as the basis for DOE’s 

evaluation of the economic justification 

for a potential standard level (thereby 

supporting or rebutting the results of 

any preliminary determination of 

economic justification). The rebuttablepresumption payback calculation is 

discussed in section VII.B.1.a of this 

final rule. 

IV. Issues Affecting Rulemaking 

Schedule 

DOE received several comments on 

the rulemaking schedule. Appliance 

Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) 

and the Energy Efficiency Organizations 

(EEOs) supported the rulemaking 

schedule as presented in the NOPR. 

However, ASAP noted that DOE missed 

the legally required legislative deadline 

and urged DOE not to push the 

rulemaking any later than planned. 

(ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

49 at p. 29; 18 EEOs, No. 55 at p. 2) 

Sofie E. Miller commented that the 

2009 Lamps Rule required compliance 

on July 14, 2012 and for certain GSFL 

product classes, many manufacturers 

were granted a stay of enforcement, 

which is still in effect. Therefore, the 

full impact of the 2009 Lamps Rule on 

the lighting market is unknown. 

Further, Miller noted that manufacturers 

have expressed concern that the short 

period between the rulemakings will 

have a severe and negative impact on 

manufacturers, who may not be able to 

recover investments in new 

technologies or to develop products 

meeting even higher standards than 

those in the 2009 Lamps Rule. While 

DOE is statutorily required to make a 

determination about whether to update 

these standards, it may make the most 

sense for DOE to delay proposing new 

standards until the full effect of its 

previous standards is known, and DOE 

should initiate that process by 

conducting a retrospective review of the 

2009 Lamps Rule. (Miller, No. 50 at p. 

10) 

DOE is conducting this rulemaking to 

satisfy the EPCA requirement for a 

second review of the GSFL and IRL 

standards that were finalized in the 

2009 Lamps Rule and required 

compliance July 2012. DOE understands 

that Office of Hearing and Appeals 

(OHA) has granted 16 manufacturers 2- 

year waivers from standards for their 

700 series T8 products that expire in 

2014. Because standards from this 

rulemaking would become effective 

after these waivers granted to individual 

manfacturers have expired and the 

products granted waivers would be 

subject to standards, DOE has 

conducted its analysis assuming that the 

waivers will not be in place. Further, at 

the time of the analysis of the final rule, 

most of the waivers had expired and not 

been renewed. 

Regarding this rulemaking assessing 

the full impact of the 2009 Lamps Rule, 

the analysis in this final rule was 

updated and finalized almost two years 

after the July 2012 standards required 

compliance, reflecting the most recent 

data available. DOE conducted a survey 

of product offerings for this final rule 

and identified a few new covered 

products since the NOPR analysis 

which were included in this final rule 

analysis. Therefore, DOE finds that the 

analysis in this final rule adequately 

assesses and captures the impacts of the 

July 2012 standards for these products 

and sees no reason to delay in adopting 

the appropriate standards resulting from 

it and requiring compliance three years 

after the publication of the final rule. 

V. Issues Affecting Scope 

A. Clarifications of General Service 

Fluorescent Lamp Definition 

The scope of this rulemaking for 

GSFLs is defined by the terms 

‘‘fluorescent lamp’’ and ‘‘general service 

fluorescent lamp.’’ 10 CFR 430.2 The 

definition of general service fluorescent 

lamp includes certain exemptions. DOE 

has received several questions on the 

application of these exemptions. 

Therefore, DOE evaluated each 

exemption and determined that the 

following exemption categories could be 

further clarified: ‘‘impact-resistant 

fluorescent lamps,’’ ‘‘reflectorized or 

aperture lamps,’’ ‘‘fluorescent lamps 

designed for use in reprographic 

equipment,’’ and ‘‘lamps primarily 

designed to produce radiation in the 

ultraviolet region of the spectrum.’’ For 

these exemption categories, the 

terminology was either not defined 

elsewhere or the application of the 

exemption could be further clarified. 

Using product literature and industry 

reference sources, DOE proposed 

clarifications of these exemptions in the 

NOPR. DOE did not receive any 

comments on the proposed 

clarifications. However, the National 

Electrical Manufacturers Association 

(NEMA) did state that they support all 

existing exemptions for fluorescent 

products. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 11) DOE 

therefore is maintaining the 

clarifications to the exemption 

definitions. 

Additionally, DOE proposed 

clarifications of the terms ‘‘designed’’ 

and ‘‘marketed’’ as applied to 

definitions of lighting products covered 

under DOE standards. These terms are 

generally used to ensure that 

exemptions from applicable standards 

apply only to lamps used in certain 

intended applications and/or functions. 

Therefore, DOE considered the terms 

‘‘designed,’’ ‘‘designated,’’ 

‘‘designation,’’ ‘‘designated and 

marketed,’’ and ‘‘designed and 

marketed,’’ for covered lighting 

products to mean that manufacturers 

explicitly state the intended application 

of the lamp in a publicly available 

document (e.g., product literature, 

catalogs, packaging labels, and labels on 

the product itself). In the NOPR DOE 

had specified the lamp types to which 

the proposed definition should apply as 

follows: Fluorescent lamp ballasts; 

fluorescent lamps; general service 

fluorescent lamps; general service 

incandescent lamps; incandescent 

lamps; incandescent reflector lamps; 

medium base compact fluorescent 

lamps; and specialty application 

mercury vapor lamp ballasts. In this 

final rule, in addition to these lamp 

types, the definition will also apply to 

‘‘general service lamps’’ which are also 

a lamp type covered by DOE. 

The term ‘‘designed and marketed’’ is 

also used in the general service 

fluorescent lamp definition which 

specifies that all lamp types exempted 

must be ‘‘designed and marketed’’ for 

the nongeneral application they are 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4054 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

19U.S. Department of Energy. 2010 U.S. Lighting 

Market Characterization. January 2012. Available at 

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

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

intended to serve. One of these 

exemptions is lamps with a CRI of 87 or 

greater (hereafter ‘‘high CRI lamps’’). 

The California Investor Owned 

Utilities (CA IOUs) commented that the 

definition of ‘‘designed and marketed’’ 

should relate to the way products are 

represented in the marketplace and 

might be utilized. (CA IOUs, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 28) 

EEOs predicted that DOE’s method of 

adding a definition of ‘‘designed and 

marketed,’’ as proposed in the NOPR, 

would do nothing to prevent or 

dissuade manufacturers from continuing 

to sell high CRI lamps as inexpensive, 

extremely inefficient alternatives to 

GSFLs subject to federal standards. 

(EEOs, No. 55 at pp. 2–4) EEOs and the 

National Energy Efficiency Partnership 

(NEEP) commented that the exemption 

for high CRI GSFLs is a loophole that is 

undercutting the current federal 

standards and, if not addressed, would 

undercut the standards ultimately 

adopted by this rulemaking. EEOs, 

NEEP, and Earthjustice reported that 

they have encountered numerous 

examples of high CRI lamps that are 

being marketed as suitable general 

service lamps. NEEP noted that the 

market responded to the 2009 Lamps 

Rule by increased offerings of high CRI 

T12 lamps. These products offer no 

energy savings and in the case of fullwattage 40 W lamps, actually increase 

energy usage. EEOs found that almost 

all of the 4ft T12 bipin GSFLs sold 

online were high CRI, costing as little as 

$1.50 per lamp when sold in multipacks and having efficacy ratings as low 

as 54 lm/W. Compared to the 92.4 lm/ 

W proposed in the NOPR for lamps at 

or below a correlated color temperature 

(CCT) of 4,500 K, EEOs calculated that 

a single high CRI 2600 lumen lamp, 

with an average rated life of 36,000 

hours, could use 720 kWh more than a 

regulated lamp over the course of its 

life. (EEOs, No. 55 at pp. 2–4; NEEP, No. 

57 at pp. 2–3; Earthjustice, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 27; 

Earthjustice, No. 52 at pp. 1–3) 

ASAP commented that DOE consider 

what modifications to the high CRI 

definition could be made to address the 

use of high CRI lamps in general service 

applications. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 28–29) 

Earthjustice also noted that a high CRI 

lamp marketed for general lighting 

applications but fails to meet federal 

minimum efficacy levels would be 

violating energy conservation standards 

and the marketing claims may constitute 

an unfair or deceptive act or practice in 

violation of section 5(a)(1) of the Federal 

Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 

45(a)(1). Earthjustice stated that DOE 

should work with the Federal Trade 

Commission to develop guidance on the 

appropriate marketing of high CRI 

fluorescent lamps. Earthjustice 

suggested that DOE should also 

investigate whether high CRI lamps 

meet EPCA’s thresholds for coverage 

and energy conservation standards. 

(Earthjustice, No. 52 at pp. 3–4) 

The definition of ‘‘designed and 

marketed’’ adopted in this rule refers to 

how the lamp is represented in the 

market and should be utilized by 

consumers. DOE believes that within 

the scope of this rulemaking it is 

implementing the appropriate changes 

in the CFR to clarify the exemption of 

high CRI products. It is not within the 

scope of DOE’s authority in this 

rulemaking to modify the thresholds set 

by the current CRI exemptions for 

GSFLs. 

Earthjustice commented the proposed 

definition of ‘‘designed and marketed’’ 

states that the intended application 

must be specified in a public document 

rather than all public documents. 

Earthjustice noted this as a problem 

specifically for high CRI lamps as it 

would allow manufacturers to explain 

the high CRI application in one 

document while still marketing the 

product as for general lighting 

applications in other documents. 

Earthjustice suggested, and EEOs 

concurred, that DOE should revise the 

definition of ‘‘designed and marketed’’ 

to provide that ‘‘the intended 

application of the lamp is clearly and 

conspicuously stated in all publicly 

available documents (e.g., product 

literature, catalogs, packaging labels, 

and labels on the product itself).’’ 

(Earthjustice, No. 52 at pp. 3–4; EEOs, 

No. 55 at pp. 2–4) 

DOE agrees that the definition 

proposed in the NOPR for ‘‘designed 

and marketed’’ can be strengthened and 

therefore, in this final rule will add the 

word ‘‘clearly,’’ and specify ‘‘all 

publicly available documents’’ so it 

reads ‘‘means that the intended 

application of the lamp is clearly stated 

in all publicly available documents (e.g., 

product literature, catalogs, and 

packaging labels).’’ DOE believes that it 

is important that all public disclsures be 

consistent about the intended use or 

application of the lamp. In addition, 

DOE notes that the Federal Trade 

Commision prescribes certain energyrelated labels for lighting products, such 

as general service fluorescent lamps and 

DOE will also consider those labels 

along with any other voluntary marking 

the manufacturers currently put on their 

lamps when determining whether a 

particular lamp is ‘‘designed’’ and 

‘‘marketed’’ for a specific application. 

DOE reiterates that it is not adopting 

any new labeling requirements for 

lamps covered by this rulemaking. 

B. General Service Fluorescent Lamp 

Scope of Coverage 

1. Additional General Service 

Fluorescent Lamp Types 

In this rulemaking, DOE evaluated 

energy-efficiency standards for 

additional GSFLs beyond those for 

which standards have already been 

established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5)) Any 

additional GSFLs considered for 

coverage under standards must meet the 

definition of a fluorescent lamp in 42 

U.S.C. 6291(30)(A); satisfy the majority 

of fluorescent lighting applications; not 

be within the exclusions specified in 42 

U.S.C. 6291(30)(B); and not already be 

subject to energy conservation 

standards. 73 FR 13620, 13629 (March 

13, 2008). For each additional GSFL that 

meets these criteria, DOE then assessed 

whether standards could result in 

significant energy savings and are 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. Standards for 

any applicable additional GSFLs are 

adopted based on the same criteria used 

to set new or amended standards for 

products pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). 

Using these criteria, DOE evaluated 

whether the following GSFL types 

warranted coverage under standards: 1) 

pin base compact fluorescent lamps 

(CFLs); 2) non-linear fluorescent lamps 

(e.g., circline); and 3) fluorescent lamps 

with alternate lengths (e.g., 2-, 3-, and 5- 

foot lamps). 

For pin base CFLs, DOE determined 

that these lamp types fall within the 

definition of ‘‘general service lamps,’’ 

which excludes GSFLs. (42 U.S.C. 

6291(30)(BB)) Therefore, these lamp 

types cannot be considered under this 

rulemaking. DOE is evaluating these 

lamp types in the rulemaking for general 

service lamps. Documents related to this 

rulemaking can be found on 

regulations.gov, docket number EERE–

2013–BT–STD–0051. 

For non-linear fluorescent lamps, 

DOE considered circline fluorescent 

lamps, the primary shape not currently 

covered under standards. Using the 

miscellaneous category of fluorescent 

lamps reported by the 2010 U.S. 

Lighting Market Characterization 19

(2010 LMC), DOE determined that the 

market share and energy consumption 

for these lamps was not substantive. The 

2010 LMC’s miscellaneous category 

composed 2.1 percent of lighting and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4055 

20Navigant Consulting, Inc. 2011 Vermont Market 

Characterization and Assessment Study. October 

2012. Available at http://publicservice.vermont.gov/ 

sites/psd/files/Topics/Energy_Efficiency/EVT_

Performance_Eval/VT%20CI%20Existing%20

Buildings%20Market%20Assessment%20and%20

Characterization_2012-10-6_FINAL.pdf. 

21 2011 Vermont Study, 1. 

22 2011 Vermont Study, 3. 

23 2010 LMC Study, 2. 

24The full text and all related documents of the 

2011 Ballast Rule can be found on regulations.gov, 

docket number EERE–2007–BT–STD–0016 at www.

regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2007-BTSTD-0016. 

consumed 4 terrawatt-hours (TWh) of 

electricity in 2010. Circline lamps are 

only a portion of the miscellaneous 

category, which also includes all 

fluorescents other than T5 linear and T8 

and T12 linear and U-shaped lamps, as 

well as fluorescent lamps with 

unknown characteristics. Interviews 

with manufacturers also confirmed the 

low market share of these lamp types. 

Therefore, DOE concluded that coverage 

should not be expanded to non-linear 

fluorescent lamps as standards would 

not likely result in significant energy 

savings. 

For linear lengths not already covered 

by standards, DOE focused on linear 

medium bipin (MBP) fluorescent lamps 

ranging from 1 to 6 feet, with the 

exception of the 4-foot MBP, which is 

already subject to standards. DOE’s 

analysis showed that 5- and 6-foot 

lengths comprise a very low percentage 

of the linear MBP product offerings. For 

the T8 MBP lamps with lengths less 

than 4 feet, according to the 2010 LMC, 

these lamps comprised about 0.7 

percent of the linear fluorescent lamp 

market and 0.2 percent of all installed 

lighting and consumed 1 TWh of 

electricity in 2010. Feedback from 

manufacturers also indicated a low 

market share for these lamp types. 

NEMA supported DOE’s decision not 

to include additional lamp types, such 

as 2-foot linear lamps, in the scope of 

the regulation agreeing that such lamps 

have low sales volume and low energy 

use. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 11) ASAP 

stated it understood DOE’s reasoning for 

not covering 2-foot linear fluorescent 

lamps based on the 2010 LMC. 

However, ASAP noted and CA IOUs 

concurred that 2-foot lamps is a growing 

market and that DOE should address 

this in the final rule. (ASAP, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 19–20; 

CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 49 at p. 20) 

EEOs and CA IOUs commented that 

DOE should include and set efficacy 

standards for 2-foot linear lamps as part 

of the rulemaking, finding DOE’s 

assertion that linear fluorescent lamps 

shorter than 4 feet do not comprise a 

sufficiently large share of annual lamp 

sales and energy use to warrant coverage 

unconvincing. EEOs argued that DOE 

used outdated shipment data from the 

2010 LMC, which was not specific to 2- 

foot linear GSFLs, to estimate sales and 

energy savings potential. EEOs and CA 

IOUS stated as this data was gathered 

prior to the effective date of the last 

round of GSFL standards it does not 

include the market impact from these 

standards. Further, EEOs and CA IOUs 

voiced concern over DOE’s continued 

use of the 2010 LMC data instead of the 

newer shipment data from Vermont and 

California. CA IOUs noted that in 

Vermont study (2011 Vermont Market 

Characterization and Assessment 

Study 20), 2-foot lamps were by far the 

most common lamp length behind 4- 

foot lamps, and more common than 

many of the other product classes 

currently being covered by standards. 

While EEOs recognized that this data 

only represents a small portion of the 

overall lighting market, EEOs stated that 

using the field survey is better than 

relying on unreliable and outdated 

information from the 2010 LMC. (EEOs, 

No. 55 at pp. 5–6; CA IOUs, No. 56 at 

p. 4) 

DOE found using the 2010 LMC data 

to determine whether the 2-foot linear 

fluorescent lamps have a substantial 

market share and could result in 

significant energy savings is more 

accurate than relying on data from the 

Vermont study. The Vermont study is 

specific to a region and states that it was 

intended to develop the baseline data 

that characterizes the existing building 

and equipment stock in the Vermont 

business sector and covers the period of 

July 2011 to July 2012.21 The study uses 

on-site surveys of 120 existing buildings 

for its primary data.22 The 2010 LMC 

study captures all lighting installed in 

the U.S. in stationary applications 

during 2010.23 The 2010 LMC groups 

linear fluorescent lamps by shape and 

length, and DOE used the T8 lamps with 

lengths less than 4 feet category to 

assess the 2-foot linear fluorescent 

market. Therefore, because this category 

includes more than just the 2-feet 

lengths, DOE’s market estimates for the 

2-foot linear fluorescent lamps are likely 

conservative. Further, the 2009 Lamps 

Rule became effective September 14, 

2009 and required compliance July 14, 

2012. Therefore, the Vermont study that 

was executed before compliance was 

required does not offer any added 

benefit. 

CA IOUs noted that when using the 

2010 LMC data, DOE excluded 2-foot 

T12 lamps from its total on the premise 

that the market will likely shift away 

from T12s due to strengthened ballast 

standards. CA IOUs agreed that the 

market will shift away from T12s, 

however, they predicted that all of these 

lamp sales would likely become 2-foot 

T8 sales. DOE therefore should have 

counted 2-foot T12 shipments towards 

the total 2-foot lamp estimates. (CA 

IOUs, No. 56 at p. 4) 

DOE excluded T12 lamps from this 

analysis to reflect future market trends. 

The 2011 final rule amending energy 

conservation standards for fluorescent 

lamp ballasts (hereafter the ‘‘2011 

Ballast Rule’’), which will require 

compliance on November 14, 2014, set 

standards difficult for T12 ballasts to 

meet.24 76 FR 70548 (Nov. 14, 2011). 

Due to these standards and because 

historical shipments of most T12 lamps 

have been decreasing steadily, a trend 

confirmed in manufacturer feedback 

from interviews, DOE determined the 

market will likely shift away from T12 

lamps. However, even if there were a 

shift from 2-foot linear T12 to 2-foot 

linear T8 lamps it would not be 

significant, as the T12 lamps with 

lengths less than 4 feet comprise only 

0.6 percent of the linear fluorescent 

market and 0.2 percent of all installed 

lighting. 

EEOs reflected further on DOE’s 

argument that 2-foot linear GSFLs are 

uncommon and not a large percentage of 

the lighting market. While EEOs agreed 

it is undoubtedly true that 2-foot linear 

GSFLs sell in much smaller volumes 

than 4-foot GSFLs, EEOs contended and 

CA IOUs agreed that regulating 2-foot 

linear GSFLs sales that are a small 

fraction of the volume of the 4-foot 

GSFLs lamps could still yield 

significant energy savings, especially as 

the baseline 2-foot linear lamps are 

extremely inefficient. Specifically, for 2- 

foot linear fluorescent lamps, EEOs 

found efficacies of 58 lm/W for T12 

lamps, 77 lm/W for standard T8 lamps, 

and 88 lm/W for more efficient T8 

lamps. By comparison, 2-foot U-shaped 

GSFLs which are subject to current 

standards have efficacies that range 

from 85 to 94 lm/W. (EEOs, No. 55 at 

pp. 5–6; CA IOUs, No. 56 at p. 4) EEOs 

noted that in interviews, manufacturers 

told DOE that 2-foot linear GSFLs are 

used in kitchens, bathrooms, vanity 

lighting, hospitality applications, 

cabinets, and to round out edges of 

ceilings in commercial spaces, and the 

Edison Electric Institute had noted that 

these lamps are used in task lighting. 

EEOs and CA IOUs additionally argued 

that many 2x2 fixtures are retrofitted to 

2-foot linear lamps, replacing existing 

U-bend lamps. EEOs also cautioned that 

following the exemption of certain ER 

and BR IRLs from standards, the sales of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4056 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

ER, BR lamps increased. EEOs suggested 

that DOE may be making the same 

mistake by not covering 2-foot linear 

GSFLs. (EEOs, No. 55 at pp. 5–6) 

In order to extend the scope to an 

additional lamp type, DOE must 

consider the potential energy savings 

that would result from regulating the 

lamp type under consideration. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)) Based on its assessment 

of market share, trends, and product 

offerings, DOE does not find that 

significant energy savings will result 

from a standard for 2-foot linear 

fluorescent lamps. 

DOE’s review of 2-foot fluorescent 

lamp product offerings indicated that 

the majority of T8 products are offered 

in 17 W with minimal reduced wattage 

options and the T12 products are 

offered in 20 W. Therefore, any likely 

savings from standards would come 

from more efficacious T8 systems 

replacing T12 systems. However, as 

noted previously, the 2011 Ballast Rule 

enacts standards that will be difficult for 

T12 ballasts to meet and likely result in 

a shift away from T12 products. 

As mentioned, using the relevant data 

in the 2010 LMC and observing the 

limited product offerings, DOE 

determined that the market share for 2- 

foot linear fluorescents is very low. 

Additionally, DOE compared the market 

share reported for the less than 4 feet T8 

lamps in 2000 LMC compared to the 

2010 LMC. From 2000 to 2010 the 

market of less than 4 feet T8 lamps 

declined from 1.5 to 0.7 percent of the 

linear fluorescent market and 0.5 to 0.2 

percent of the entire lighting market. 

Further, the inventory of less than 4 feet 

T8 lamps declined by about 52 percent 

from 2000 to 2010 based on the LMC 

reports for those years. Therefore, DOE 

finds that the 2-foot linear lamps not 

only currently comprise a low market 

share but will likely not experience 

growth and therefore, will not result in 

significant energy savings. 

Regarding a potential shift to the 2- 

foot linear lamps, while manufacturer 

feedback noted the applications in 

which 2-foot linear lamps can be 

utilized, it also indicated that the 

market share of the 2-foot linear 

fluorescent lamps was not likely to 

increase. Further, the noted applications 

such as cabinets or hospitality lighting 

indicate that this lamp type is used in 

specific spaces and therefore would 

likely have limited growth in market 

share. 

Therefore, DOE maintains its 

conclusion not to include the 2-foot 

linear fluorescent lamp type in the 

scope of this rulemaking. 

2. Additional General Service 

Fluorescent Lamp Wattages 

DOE specifies a certain minimum 

wattage for lamp types included in the 

definition of ‘‘fluorescent lamp.’’ In this 

rulemaking, DOE also evaluates whether 

coverage should be extended to 

additional wattages of these lamp types. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5)) As part of this 

assessment, DOE reviewed product 

offerings for covered lamp types to 

determine if any new, lower wattage 

products had been introduced since 

publication of the 2009 Lamps Rule. In 

the NOPR, DOE proposed extending 

coverage to the following reduced 

wattage lamps: 49 W, 50 W, 51 W 8-foot 

SP slimline, 25 W 4-foot T5 MiniBP 

standard output (SO), and 44 W, 47 W 

4-foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps. 79 FR at 

24085 (April 29, 2014) DOE currently 

covers 8-foot SP slimline lamps with 

wattages of 52 W or more; 4-foot T5 

MiniBP SO lamps with wattages of 26 

W or more; and 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO 

lamps with wattages of 49 W or more. 

These reduced wattage lamps are 

generally more efficacious than their 

full-wattage counterparts are and offer 

the potential for increased energy 

savings. DOE did not receive any 

comments regarding the proposed 

additional wattages for inclusion in 

GSFL scope in response to the NOPR. 

Therefore, DOE is extending coverage 

to the following GSFLs in the final rule: 

• 8-foot SP slimline lamps with 

wattages ≥ 49 W and < 52 W; 

• 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO lamps with 

wattages ≥ 25 W and < 26 W; and 

• 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps with 

wattages ≥ 44 W and < 49 W. 

C. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Scope 

of Coverage 

1. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Types 

In this rulemaking, DOE does not 

consider the following IRL types: (1) 

lamps rated 50 W or less that are ER30, 

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

W that are BR30, BR40, or ER40 lamps; 

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

U.S.C. 6295(i)(C)) These IRLs referred to 

collectively as certain R, ER, and BR 

IRLs are the subject of a separate 

rulemaking on which further 

information can be found on 

regulations.gov under docket ID EERE– 

2010–BT–STD–0005 at 

www.regulations.gov/

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

this rulemaking as a result of section 

322 of Public Law (Pub. L.) 113–76 

(January 17, 2014) (hereafter, 

‘‘Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2014’’), which prohibits DOE from using 

appropriated funds to implement or 

enforce standards for ER, BR, and BPAR 

IRLs. DOE received several comments 

on the exclusion of the certain R, ER, BR 

lamps from this rulemaking and DOE’s 

interpretation of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014. 

NEMA stated its support for all 

existing exemptions for IRL products 

and agreed with DOE’s approach to 

address exempted BR lamps in a 

separate rulemaking when funding is 

available. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 10–11) 

Earthjustice, however, commented DOE 

is obligated to include the certain R, ER, 

and BR IRLs in this rulemaking. 

Earthjustice remarked that DOE’s 

determination that these IRLs are 

covered by the directive in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(i)(3) to amend EPCA’s standards 

should extend to 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(4) 

under which this rulemaking is being 

concluded. Therefore, the exempt lamps 

should be a part of this rulemaking. 

(Earthjustice, No. 52 at p. 4) Earthjustice 

further commented that because the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 

is clearly inapplicable to R20 IRLs rated 

45 W or less, DOE should adopt 

standards for those lamps. (Earthjustice, 

No. 52 at p. 5) 

DOE is not including the certain R, 

ER, and BR IRLs in this rulemaking as 

it has commenced another rulemaking 

to address standards for these lamps. At 

the time DOE determined that it has the 

authority under EPCA to adopt 

standards for these R, ER, and BR IRLs, 

as they are covered by the directive in 

42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3), the first cycle of 

rulemaking to amend standards for IRLs 

per 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3) was already 

underway. Therefore, DOE initiated a 

separate rulemaking for the R, ER, and 

BR IRLs which included publishing a 

framework document and holding a 

public meeting, prior to the initiation of 

this rulemaking. Additionally, the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 

precludes DOE from engaging in a 

rulemaking involving certain ER, and 

BR IRLs. While DOE agrees that 

implementation or enforcement of 

standards for R IRLs are not prohibited 

by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2014, the R20 IRLs rated 45 W or less 

are already the subject of a separate 

rulemaking. Due to the progress of that 

rulemaking, DOE did not find it 

appropriate to remove the R20 IRLs 

rated 45 W or less from the scope of that 

rulemaking. 

CA IOUs, NEEP, Earthjustice and 

EEOs noted that they do not agree with 

DOE’s interpretation of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014 and urged 

DOE to include all covered IRLs in this 

rulemaking, including the ER, BR, and 

BPAR lamps noted in the Act. (CA 

IOUs, No. 56 at p. 5; NEEP, No. 57 at 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4057 

p. 1; EEOs, No. 55 at p.7; Earthjustice, 

No. 52 at p. 5) Earthjustice commented 

that nothing in the text of the Act 

prevents DOE from using appropriated 

funds to adopt standards that are 

different from those shown in the tables 

in section 325(i)(1)(B). Earthjustice 

stated that even if DOE believes that 

adopting standards stronger than those 

in the tables would implicitly also apply 

standard levels blocked by the Act (in 

that DOE would be applying standards 

to remove from the market lamps that 

Congress allegedly sought to protect), 

DOE could certainly adopt standards 

weaker than those applied in EPAct 

1992. Such standards would still 

represent a significant improvement in 

efficacy, and under the current funding 

constraints, may represent the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is feasible. (Earthjustice, 

No. 52 at p. 5) 

EEOs stated that the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014 only prevents 

DOE from using funds to implement or 

enforce standards contained in the 

tables in section 325(i)(1)(B) and not 

from implementing or enforcing 

standards developed in response to a 

separate congressionally required 

rulemaking. (EEOs, No. 55 at p. 7) CA 

IOUs stated that EISA 2007 requires 

DOE to consider revising standards for 

these products. (CA IOUs, No. 56 at 

p. 5) 

CA IOUs also noted that by omitting 

these products, the total savings 

potential from IRL standards is greatly 

minimized as standards for covered 

IRLs may result in more expensive, 

higher performing covered products and 

low cost, low efficacy unregulated 

products. CA IOUs and NEEP 

commented that these unregulated 

lamps would result in major loopholes 

as consumers could be incented to 

utilize less efficient IRLs, ultimately 

sacrificing significant energy savings to 

the country. (CA IOUs, No. 56 at p. 5; 

NEEP, No. 57 at p. 1) ASAP stated and 

was supported by CA IOUs that 

consumers currently have a choice 

between a very efficient light-emitting 

diode (LED), a very efficient 

incandescent covered lamp or a very 

inefficient 65 W BR or equivalent lamp. 

Therefore, addressing this loophole 

could lead to annual savings of half a 

billion dollars. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 16–17) 

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2014 prohibits expenditure of funds 

appropriated by that law to implement 

or enforce standards for BPAR, BR, and 

ER IRLs. Thus, DOE is not considering 

these specific lamps in this rulemaking. 

2. Incandescent Reflector Wattages 

In this rulemaking, DOE also did not 

consider IRLs with wattages lower than 

40. EPCA defines an incandescent 

reflector lamp as a lamp that ‘‘has a 

rated wattage that is 40 watts or higher.’’ 

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

Additionally, while the definition of 

IRLs does not provide an upper wattage 

limit, DOE did not assess covered IRLs 

higher than 205 W in the NOPR. DOE 

research indicated that wattages greater 

than 205 W comprise a very small 

portion of the market and are typically 

designed for specialty uses, and 

therefore, do not represent significant 

energy savings. DOE did not receive any 

comments on this assessment in 

response to the NOPR and therefore, 

analyzes the same wattage range for 

IRLs in this final rule. 

D. Summary of Scope of Coverage 

In conclusion, in this rulemaking DOE 

is extending the scope of coverage for 

GSFLs to certain wattages including 

8-foot SP slimline lamps with wattages 

≥49 W and <52 W, 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO 

lamps with wattages ≥25 W and <26 W, 

and 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps with 

wattages ≥44 W and <49 W but not to 

additional GSFL types. Further, DOE is 

clarifying certain exemptions noted 

under the definition of ‘‘general service 

fluorescent lamp.’’ DOE is not 

considering IRLs less than 40 W or 

greater than 205 W and is also not 

considering the following IRL types: (1) 

Lamps rated 50 W or less that are ER30, 

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

W that are BR30, BR40, or ER40 lamps; 

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

DOE is also adopting a definition for 

‘‘designed and marketed’’ as it applies 

to all covered lighting products. 

VI. Methodology and Discussion 

In the NOPR phase of this rulemaking, 

DOE conducted the following analyses: 

a market and technology assessment, 

screening analysis, engineering analysis, 

product price determination, energy-use 

characterization, LCC and PBP analyses, 

an LCC subgroup analysis, shipments 

analysis and NIA, a complete MIA, a 

utility impact assessment, an 

employment impact assessment, an 

emissions analysis, a determination of 

monetization of reduced emissions from 

proposed standard levels, and an RIA. 

These analyses were then updated and 

revised as appropriate based on 

feedback received for this final rule. 

DOE used four spreadsheet tools to 

estimate the impact of standards 

analyzed in the NOPR. The first tool 

(‘‘Life-Cycle Cost [LCC] Analytical 

Tool’’) calculates LCCs and payback 

periods of potential new energy 

conservation standards. The second tool 

(‘‘National Impact Analysis [NIA] 

Analytical Tool’’) is a spreadsheet that 

provides shipments forecasts and a 

framework that calculates national 

energy savings and net present value 

resulting from potential amended 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

assessed manufacturer impacts, largely 

through use of the ‘‘Government 

Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM)’’, the 

third tool. Additionally, DOE used 

output from the latest version of EIA’s 

National Energy Modeling System 

(NEMS) for the emissions and utility 

impact analyses. NEMS is a public 

domain, multi-sector, partial 

equilibrium model of the U.S. energy 

sector. EIA uses NEMS to prepare its 

Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), a widely 

known energy forecast for the United 

States. 

NEMA voiced concerns about the 

number of assumptions that DOE uses 

in the NOPR that are not being tested by 

retrospectively evaluating predictions 

made in the 2009 Lamps Rule in order 

to improve DOE’s predictive analysis 

and to tune DOE’s models. (NEMA, No. 

54 at p. 17) 

As needed, DOE makes assumptions 

based on the current relevant data and 

research available, feedback from 

manufacturer interviews, and 

stakeholder comments, information that 

is informed by the impacts of the 2009 

Lamps Rule. Further, in the NOPR 

analysis and in this final rule analysis 

DOE has taken appropriate steps to 

ensure that its models provide the most 

accurate assessment of standards and 

their impacts. In the following sections, 

DOE discusses its methodology and 

responds to comments specific to each 

analysis. DOE further provides details 

regarding its analysis including 

assumptions in the final rule TSD. 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

In the energy conservation standards 

rulemaking process, DOE conducts a 

market and technology assessment to 

provide an overall picture of the market 

for products concerned. Based primarily 

on publicly available information, the 

analysis provides both qualitative and 

quantitative information. The market 

and technology assessment includes the 

major manufacturers, product classes, 

retail market trends, shipments of 

covered products, regulatory and nonregulatory programs, and technologies 

that could be used to improve the 

efficacy of GSFLs and IRLs. DOE 

identified several technology options 

after conducting this assessment for the 

NOPR analysis. 79 FR at 24087–24090 

(April 29, 2014). For further details on 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4058 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

the technology options and the 

screening process, see, respectively, 

chapters 3 and 4 of the NOPR TSD. 

Osram Sylvania (OSI) commented that 

many of the GSFL and IRL technology 

options are already being used by 

manufacturers, so they should not be 

considered technology options. (OSI, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 

46–47) Based on DOE research, the 

technology options put forth in this 

rulemaking for GSFLs and IRLs all 

remain tools manufacturers can use to 

increase the efficacy of the lamp. 

Because lamps are present on the 

market at different efficacy levels, it is 

evident that not all the technology 

options are being used by all 

manufacturers and/or are not being used 

to their optimal performance. Therefore, 

with the exception of the IRL 

technology options of efficient filament 

orientation and efficient filament 

coiling, which are discussed in greater 

detail in section VI.A.2, DOE continues 

to consider the technology options put 

forth in the NOPR as means to improve 

the efficacy of GSFLs and IRLs. 

1. General Service Fluorescent Lamp 

Technology Options 

DOE received comments specific to 

the GSFL technology options put forth 

in the NOPR analysis. Specifically, DOE 

received a comment on highly emissive 

coatings, fill gas compositions, and 

higher efficiency phosphors. 

a. Highly Emissive Coatings 

DOE identified highly emissive 

coatings as a technology option to 

increase GSFL efficacy in the NOPR. 

When electrons are more easily emitted 

from the fluorescent lamp electrodes, a 

lower voltage is needed to maintain the 

arc. Therefore, any improvement in 

electrode coating that would allow 

electrons to be more easily removed 

from the electrodes would reduce the 

lamp power and increase the overall 

efficacy of the lamp. See chapter 3 of the 

final rule TSD for further details. 

General Electric (GE) commented that 

highly emissive coatings are already 

being used to meet the current 

requirements of the 2009 Lamps Rule, 

so it is not logical to cite this as a 

technology options again. (GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 48–49) 

DOE found that there are various 

coatings and combinations that can be 

used to increase lamp efficacy. 

Conventional coatings include barium 

oxide (BrO), calcium oxide (CaO), and 

strontium oxide (SrO), sometimes 

paired with the addition of zirconium 

oxide (ZrO) which is used to extend 

lamp lifetime, and silicon carbide (SiC) 

which removes more electrons from the 

electrode. Because lamps are present on 

the market at more than one level of 

efficacy, and highly emissive electrode 

coating technology can be optimized in 

different variations, it provides a 

mechanism to improve the efficacy of 

less efficacious products (see chapter 3 

of the final rule TSD for more 

information). Therefore, DOE retained 

highly emissive electrode coating as a 

technology option for this final rule. 

b. Higher Efficiency Lamp Fill Gas 

Composition 

DOE also identified higher efficiency 

lamp fill gas composition as a 

technology option to increase GSFL 

efficacy in the NOPR. Lamp fill gases in 

fluorescent lamps increase mobility of 

mercury ions and electrons, facilitating 

recombination and resulting in 

increased ultraviolet (UV) output and 

higher lamp efficacy. See chapter 3 of 

the final rule TSD for further details. 

GE commented that higher efficiency 

gas fill composition is already being 

used to meet the current requirements of 

the 2009 Lamps Rule, so it is not logical 

to cite this as a technology option again. 

(GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 

at pp. 48–49) 

Based on feedback from 

manufacturers in interviews, there are 

different types and ratios of fill gases 

that can be used to improve lamp 

efficacy. Because lamps are present on 

the market at more than one level of 

efficacy, and fill gas compositions can 

be optimized in different combinations, 

they provide a mechanism to improve 

the efficacy of less efficacious products. 

Therefore, DOE retained higher 

efficiency fill gas composition as a 

technology option for this final rule. 

c. Higher Efficiency Phosphors 

DOE also identified higher efficiency 

phosphors as a technology option to 

increase GSFL efficacy in the NOPR. 79 

FR at 24088 (April 29, 2014). Triband 

phosphors which contain rare earth 

elements are more efficient phosphors 

that allow a lamp to emit light at the 

wavelengths to which human eyes are 

most sensitive which increases lamp 

efficacy. This effect is impacted by the 

relationship between the efficiency 

losses in the phosphor’s conversion of 

light, wavelengths sensitive to the 

human eye, and measurement of lamp 

efficacy. Generally, as thickness of the 

phosphor layer (also called phosphor 

weight) increases, lamp light output 

increases until it slightly decreases or 

stays flat. (See chapter 3 of the final rule 

TSD for further details). 

NEMA stated that options to increase 

phosphor weight are essentially 

exhausted at the proposed efficacy level 

because it is near the peak of the coating 

weight/light output curve shown in 

figure 3.4.5 of chapter 3 of the NOPR 

TSD. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 22–23) 

As noted, phosphor weight utilized in 

a lamp impacts the efficacy achieved. 

Because lamps are present on the 

market at more than one level of 

efficacy, varying weights of higher 

efficiency phosphor coatings is an 

option that can be utilized to improve 

the efficacy of less efficacious products. 

Therefore, DOE maintained higher 

efficiency phosphors as a technology 

option for this final rule. 

d. Summary of GSFL Technology 

Options 

In summary, in this final rule 

analysis, DOE identified technology 

options for GSFLs listed in Table VI.1. 

TABLE VI.1—GSFL TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS IN THE FINAL RULE ANALYSIS

Name of technology option Description 

Highly Emissive Electrode Coatings .................................. Improved electrode coatings allow electrons to be more easily removed from electrodes, reducing lamp power and increasing overall efficacy. 

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

ions and electrons in the lamp plasma. 

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

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4059 

2. Incandescent Reflector Lamp 

Technology Options 

DOE received comments specific to 

the IRL technology options put forth by 

DOE in the NOPR. Id. at 24088–24090. 

Specifically, DOE received comments 

on thinner filaments, efficient filament 

coiling, efficient filament orientation, 

higher efficiency inert fill gases, higher 

pressure tungsten-halogen lamps, 

infrared glass coatings, efficient filament 

placement, and integrally ballasted low 

voltage lamps. 

a. Thinner Filaments 

In the NOPR analysis, DOE proposed 

thinner filaments as a technology option 

for increasing IRL efficacy. Id. at 24089. 

A thinner filament has an increased 

resistance and therefore an increased 

operating temperature, which increases 

the lamp efficacy. (See chapter 3 of the 

final rule TSD for further details.) 

NEMA commented that thinner 

filaments mean longer filaments, which 

reduce efficacy by defocusing the light 

source inside the reflector. (NEMA, No. 

54 at 

p. 20) 

DOE’s research did not find any 

information indicating that the loss in 

efficacy due to the potentially defocused 

light with a longer filament outweighs 

the gain obtained by running a thinner 

filament at a higher temperature. 

Additionally, a longer filament would 

increase lumen output. DOE 

acknowledges that when utilizing a 

thinner filament as a technology option, 

other factors must be considered, such 

as the length of the filament required to 

implement the technology in its most 

optimal form. However, this does not 

preclude it as a technology option as use 

of it in the appropriate manner can 

increase IRL efficacy. Therefore, DOE 

maintained the use of thinner filaments 

as a technology option that can be 

manipulated to increase lamp efficacy 

for this final rule. 

b. Efficient Filament Coiling 

DOE proposed efficient filament 

coiling in the NOPR analysis as a 

technology option to increase lamp 

efficacy. Id. at 24089. Coiling of the 

incandescent lamp filament can 

increase luminous efficacy. The light 

output of an incandescent lamp is 

directly proportional to the lightemitting surface area of the light source. 

By coiling the filament, a longer 

filament can be used, increasing 

luminous output and therefore lamp 

efficacy. (See chapter 3 of the final rule 

TSD for further details.) NEMA stated 

that efficient filament coiling, which is 

necessary for efficient optics and beam 

patterns, is already common practice in 

the majority of halogen IRLs. Thus, no 

further efficacy increase is possible with 

this technology option. (NEMA, No. 54 

at p. 20) 

DOE research indicates that 

specifications of commercially available 

IRLs covered in this rulemaking state 

that the optimal coiling configuration, 

the CC (coiled coil) is being used. 

Therefore, DOE removed efficient 

filament coiling as a technology option 

that can be used to improve the efficacy 

of lamps on the market for this final 

rule. 

c. Efficient Filament Orientation 

DOE proposed efficient filament 

orientation in the NOPR analysis as a 

technology option to increase lamp 

efficacy. Id. Tungsten filaments in 

incandescent lamps can be positioned 

horizontally or vertically with respect to 

the base of the bulb. By positioning the 

filament in vertical alignment, only a 

small portion of the light is emitted 

towards the base, allowing more light to 

escape the bulb and be used for 

illumination, thereby increasing lamp 

efficacy. (See chapter 3 of the final rule 

TSD for further details.) NEMA 

commented that efficient filament 

orientation, which is necessary for 

efficient optics and beam patterns, is 

already common practice in the majority 

of halogen IRLs, noting that 

manufacturers already strive to 

accomplish this and thus, no further 

efficacy increase is possible with this 

technology option. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 

20) 

DOE recognizes that filaments are 

placed in the vertical position which is 

optimal for commercially available IRLs 

covered in this rulemaking. Therefore, 

DOE removed efficient filament 

orientation as a technology option that 

can be used to improve the efficacy of 

lamps on the market for this final rule. 

d. Higher Efficiency Inert Fill Gas 

DOE proposed high-efficiency inert 

fill gas as another technology option to 

increase IRL efficacy in the NOPR 

analysis. Id. Fill gases such as krypton 

and xenon have low thermal 

conductivity that decreases the 

convective cooling of the filament, 

allowing for higher temperature 

operation and therefore higher efficacy. 

These gas molecules are larger relative 

to other gases, and can more effectively 

slow down the evaporation of tungsten 

and thereby extend the life of the lamp. 

Xenon, having even lower heat 

conductivity and larger mass than 

krypton, can more drastically change 

efficacy and life, but has a higher cost. 

Most lamps compliant with the July 

2012 standards use xenon as a fill gas. 

(See chapter 3 of the final rule TSD for 

further details.) NEMA commented that 

higher efficiency inert fill gas is already 

common practice in the majority of 

halogen IRLs and therefore, no further 

efficacy increase is possible with this 

technology option. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 

20) 

Based on feedback from manufacturer 

interviews, DOE confirmed that the 

majority of covered standards-compliant 

IRLs are utilizing xenon. However, DOE 

also learned that the amount of xenon 

used in a lamp can vary based on 

several factors. Because lamps are 

present on the market at more than one 

level of efficacy, higher efficiency inert 

fill gas is one option that can be utilized 

to improve the efficacy of less 

efficacious products. Therefore, DOE 

maintained high-efficiency inert fill gas 

as a technology option for this final rule. 

e. Higher Pressure Tungsten-Halogen 

Lamps 

DOE proposed the use of higher 

pressure tungsten-halogen as a 

technology option in the NOPR analysis. 

Id. Increasing the pressure of the 

halogen burner by increasing the 

density of halogen elements can 

indirectly raise the efficacy of the 

tungsten-halogen lamp. The increased 

density of halogen elements raises the 

probability that an evaporated tungsten 

element combines with a halogen 

element in a gaseous compound. 

Adding more of this gaseous compound 

in the burner effectively increases the 

amount of tungsten re-deposited on the 

tungsten filament. The lamp efficacy 

can be increased by using higher 

pressure to maintain the evaporation 

rate while increasing the filament 

temperature. (See chapter 3 of the final 

rule TSD for further details.) NEMA 

stated that the higher pressures in 

higher pressure tungsten-halogen lamps 

increase life but reduce efficacy due to 

the faster convective cooling of the 

filament. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 21) 

DOE understands that maintaining the 

filament temperature and increasing the 

pressure, thereby decreasing the 

evaporation rate of tungsten result in a 

gain in lifetime. However, a 

combination of higher pressure and 

increased temperature can be used to 

achieve both an increase in efficacy and 

lifetime. Therefore, DOE maintains 

high-efficiency inert fill gas as a 

technology option in this final rule. 

f. Infrared Glass Coatings 

DOE proposed infrared glass coatings 

as a technology option in the NOPR 

analysis. Id. at 24090. Infrared coatings 

on incandescent lamps are used to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4060 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

reflect some of the radiant energy 

emitted back onto the filament. This 

infrared radiation then supplies heat to 

the filament and the operating 

temperature increases. An increase in 

operating temperature results in higher 

light output and therefore an increase in 

efficacy. (See chapter 3 of the final rule 

TSD for further details.) NEMA 

commented that infrared glass coatings 

on burners and reflectors have been in 

use since the mid-1980s and have been 

developed to the maximum 

technologically feasible level. More 

efficient coatings with 80 or more layers 

have been tested, but these coatings fail 

due to cracking under repeated thermal 

expansion and contraction. Therefore, 

no further efficacy increase is possible 

with this technology option. (NEMA, 

No. 54 at p. 21) 

Based on feedback from manufacturer 

interviews, DOE determined that 

different IR coating formulas are used 

on different halogen burners. Because 

lamps are present on the market at more 

than one level of efficacy, and infrared 

glass coating technology can be 

optimized in different variations, it 

provides a mechanism to improve the 

efficacy of less efficacious products. 

Therefore, DOE maintained infrared 

glass coatings as a technology option for 

the final rule. 

g. Efficient Filament Placement 

Efficient filament placement was one 

of the technology options presented in 

the preliminary analysis (see chapter 3 

of the preliminary analysis TSD), but 

DOE did not propose it in the NOPR 

phase. An optimally placed filament 

allows a portion of the spectrum emitted 

by the filament to focus back onto it. 

The additional heat provided to the 

filament increases the operating 

temperature and thereby increases lamp 

efficacy. In the NOPR phase, NEMA 

commented that manufacturers already 

use efficient filament placement and 

that no further efficacy gains due to this 

technology option are possible. (NEMA, 

No. 54 at p. 20) 

DOE had received similar comments 

regarding efficient filament placement 

in the preliminary analysis. Based on 

these comments and further research as 

well as manufacturer interviews, DOE 

determined that the optimal filament 

placement design is theoretically well 

understood and is being applied in 

commercially available IRLs covered 

under the scope of this rulemaking. 

Therefore, DOE did not propose 

efficient filament placement as a 

technology option in the NOPR analysis 

and maintained this decision for the 

final rule. 

h. Integrally Ballasted Low Voltage 

Lamps 

DOE also presented integrally 

ballasted low voltage lamps as a 

technology option in the preliminary 

analysis but did not propose it in the 

NOPR phase. 79 FR at 24089 (April 29, 

2014) The use of an integral ballast in 

an incandescent lamp allows an 

increase in the efficacy because it 

converts the line voltage to lower lamp 

operating voltages, thereby reducing the 

lamp wattage. In the NOPR phase, 

NEMA commented that integrally 

ballasted low voltage lamps use 

electronics that are thermally limited to 

30 W or less due to American National 

Standards Institute/International 

Electrotechnical Commission (ANSI/

IEC) form constraints. Further, most 

IRLs are burned base-up. Therefore, this 

is not viable for higher power PAR 

lamps. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 21) 

DOE received similar comments in 

the preliminary analysis and reviewed 

feedback from manufacturer interviews 

and conducted further research 

regarding issues with this technology 

option. In interviews, manufacturers 

stated that the use of an integral ballast 

to lower voltage is not a feasible 

technology in higher wattage lamps due 

to issues with dissipating heat generated 

by the electronic components. 

Manufacturers indicated that heat 

dissipation becomes a problem at 

wattages ranging from 20 to 35 W. DOE 

research also indicated that in 

converting to a lower voltage, current is 

increased and greater heat is generated 

from the filament. In higher wattage 

IRLs, the resulting increased 

temperature can be damaging to the 

voltage conversion circuitry. Further, 

based on manufacturer interviews there 

are no covered IRLs that currently 

utilize this technology option. Because 

the lower limit of IRL wattages covered 

under standards is 40 W, DOE did not 

propose integrally ballasted low voltage 

lamps as a technology option in the 

NOPR analysis and maintained this 

decision for the final rule. 

i. Summary of IRL Technology Options 

In summary, in this final rule 

analysis, DOE identified technology 

options for IRLs listed in Table VI.2. 

TABLE VI.2—IRL TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS IN THE FINAL RULE ANALYSIS

Name of technology option Description 

Higher Temperature Operation ........................... Operating the filament at higher temperatures, the spectral output shifts to lower wavelengths, 

increasing its overlap with the eye sensitivity curve. 

Microcavity Filaments ......................................... Texturing, surface perforations, microcavity holes with material fillings, increasing surface area 

and thereby light output. 

Novel Filament Materials .................................... More efficient filament alloys that have a high melting point, low vapor pressure, high strength, 

high ductility, or good radiating characteristics. 

Thinner Filaments ............................................... Thinner filaments to increase operating temperature. This measure may shorten the operating 

life of the lamp. 

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

emissivity of the filament. 

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

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

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

Infrared Glass Coatings ...................................... When used with a halogen burner, this is referred to as an HIR lamp. Infrared coatings on the 

inside of the bulb to reflect some of the radiant energy back onto the filament. 

IR Phosphor Glass Coatings .............................. Phosphor coatings that can absorb IR radiation and re-emit it at shorter wavelengths (visible 

region of light), increasing the lumen output. 

UV Phosphor Glass Coatings ............................. Phosphor coatings that convert UV radiation into longer wavelengths (visible region of light), 

increasing the lumen output. 

Electron Stimulated Luminescence .................... A low voltage cathodoluminescent phosphor that emits green light (visible region of light) upon 

impingement by thermally ejected electrons, increasing the lumen output. 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4061 

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

Name of technology option Description 

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

which it came. 

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

Permanent Infrared Reflector Coating Shroud ... Permanent shroud with an IR reflector coating and a removable and replaceable lamp can increase efficiency while reducing manufacturing costs by allowing IR reflector coatings to be 

reused. 

Higher Efficiency Burners ................................... A double-ended burner that features a lead wire outside of the burner, where it does not interfere with the reflectance of energy from the burner wall back to the burner filament in HIR 

lamps. 

B. Screening Analysis 

After DOE identifies the technologies 

that improve the efficacy of GSFLs and 

IRLs, DOE conducts the screening 

analysis. The purpose of the screening 

analysis is to determine which options 

to consider further and which options to 

screen out. DOE consults with industry, 

technical experts, and other interested 

parties in developing a list of 

technology options. DOE then applies 

the following set of screening criteria to 

determine which options are unsuitable 

for further consideration in the 

rulemaking (10 CFR part 430, subpart C, 

appendix A at 4(a)(4) and 5(b)): 

• Technological Feasibility: DOE will 

consider technologies incorporated in 

commercially available products or in 

working prototypes to be 

technologically feasible. 

• Practicability to Manufacture, 

Install, and Service: If mass production 

of a technology and reliable installation 

and servicing of the technology could be 

achieved on the scale necessary to serve 

the relevant market at the time the 

standard comes into effect, then DOE 

will consider that technology 

practicable to manufacture, install, and 

service. 

• Adverse Impacts on Product Utility 

or Product Availability: If DOE 

determines a technology to have 

significant adverse impact on the utility 

of the product to significant subgroups 

of consumers, or to result in the 

unavailability of any covered product 

type with performance characteristics 

(including reliability), features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are 

substantially the same as products 

generally available in the United States 

at the time, it will not further consider 

this technology. 

• Adverse Impacts on Health or 

Safety: If DOE determines that a 

technology will have significant adverse 

impacts on health or safety, it will not 

further consider this technology. 

Those technology options not 

screened out by the above four criteria 

are called ‘‘design options’’ and are 

considered as possible methods of 

improving efficacy in the engineering 

analysis. DOE received several 

comments on technology options not 

screened out and retained as design 

options in the NOPR analysis for GSFLs 

and IRLs. 

1. General Service Fluorescent Lamp 

Design Options 

DOE received a general comment on 

the screening methodology as it relates 

to GSFLs. Philips commented that the 

screening analysis is not comprehensive 

enough because it is only looking at 

efficacy and does not consider other 

market requirements such as lifetime, 

dimmability, and CRI. (Philips, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 49) 

One of the screening criteria is 

determining if a technology option 

would result in adverse impacts on the 

utility or availability of the product. 

DOE determined that of the design 

options considered for GSFLs, none 

would have a negative impact on the 

utility of the lamp (since lumen output 

is improved or maintained) nor would 

they eliminate the common lifetimes 

and CRI currently being offered. DOE 

acknowledges that krypton, a highefficiency fill gas, seems to affect 

dimmability of reduced wattage lamps 

(i.e., energy saver lamp model). Because 

of the issues related to dimming 

associated with reduced wattage lamps, 

DOE’s analysis requires that full-wattage 

lamps, which do not experience these 

problems, meet any proposed level. 

Therefore, because the use of highefficiency fill gas would only impact the 

dimmability of certain product options 

available at a standard level (i.e., 

reduced wattage lamps), this design 

option is retained. 

In summary, in this final rule analysis 

DOE identified as design options the 

following GSFL technologies that have 

met the screening criteria: 

• Highly Emissive Electrode Coatings 

• Higher Efficiency Lamp Fill Gas 

Composition 

• Higher Efficiency Phosphors 

• Glass Coatings 

• Higher Efficiency Lamp Diameter 

See chapter 4 of the final rule TSD for 

further details on the GSFL screening 

analysis. 

2. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Design 

Options 

DOE received feedback on several IRL 

design options put forth in the NOPR 

analysis, including higher temperature 

operation, thinner filaments, and higher 

efficiency reflector coatings. 

a. Higher Temperature Operation 

In the NOPR, DOE proposed higher 

temperature operation as a design 

option. 79 FR at 24091 (April 29, 2014). 

By operating the filament at higher 

temperatures, the spectral output shifts 

to shorter wavelengths, increasing its 

overlap with the photopic spectral eye 

sensitivity. This, in effect, increases the 

luminous output for a given power 

input and consequently increases the 

lamp efficacy. NEMA stated that higher 

temperature operation leads to a drastic 

and disproportionate loss in lifetime 

(e.g., 6–7 percent efficacy gain results in 

about 50 percent reduction in lifetime). 

(NEMA, No. 54 at p. 20) 

DOE understands that there may be a 

tradeoff between operation at higher 

temperature and a decrease in lifetime. 

However, DOE believes the use of 

higher temperature operation can be 

tuned to achieve a gain in efficacy while 

maintaining a reasonable lifetime. 

Therefore, DOE maintained higher 

temperature operation as a design 

option for this final rule. 

b. Thinner Filaments 

DOE proposed thinner filaments as a 

design option in the NOPR analysis. A 

thinner filament has an increased 

resistance and therefore an increased 

operating temperature, which increases 

the lamp efficacy. NEMA commented 

that thinner filaments lead to a drastic 

loss in lifetime. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 20) 

DOE is aware that an incandescent 

lamp with a thinner filament cannot 

withstand as much tungsten evaporation 

as a thicker filament before failing, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4062 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

25Woodward, David R. and Walter A. Boyce, Jack 

R. Sheppard. High efficiency sealed beam reflector 

lamp with reflective surface of heat treated silver. 

U.S. Patent No. 5789847A, filed October 24, 1995, 

and issued August 4, 1998. 

resulting in a shorter lifetime. However, 

a thinner filament design can be 

implemented to achieve a gain in 

efficacy while preserving a reasonable 

lifetime. Therefore, DOE maintained the 

use of thinner filaments as a design 

option for this final rule. 

c. Higher Efficiency Reflector Coatings 

DOE proposed higher efficiency 

reflector coatings with the exception of 

gold reflector coatings, as a design 

option in the NOPR analysis. 79 FR at 

24091 (April 29, 2014). IRLs are 

incandescent lamps with a reflective 

coating, most commonly composed of 

aluminum or silver applied directly to 

the reflector surface. The reflector 

coating allows these lamps to place the 

same illuminance on a specific area 

with reduced watts, thereby increasing 

efficacy. (Note: In the NOPR and in this 

final rule, DOE screened out gold 

reflector coating due to impact on 

product utility as gold reflectivity 

diminishes at and below blue-green 

wavelengths, which may decrease the 

color quality of light. See chapter 4 of 

the final rule TSD for further details.) 

NEMA stated that silver, the best 

higher efficiency reflector coating, is 

already in use and cannot be used in 

glue-sealed lamps (such as PAR20, 

PAR30, PAR30LN) due to extreme 

oxidation issues. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 

21) 

DOE research indicates that it is 

possible to use silver reflector coatings 

with an epoxy (glue-based) seal. For 

example, DOE identified a patent that 

uses aluminum as an inner reflective 

coating extending from the rim to the 

base of the lamp and then a second 

coating consisting of silver spaced from 

the rim. The silver layer is heat-treated 

in an oven with a controlled 

environment prior to fusing the lens to 

the reflector body, which allows a seal 

to form without further diminishing the 

reflective characteristic of the silver.25

Because there are methods to apply 

higher efficiency reflector coatings to all 

products covered by this rulemaking, 

DOE maintained the use of higher 

efficiency reflector coatings as a design 

option for this final rule. 

d. Higher Pressure Tungsten-Halogen 

Lamps 

DOE proposed the use of high 

pressure tungsten-halogen as a 

technology option in the NOPR analysis. 

79 FR at 24091 (April 29, 2014). 

Increasing the pressure of the halogen 

burner by increasing the density of 

halogen elements can indirectly raise 

the efficacy of the tungsten-halogen 

lamp. NEMA stated that there are 

practical manufacturing process 

limitations and key consumer safety 

concerns with higher pressure tungstenhalogen lamps. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 21) 

DOE notes that this design option is 

being used in commercially available 

lamps. Further, DOE did not find 

information indicating any 

manufacturing or safety concerns with 

the use of higher pressure tungstenhalogen lamps. Therefore, DOE 

maintained the use of higher pressure 

tungsten-halogen lamps as a design 

option for this final rule. 

In summary, in this final rule analysis 

DOE identified as design options the 

following IRL technologies that have 

met the screening criteria: 

• Higher Temperature Operation 

• Thinner Filaments 

• Higher Efficiency Inert Fill Gas 

• Higher Pressure Tungsten-Halogen 

Lamps 

• Infrared Glass Coatings 

• Higher Efficiency Reflector Coatings 

(with the exception of gold reflector 

coatings) 

• Higher Efficiency Burners 

See chapter 4 of the final rule TSD for 

further details on the IRL screening 

analysis. 

C. Product Classes 

DOE divides covered products into 

classes by: (a) the type of energy used; 

(b) the capacity of the product; or (c) 

other performance-related features that 

justify different standard levels, 

considering the consumer utility of the 

feature and other relevant factors. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(q)) DOE received several 

comments regarding product classes 

proposed for GSFLs and IRLs in the 

NOPR analysis. 

1. General Service Fluorescent Lamp 

Product Classes 

In the NOPR analysis DOE considered 

product classes for GSFLs based on the 

following three factors: (1) Correlated 

color temperature; (2) physical 

constraints of lamps (i.e., lamp shape 

and length); and (3) lumen package. 79 

FR at 24091 (April 29, 2014). DOE 

received comments regarding 

establishing additional product classes 

based on the different spacing of 2-foot 

U-shaped lamps and lamp lifetime. 

a. Two-Foot U-Shaped Lamps 

DOE received several comments that 

separate product classes based on the 

spacing of the 2-foot U-shaped lamps 

may be needed. Spacing refers to the 

length between the two legs of the Ushaped lamp. The 2-foot U-shaped 

GSFLs come in 15⁄8-inch spacing and 6- 

inch spacing. OSI commented that the 

2-foot U-shaped lamps with 15⁄8-inch 

spacing and 6-inch spacing should be in 

different product classes based on 

DOE’s analysis in the NOPR. (OSI, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 

33–34) OSI stated that the reduced 

wattage 2-foot U-shaped lamps with 

15⁄8-inch spacing are typically used in 

retail applications and would be 

eliminated by the rulemaking, resulting 

in an increase in energy use. OSI added 

that full-wattage 6-inch lamps would be 

eliminated by the rulemaking, removing 

dimming utility. (OSI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 60–61) GE 

noted that this issue could partially be 

due to the scaling of the 2-foot U-shaped 

product class from the 4-foot MBP 

product class and could be an issue 

specific to the scaling factor or the 4- 

foot MBP product class efficacy levels. 

(GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 

at p. 61) NEMA explained that 

consumers have switched to reduced 

wattage 15⁄8-inch 2-foot U-shaped 

lamps, which serve retail applications 

and full-wattage 6-inch 2-foot U-shaped 

lamps are mainly used in offices for 

dimming purposes. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 

15) 

EEOs recommended that DOE only 

create separate product classes for 6- 

inch and 15⁄8-inch spacing of 2-foot Ushaped if a technical barrier impacting 

efficacy potential is identified. (EEOs, 

No. 55 at p. 6) CA IOUs commented that 

DOE should not create separate product 

classes for U-shaped lamps with 

different spacing. CA IOUs supported 

this statement by identifying 

commercially available full and reduced 

wattage U-shaped lamps with 6-inch 

spacing that would meet the proposed 

standard in the NOPR for these 

products. CA IOUs also noted that of the 

2-foot U-shaped offerings with 15⁄8-inch 

spacing, the majority of products were 

31 W lamps, many of which met the 

standard level proposed in the NOPR 

analysis. Further, CA IOUs stated that 

there has to be a clear technical reason 

for design limitations for U-bend lamps 

of specific spacing to create separate 

product classes. They also noted that 

the 2-foot U-shaped lamps comprise a 

low market share that is shrinking as 

2x2 fixtures are being converted to 

straight linear 2-foot lamps and 

therefore, manufacturers may not have 

developed an array of lamp offerings of 

varying efficacies. (CA IOU, No. 56 at p. 

3) 

DOE determines efficacy levels for 2- 

foot U-shaped lamps by reducing the 

efficacy levels of comparable 4-foot 

MBP lamps by an appropriate scaling 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4063 

factor. DOE updated this scaling factor 

for the final rule analysis, see section 

VI.D.2.h for addition detail. In response 

to stakeholder comments, DOE reviewed 

the ability of 2-foot U-shaped lamps to 

comply with the highest efficacy level 

analyzed in this final rule, paying 

particular attention to the ability of both 

lamp spacings to comply. DOE 

determined that full wattage and 

reduced wattage versions of both lamp 

spacings are able to meet the highest 

efficacy level analyzed in the 2-foot Ushaped product class. Therefore, in this 

final rule, DOE did not establish 

separate product classes for the 15⁄8-inch 

2-foot U-shaped and 6-inch 2-foot Ushaped lamps. 

b. Long-Life Lamps 

DOE received comments that a 

separate product class for GSFLs with 

longer lifetimes than the standard 

lifetime may be needed. The longer life 

products are new on the market and 

mainly prevalent among the 4-foot MBP 

lamp types. NEMA commented that 

DOE should ensure that long-life lamps 

could meet the proposed standards or 

create a new product class for long-life 

lamps and report the associated 

analysis. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 18) NEMA 

emphasized that the issue is that 

consumers are willing to pay a premium 

for long life (e.g., 80,000 hour) 

fluorescent lamps to avoid frequent 

lamp replacement. NEMA added that for 

many consumers long-life LEDs might 

not be an option due to first cost. 

(NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

49 at pp. 72–73) NEMA stated that longlife products offer utility for areas that 

are difficult to relamp, such as areas 

over assembly lines, or bridges and 

tunnels. Further, NEMA contended that 

design changes that permit much longer 

lifetimes have a net reduction in 

lumens/watt. When lumens per watt are 

increased lifetime is reduced and that 

increases the frequency of replacement, 

which in turn increases labor costs for 

replacement, increases the use of rare 

earth oxides in manufacturing, and 

increases mercury release. (NEMA, No. 

54 at pp. 13–14) 

GE noted that more lamps would be 

required to support lifetimes that may 

be half as long as common lifetimes for 

fluorescent lamps and this would also 

increase waste and costs to the 

manufacturer. GE also noted that 

elimination of long-life GSFLs would 

not result in energy savings as 

fluorescent lamps consume a steady 

amount of power from initial to mean to 

end life. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 49 at pp. 68–69, 73–74) Regarding 

a question on the market share of longlife GSFLs, OSI responded that because 

these products have only been recently 

introduced in the market it is difficult 

to determine and NEMA noted that it 

would try to obtain this data for DOE. 

(OSI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 

at p. 74; NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 75–76) 

EEOs remarked that although industry 

members proposed a separate product 

class for extra-long-life GSFLs with 

lifetimes of around 80,000 hours, these 

products are new on the market and it 

is unclear if a technical barrier exists 

preventing these lamps from meeting 

proposed standards. EEOs added that 

CA IOUs provided examples of reduced 

wattage extra-long-life 4-foot MBP 

lamps that would meet proposed levels. 

Further, EEOs agreed that extra-long-life 

lamps are cost effective, however, the 

negative impacts of a proposed level on 

life could be captured in DOE’s 

economic analysis. (EEOs, No. 55 at pp. 

6–7) The Northwest Energy Efficiency 

Alliance (NEEA) stated that it had not 

observed consumer concern for lifetime, 

noting more sales of less efficacious, 

long-life products. NEEA also noted that 

it was not possible to have both an 

efficacious and a good long lifetime 

product and expected this rulemaking to 

address the lifetime in the life-cycle cost 

analysis of the product. (NEEA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 77–79) 

CA IOUs commented that a separate 

product class might be warranted for 

extra-long-life GSFLs if DOE finds a 

technical justification for reduced 

efficacy among these products. CA IOUs 

identified a variety of commercially 

available reduced wattage extra-long-life 

products with catalog efficacies that 

would pass DOE’s proposed standard 

for 4-foot MBP lamps. Noting that these 

were reduced wattage lamps, CA IOUs 

added that if DOE is not able to identify 

full-wattage extra-long-life lamps that 

meet the proposed standards, and 

stakeholders present a technical 

justification with respect to design 

limitations preventing such products 

from being developed, a separate 

product class might be appropriate for 

this product type. However, CA IOUs 

noted that a standard for such a product 

class should be sufficiently stringent to 

avoid becoming a loophole. (CA IOU, 

No. 56 at pp. 3–4) 

In response to stakeholder comments, 

DOE reviewed information about long 

life GSFLs from manufacturer 

interviews, product catalogs, and DOE’s 

certification database. Manufacturer 

interviews indicated that it may be 

possible to increase the lifetime of 

fluorescent lamps by increasing the gas 

pressure, but that this may also decrease 

efficacy. DOE reviewed manufacturer 

catalog offerings and found that several 

manufacturers offered lamps that were 

marketed as ‘‘standard life’’ and also 

offered lamps that were marketed as 

‘‘long life.’’ Catalog information 

generally indicated that the marketed 

long life lamps were less efficacious 

than comparable standard life lamps. 

Where available, certification data 

supported this trend. However, DOE 

notes that there is inconsistency in the 

industry regarding what actually 

constitutes a ‘‘long life’’ lamp. When 

comparing lamps offered by different 

manufacturers, one manufacturer’s 

‘‘long life’’ product may be offered with 

a lifetime very similar to that of another 

manufacturer’s ‘‘standard life’’ product. 

Further, while DOE is aware that 

lifetime is a feature valued by 

consumers, DOE’s analysis ensures that 

the lifetimes typically available at the 

baseline level are also available at 

higher efficacy levels (see section 

VI.D.2.g for more details). In this way, 

DOE’s higher efficacy levels do not 

impact consumer utility and DOE 

accounts for any differences in lifetime 

as economic impacts in the LCC and 

NIA. Therefore, DOE did not establish 

separate product classes for long life 

GSFLs in this final rule analysis. 

c. Summary of GSFL Product Classes 

In this final rule analysis, DOE 

established product classes for GSFLs as 

summarized in Table VI.3. See chapter 

3 of the final rule TSD for further details 

on each GSFL product class. 

TABLE VI.3—GSFL PRODUCT

CLASSES IN FINAL RULE ANALYSIS

Lamp type CCT 

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

>4,500 K 

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

>4,500 K 

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

>4,500 K 

8-foot recessed double contact 

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

>4,500 K 

4-foot T5, miniature bipin 

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

>4,500 K 

4-foot T5, miniature bipin high 

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

>4,500 K 

2. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Product 

Classes 

In the NOPR analysis, DOE proposed 

product classes for IRLs based on the 

following three factors: (1) Rated 

voltage, separating lamps less than 125 

V from lamps greater than or equal to 

125 V; (2) lamp spectrum, separating 

lamps with a standard spectrum from 

lamps with a modified spectrum; and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4064 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(3) lamp diameter, separating lamps 

with a diameter greater than 2.5 inches 

from lamps with a diameter less than or 

equal to 2.5 inches. 79 FR at 24092 

(April 29, 2014). DOE received 

comments on the rated voltage and 

modified spectrum product class setting 

factors. DOE did not receive feedback on 

the other product class divisions 

proposed for IRLs in the NOPR analysis. 

a. Rated Voltage 

In the NOPR analysis, DOE proposed 

rated voltage as a class setting factor, 

establishing a product class for IRLs 

with voltages less than 125 V and a 

product class for IRLs with voltages 

greater than or equal to 125 V. NEMA 

stated that DOE’s reasoning for a 

separate 130 V product class was out of 

concern that consumers would shift to 

130 V options that are less efficient than 

120 V lamps resulting in increased 

energy consumption. However, NEMA 

noted that when operated at 120 V, a 60 

W 130 V PAR38 uses less energy, 

approximately 54–55 W. Further, NEMA 

stated that since this decreases light 

output, consumers would not choose 

130 V IRLs to ‘cheat’ on energy 

conservation standards. (NEMA, No. 54 

at p. 30) 

DOE agrees that the 130 V lamp 

described by NEMA would use less 

energy when operated at 120 V. 

However, in the NOPR analysis and in 

this final rule DOE concludes that the 

corresponding decrease in light output 

would result in consumers purchasing 

additional lamps to maintain sufficient 

light. 79 FR at 24093 (April 29, 2014). 

Therefore, setting higher standards for 

IRLs without accounting for voltage 

differences could result in increased 

energy consumption. 

Westinghouse remarked that the 

absence of 130 V IRLs on the market has 

resulted in a loss in utility as 130 V IRLs 

were used to maintain product lifetimes 

in areas with transients, voltage spikes, 

and other power issues, and that 

consumers in those markets will have to 

buy more light bulbs due to voltage 

issues. Citing the 130 V lamps as an 

example, Westinghouse noted that in 

this rulemaking DOE has to be careful 

when setting new IRL standards that 

such unintended consequences do not 

happen as they cannot be fixed in the 

future due to the backsliding provision. 

(Westinghouse, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 43–44) 

DOE is aware that the 130 V lamps 

can provide a certain utility by lasting 

longer than 120 V lamps in certain areas 

that are susceptible to voltage spikes. 

However, based on its assessment that 

most consumers operate 130 V IRLs at 

120 V and differences in efficacy when 

they are operated at 120 V versus tested 

at 130 V, DOE determined that there 

would be a potential migration to 130 V 

IRLs if they were subject to the same 

standards as 120 V IRLs and further that 

there would be additional purchases of 

130 V IRLs by the consumer. Hence, in 

order to preserve energy savings, DOE 

maintained the rated voltage class 

division that separates covered IRLs less 

than 125 V from those that are greater 

than or equal to 125 V in this 

rulemaking. (See chapter 3 of the final 

rule TSD for further information.) 

b. Modified Spectrum 

Modified spectrum IRLs provide 

unique utility to consumers by 

providing a different type of light than 

standard spectrum lamps, much like 

fluorescent lamps with different CCT 

values. However, the same technologies 

(i.e., coatings) that modify the spectral 

emission of a lamp also decrease lamp 

efficacy. Therefore, in the NOPR DOE 

proposed a product class division 

separating standard spectrum IRLs from 

modified spectrum IRLs. 79 FR at 24093 

(April 29, 2014). 

EEOs added that a separate product 

class for modified spectrum lamps may 

not be needed as more efficient 

technologies, such as CFLs and LEDs, 

are able to achieve the same utility and 

also due to the lack of commercially 

available modified spectrum lamps 

covered by the rulemaking. (EEOs, No. 

55 at pp. 7–8) CA IOUs agreed that due 

to the limited number of modified 

spectrum IRLs on the market, the 

category should be eliminated. (CA 

IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 

at p. 20) ASAP and CA IOUs concluded 

that there is no need to make an 

exemption or have a less efficacious 

standard for modified spectrum lamps. 

(ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

49 at pp. 17–18; CA IOUs, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 20) 

NEMA commented that modified 

spectrum lamps, like 130 V lamps, 

cannot remain both cost effective and 

compliant and referred DOE to 

manufacturer interviews for additional 

details. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 31) 

As in the NOPR, DOE continues to 

believe that modified spectrum lamps 

offer unique utility by providing a 

different spectrum of light. 79 FR at 

24093 (April 29, 2014). Although more 

efficient technologies, such as CFLs and 

LEDs, may offer similar spectrums, DOE 

must maintain consumer utility for the 

products that are within the scope of 

this rulemaking. Modified spectrum 

IRLs modify the spectral emission of a 

lamp in such a way that lamp efficacy 

decreases. DOE acknowledges that there 

are currently no modified spectrum 

products on the market. However, DOE 

maintains that there are no 

technological barriers to creating these 

products. DOE does not consider cost 

when establishing product classes. 

Because modified spectrum lamps offer 

unique utility but at lower efficacy 

compared to standard spectrum 

products, DOE maintained the class 

division for lamp spectrum in this final 

rule. 

c. Summary of IRL Product Classes 

In this final rule analysis, DOE 

established product classes for IRLs as 

summarized in Table VI.4. See chapter 

3 of the final rule TSD for further details 

on each IRL product class. 

TABLE VI.4—IRL PRODUCT CLASSES IN FINAL RULE ANALYSIS

Lamp type Diameter 

(in inches) Voltage 

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

........................ <125 V 

≤2.5 ≥125 V 

........................ <125 V 

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

........................ <125 V 

≤2.5 ≥125 V 

........................ <125 V 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4065 

26ELs span multiple lamps of different wattages. 

In selecting ELs, DOE considered whether these 

multiple lamps can meet the standard levels. 

27The publicly available compliance information 

for GSFLs can be found in DOE’s compliance 

Certification Database available here: 

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

D. Engineering Analysis 

1. General Approach 

The engineering analysis is generally 

based on commercially available lamps 

that incorporate the design options 

identified in the technology assessment 

and screening analysis. (See chapters 3 

and 4 of the final rule TSD for further 

information on technology and design 

options.) The methodology consists of 

the following steps: (1) Selecting 

representative product classes, (2) 

selecting baseline lamps, (3) identifying 

more efficacious substitutes, and (4) 

developing efficacy levels by directly 

analyzing representative product classes 

and then scaling those efficacy levels to 

non-representative product classes. The 

details of the engineering analysis are 

discussed in chapter 5 of the final rule 

TSD. The following discussion 

summarizes the general steps of the 

engineering analysis: 

Representative product classes: DOE 

first reviews covered lamps and the 

associated product classes. When a 

product has multiple product classes, 

DOE selects certain classes as 

‘‘representative’’ and concentrates its 

analytical effort on these classes. DOE 

selects representative product classes 

primarily because of their high market 

volumes. 

Baseline lamps: For each 

representative product class, DOE 

selects a baseline lamp as a reference 

point against which to measure changes 

resulting from energy conservation 

standards. Typically, a baseline model 

is the most common, least efficacious 

lamp sold in a given product class. DOE 

also considers other lamp characteristics 

in choosing the most appropriate 

baseline for each product class such as 

wattage, lumen output, and lifetime. 

More efficacious substitutes: DOE 

selects higher efficacy lamps as 

replacements for each of the baseline 

models considered. When selecting 

higher efficacy lamps, DOE considers 

only design options that meet the 

criteria outlined in the screening 

analysis (see section VI.B or chapter 4 

of the final rule TSD). For GSFLs, DOE 

pairs each lamp with an appropriate 

ballast because fluorescent lamps are a 

component of a system, and their 

performance is related to the ballast on 

which they operate. 

Efficacy levels: After identifying the 

more efficacious substitutes for each 

baseline lamp, DOE develops ELs. DOE 

bases its analysis on three factors: (1) 

The design options associated with the 

specific lamps studied; (2) the ability of 

lamps across wattages to comply with 

the standard level of a given product 

class; 26 and (3) the max tech EL. DOE 

then scales the ELs of representative 

product classes to those classes not 

directly analyzed. 

DOE received a comment regarding 

the general methodology of the IRL 

engineering. GE recommended that DOE 

conduct two separate analyses for the 

commercial sector and residential 

sector. GE noted that lamps in the 

residential sector have shorter lifetimes, 

such as 1,500 hours, as they are used 

less frequently and therefore need to be 

replaced less often, especially if the 

lamps are on a dimmer. GE continued 

that the commercial sector requires 

longer lifetimes of 3,000 to 4,000 hours 

because lamps in commercial 

applications can be used up to 16 hours 

a day. GE stated that the analyses would 

be skewed between the two markets and 

that it would have a negative effect on 

the residential market as residential 

consumers with their shorter hours of 

operation are less likely to see the cost 

savings and payback that commercial 

consumers would be able to accrue. GE 

proposed the idea that the commercial 

and residential lamps could be 

differentiated by the typical 

applications, wattages, and technical 

aspects for each sector. For example, the 

PAR30 lamps could be treated as 

residential and PAR38 lamps as 

commercial. GE further commented that 

they understood that separating the 

lamps by sector could be difficult, but 

that the separation is necessary, as the 

proposed max tech levels applied across 

sectors would have the unintended 

consequences of removing certain utility 

and entire products from the market. 

(GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 

at pp. 105–106, 116–117) NEEA agreed 

that separate analyses could be done for 

the commercial sector and for the 

residential sector. Alternatively, NEEA 

also suggested segregating the large 

commercial sector from the residential 

and small commercial sectors, such as 

independent, family-owned businesses 

and other consumers that purchase 

lighting similarly to homeowners. 

(NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

49 at p. 131) 

DOE acknowledges that lamps have 

varying levels of penetration in different 

market sectors. However, there is 

nothing that would limit the use of a 

covered IRL in a specific sector. 

Therefore, DOE does not conduct sectorbased assessments in the engineering 

analysis. Rather, the LCC analysis and 

NIA consider lamp use in different 

market sectors. The LCC analysis 

provides results for each analyzed lamp 

in each relevant sector. See section 

VII.B.1 for results of the IRL LCC 

analysis. The shipments analysis 

accounts for the number of shipments 

by sector and the popularity of analyzed 

lamps in each sector. The results are 

subsequently used in the NIA. See 

section VII.B.3 for results of the NIA. 

Further, as part of the engineering 

analysis, when selecting more 

efficacious substitutes and establishing 

efficacy levels, DOE ensures that 

products at higher efficacy levels meet 

baseline consumer needs. DOE’s 

analysis of IRLs addresses the concerns 

regarding lifetime and product 

availability. See section VI.D.3 for 

further details. Therefore, DOE did not 

conduct separate engineering analyses 

by sector for IRLs. 

Stakeholders had several comments 

specific to the GSFL and IRL 

engineering analyses presented in the 

NOPR. The following sections discuss 

and address feedback received from 

stakeholders for each product. 

2. General Service Fluorescent Lamp 

Engineering 

For GSFLs, DOE received several 

comments on the engineering analysis 

presented in the NOPR. The following 

sections summarize the comments and 

responses received on these topics, and 

present the GSFL engineering 

methodology for this final rule analysis. 

a. Data Approach 

Usability of Certification Data and 

Catalog Data 

Because not all commercially 

available products had associated 

certification data, DOE was unable to 

rely solely on certification data in the 

preliminary analysis. At the time of the 

NOPR analysis, DOE’s Compliance 

Certification Management System 

(CCMS) database 27 only contained data 

for 68 percent of the covered 

commercially available lamps. 

Therefore, in the NOPR analysis, DOE 

continued to utilize catalog data to 

identify baseline products and develop 

initial efficacy levels. DOE then used 

available certification data to adjust the 

initial efficacy levels so that the 

proposed levels could be met with 

efficacies submitted for certification. 

NEMA commented that while catalog 

data is reviewed on a regular basis, due 

to publication delays it may not reflect 

all products being manufactured and, 

therefore, certification data would 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4066 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

28 ‘‘IES Approved Method for the Electrical and 

Photometric Measurement of Fluorescent Lamps’’ 

(approved Jan. 31, 2009). 

provide a more realistic representation 

of products than catalogs. For example, 

NEMA commented on DOE’s 

assessment that only 68 percent of the 

commercially available fluorescent 

lamps in the scope of this rulemaking 

have certification data. NEMA stated 

that this percentage suggests that 

products identified by DOE in catalogs 

are not really made or sold as all 

manufacturers are required to submit 

certification data to DOE on their 

products on an annual basis. (NEMA, 

No. 54 at p. 19) 

DOE understands that catalog data is 

subject to publication delays and may 

not be updated on a continuous basis. 

DOE frequently reviews both the 

available catalog data and certification 

data. At the time of the final rule 

analysis, DOE’s certification database 

contained data for 79 percent of the 

covered commercially available lamps. 

While this percentage was an increase 

from the NOPR analysis, it still did not 

represent a comprehensive dataset on 

which to base an engineering analysis. 

Therefore, in this final rule analysis, 

DOE again utilized both catalog data 

and certification data in order to assess 

all available data. Specifically, DOE 

utilized catalog data to identify baseline 

products and develop initial efficacy 

levels. This approach ensured 

consideration of all available products. 

DOE then used available certification 

data to adjust the initial efficacy levels, 

if necessary, thereby ensuring that the 

adopted levels can be met based on the 

certification values submitted by 

manufacturers to demonstrate 

compliance with standards. 

Regarding the certification data, 

NEMA stated that they had determined 

that erroneous conclusions could be 

drawn from the data in DOE’s 

certification database. NEMA 

commented on an exchange with DOE 

regarding the application of cathode 

heat during testing for T8 lamps in the 

4-foot MBP and 2-foot U-shaped product 

classes. NEMA stated that the 

application of cathode heat for full 

wattage lamps and U-shaped lamps is 

clear as they do not have high frequency 

specifications. However, NEMA asserted 

that while ANSI C78.81–2010 specifies 

that the reduced wattage (30 W, 28 W 

and 25 W) 4-foot MBP T8 lamps have 

normative high frequency (HF) reference 

ballast circuits, DOE requires they be 

tested at low frequency and permits 

exclusion of cathode heat, which makes 

them appear more efficacious than full 

wattage lamps. NEMA asserted that DOE 

certification database has erroneous 

values for reduced wattage lamps for the 

following reasons: (1) There was a lack 

of awareness of the exchange between 

DOE and NEMA on the subject of 

cathode heat and high frequency 

circuits for reduced wattage lamps; (2) 

the current DOE test procedure 

incorporates ANSI C78.81–2010, which 

made high frequency reference 

photometry normative for reduced 

wattage T8 lamps but requires that these 

lamps be tested at low frequency and 

permits the removal of cathode heat, 

which makes them seem more 

efficacious; and (3) DOE certification 

data is not required to be resubmitted if 

there are no changes affecting efficacy of 

the basic model. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 

23–24) 

DOE acknowledges that there may be 

confusion in the industry regarding how 

to test certain lamp types. Per the DOE 

test procedure, GSFLs are to be tested at 

low frequency unless only high 

frequency reference ballast 

specifications are available. (See section 

4.1.1 in 10 CFR 430, subpart B, 

appendix R.) Because low frequency 

settings exist, 4-foot MBP lamps and 2- 

foot U-shaped lamps must be tested at 

low frequency. For lamps tested at high 

frequency, the industry standard 

referenced by the DOE test procedure, 

LM–9–09,28 specifies that cathode heat 

is not utilized for high frequency 

circuits. Manufacturers are encouraged 

to contact general_service_fluorescent_

lamps@ee.doe.gov with questions 

regarding DOE’s test procedure. 

Calculation of Efficacy 

DOE calculated efficacy as the initial 

lumen output published in 

manufacturer catalogs divided by the 

ANSI rated wattage. For lamp types that 

do not have a defined ANSI rated 

wattage, DOE utilized the lamp’s 

nominal wattage to calculate catalog 

efficacy. For example, because reduced 

wattage 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps do 

not have a defined ANSI rated wattage, 

DOE used their nominal wattages, either 

49 W or 47 W, to calculate efficacy. 

NEMA commented on DOE’s use of 

catalog lumens and ANSI wattage to 

determine catalog efficacy, stating that 

lamp wattage may vary when measuring 

catalog lumens for rating purposes. 

Further, NEMA noted that the ANSItypical electrical characteristics are 

given for informational use only and 

that any determination of lamp power or 

efficacy from these values would be 

considered as rough estimates. (NEMA, 

No. 54 at p. 23) 

ANSI rated wattage is the result of 

standardized ANSI testing and 

represents an industry agreed upon 

wattage. As noted by NEMA in response 

to the preliminary analysis, the rated 

wattage is based on the average of a very 

large number of samples and 

manufacturers produce lamps to fall on 

and around that point. Therefore, the 

individual lamp tested wattage will 

differ from this rated value of that lamp. 

NEMA stated that it would defer to its 

members, but in general it supported 

using the ANSI rated wattage rather 

than the measured wattage. 79 FR at 

24095 (April 29, 2014). Lamp wattage is 

also reported by manufacturers in the 

CCMS database. However, DOE 

identified inconsistencies with the 

reported wattage. For example, some 

manufacturers appeared to report 

nominal wattage rather than measured 

wattage. DOE notes that using the ANSI 

rated wattage provides a conservative 

rating for the efficacy for several lamp 

types, specifically those lamp types 

tested at low frequency (i.e., 4-foot MBP, 

2-foot U-shaped, and 8-foot SP 

slimline). Therefore, DOE continued to 

use the ANSI defined rated wattage in 

this final rule. 

For lamp types that do not have a 

defined ANSI rated wattage, DOE 

utilized the lamp’s nominal wattage to 

calculate catalog efficacy. NEMA 

commented that the assumption that the 

rated wattage and nominal wattage of 

reduced wattage 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO 

lamps are the same is not valid. NEMA 

noted that until an industry standard is 

completed, these values are speculative 

in nature. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 26) 

DOE acknowledges that reduced 

wattage 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps do 

not have a defined rated wattage. 

However, DOE believes that the nominal 

wattage is a reasonable approximation 

of rated wattage for these lamps, based 

on the guidelines for defining nominal 

wattage in ANSI C78.81. After 

developing initial levels based on 

efficacies calculated using catalog data 

and ANSI wattages, DOE reviewed 

certification data. The reported values 

for efficacy are based on measured 

lumen output and measured wattage as 

specified in DOE’s test procedures for 

GSFLs set forth at 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix R. Utilizing ANSI 

rated wattage to calculate catalog 

efficacy and reported efficacy for 

developing final efficacy levels 

eliminates the uncertainty associated 

with the wattages reported for 

compliance. 

Rounding 

NEMA disagreed with DOE’s current 

GSFL test procedure that requires 

efficacies be reported to the nearest 

tenth. 10 CFR 430.23(r)(2) NEMA stated 

that due to the uncertainty of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4067 

measurement, reporting lumen values to 

the nearest tenth was statistically 

incorrect and could result in 

enforcement issues; and further 

recommended that DOE require 

efficacies to be rounded to the nearest 

lumen per watt. Specifically, NEMA 

quoted that the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) TL 

standards measurement of expanded 

uncertainty is 1.6 percent (coverage 

factor k=2). NEMA provided the 

example that a highly stable 3,000- 

lumen F32T8 fluorescent lamp based on 

NIST standards would result in an 

uncertainty for the reported mean of 

+/¥ 33 lumens for 21 samples. Further, 

NEMA stated that in addition to being 

contrary to the NIST ‘‘Guidelines for 

Evaluating and Expressing the 

Uncertainty of NIST Measurement 

Results’’ (GUM) rounding to the nearest 

tenth also did not align with 

International Laboratory Accreditation 

Cooperation (ILAC) Policy for 

Uncertainty in Calibration (ILAC– 

P14:01/2013). The policy states that the 

expanded uncertainty should be at most 

two significant figures and the final 

result rounded to the least significant 

figure in the value of the expanded 

uncertainty assigned to the 

measurement result. NEMA noted that 

an accredited laboratory with 

measurements traceable to SI units 

through a National Metrology Institute 

cannot have a measurement uncertainty 

less than the artifact samples utilized to 

calibrate their systems and random 

lamp production samples would add 

further uncertainty. (NEMA, No. 54 at 

pp. 15–16) 

As specified in DOE’s test procedures 

for GSFLs set forth at 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix R, lamp efficacy is 

the ratio of measured lumen output in 

lumens to the measured lamp electrical 

power input in watts rounded to the 

nearest tenth in units of lumens per 

watt. In the 2009 final rule for the GSFL 

and IRL test procedure, DOE amended 

the test procedure to require reported 

efficacy measurements for GSFLs to be 

rounded to the nearest tenth of a lumen 

per watt allowing for future energy 

conservation standards to be rounded to 

the nearest tenth of a lumen per watt. 74 

FR 31829, 31836 (July 6, 2009). DOE 

concluded this amendment to the test 

procedure was feasible because 

manufacturers routinely generate test 

results that would allow reporting to at 

least the tenth of a lumen per watt level. 

74 FR at 31836 (July 6, 2009). 

Therefore, DOE analyzed efficacy 

levels in this rulemaking rounded to the 

nearest tenth of a lumen per watt as 

DOE maintains that this is an achievable 

level of accuracy. 

b. Representative Product Classes 

When a covered product has multiple 

product classes, DOE identifies and 

selects certain product classes as 

representative and analyzes those 

product classes directly. DOE chooses 

these representative product classes 

primarily due to their high market 

volumes. In the NOPR, DOE identified 

all GSFLs with CCTs less than or equal 

to 4,500 K with the exception of the 2- 

foot U-shaped lamps as representative 

product classes. 79 FR at 24096 (April 

29, 2014). DOE received no comments 

on this subject and therefore maintained 

the same representative product classes 

for the final rule. 

c. Baseline Lamps 

Once DOE identifies representative 

product classes for analysis, it selects 

baseline lamps to analyze in each class. 

Typically, a baseline lamp is the most 

common, least efficacious lamp that just 

meets existing energy conservation 

standards. In the NOPR, DOE proposed 

baselines at the existing standard levels 

for all product classes. Id. at 24097–98. 

For the 4-foot MBP and 8-foot slimline 

product classes, DOE determined the 

baseline to be the least efficient product 

on the market at the existing standard 

level. For representative product classes 

in which there were no commercially 

available lamps at the existing standard 

level, DOE modeled baseline lamps. 

Feedback from stakeholders and 

manufacturer interviews indicated that 

manufacturers will likely produce 

lamps at the existing standard level 

even if no products are currently 

available. Further, after the 2009 Lamps 

Rule, DOE observed the introduction of 

products that were not previously 

available at the newly adopted standard 

levels for some product classes. Thus, 

DOE believed this trend could continue 

and additional lamps may be offered 

that just meet the existing standard level 

for the remaining product classes. In the 

NOPR, DOE modeled baseline lamps for 

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

T5 MiniBP HO product classes. Id. 

NEMA agreed with the baselines 

selected for GSFLs based on the data in 

DOE’s certification database, but noted 

its concern that product performance 

may be overstated due to data entry 

errors in the certification database or the 

use of catalog data that shows higher 

than actual performance of products. 

(NEMA, No. 54 at p. 17) 

Because DOE received no comments 

to the contrary, DOE analyzed the same 

baselines in the final rule analysis as 

analyzed in the NOPR. DOE selected 

commercially available lamps as 

baselines for the 4-foot MBP and 8-foot 

slimline product classes and modeled 

baseline lamps for the 8-foot RDC HO, 

T5 MiniBP SO, and T5 MiniBP HO 

product classes. Regarding overstated 

product performance, DOE addresses 

discrepancies within the available data 

sets in section VI.D.2.a and discusses its 

methodology for developing efficacy 

levels in section VI.D.2.g. 

d. More Efficacious Substitutes 

DOE selects more efficacious 

replacements for the baseline lamps 

considered within each representative 

product class. DOE considers only 

design options identified in the 

screening analysis. In the NOPR, these 

selections were made such that 

potential substitutions maintained light 

output within 10 percent of the baseline 

lamp’s light output with similar 

performance characteristics, when 

possible. 79 FR at 24098 (April 29, 

2014). DOE also sought to keep other 

characteristics of substitute lamps as 

similar as possible to the baseline 

lamps, such as rated life, CRI, and CCT. 

In identifying the more efficacious 

substitutes, DOE utilized a database of 

commercially available lamps. DOE 

received several comments regarding its 

choices for more efficacious substitutes 

in the NOPR. 

Four-Foot MBP Lamps 

In the NOPR analysis, DOE analyzed 

two levels for 4-foot MBP lamps above 

the baseline, with the highest level 

represented by a more efficacious full 

wattage 4-foot MBP lamp and two 

reduced wattage lamps (28 W and 25 W) 

that are commercially available. 

CA IOUs questioned why DOE did not 

consider 30 W lamps in its analysis, 

which would be another opportunity to 

save energy and stay within 10 percent 

of lumen output. (CA IOUs, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 94–95) 

DOE analyzed a database of 

commercially available lamps to 

identify the most common 

characteristics of lamps in each product 

class including wattage. DOE found the 

30 W 4-foot MBP lamp to be 

significantly less common than the 28 

W and 25 W wattages. Manufacturer 

feedback confirmed the most popular 

reduced wattage lamps in the 4-foot 

MBP product class to be 28 W and 25 

W. Further, for consumers who choose 

to purchase a reduced wattage product, 

DOE believes the 28 W and 25 W 

products capture both options available: 

one that saves energy while maintaining 

lumen output within 10 percent of the 

lumen output of typical 32 W products 

and one that saves more energy but 

offers slightly lower lumen output. 

Because 28 W lamps are more 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4068 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

29Mean lumen output is a measure of light output 

midway through the rated life of a lamp. 

30BF is defined as the output of a ballast 

delivered to a reference lamp in terms of power or 

light divided by the output of the relevant reference 

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

2002). Because BF affects the light output of the 

system, manufacturers design ballasts with a range 

of ballast factors to allow consumers to vary the 

light output, and thus power consumed, of a 

fluorescent system. See the 2011 Ballast Rule final 

rule TSD Chapter 3. The Ballast Rule materials are 

available at www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0016. 

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

ballast input power multiplied by the appropriate 

frequency adjustment factor. 

32Light output was reduced up to 18 percent in 

some replacement scenarios. The percent reduction 

in light output was based on the ballast factor of 

the commercially available ballasts analyzed. For 

more information, see chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

33 If paired with a dimming ballast, energy 

savings may be possible if the system is adjusted 

to maintain the same light output of the replaced 

system. 

efficacious than 30 W lamps and save 

more energy, DOE believes that 

consumers opting to purchase reduced 

wattage lamps will choose 28 W lamps 

rather than 30 W lamps. Therefore, DOE 

continued to analyze only 28 W and 25 

W reduced wattage 4-foot MBP lamps in 

the final rule. 

T5 MiniBP HO Lamps 

In the NOPR analysis, DOE modeled 

a baseline lamp for the T5 HO product 

class because a commercially available 

lamp was not offered at the existing 

standard level. DOE analyzed one level 

above the baseline, represented by a 

more efficacious full wattage T5 HO 

lamp and two reduced wattage T5HO 

lamps that are commercially available. 

NEMA noted that DOE should not use 

modeled lamps to determine more 

efficacious substitutes for T5 MiniBP 

HO lamps. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 18) 

NEMA stated that if a more efficacious 

design was possible it would already be 

commercially available. Because of the 

high bulb wall temperatures in T5 

MiniBP HO lamps, there are many 

characteristics to consider such as 

phosphor loading, cold spot control, 

cathode design, gas fill for reduced 

wattage products, and overall design for 

optimal performance at 35 °C. Further, 

NEMA was skeptical that DOE could 

produce measured data that 

demonstrates manufacturability of the 

more efficacious modeled T5 MiniBP 

HO lamp. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 26) 

As noted in section VI.D.3.b in 

response to stakeholder comments DOE 

modeled a baseline lamp for the NOPR 

analysis because the T5 HO product 

class does not have a commercially 

available lamp that just meets the 

existing standard. Because there are full 

wattage products that have 

demonstrated efficacy higher than the 

existing standard, DOE believes the 

modeled baseline lamp is feasible. 

Based on this new baseline, in the 

NOPR analysis DOE was able to identify 

a more efficacious full wattage T5 HO 

substitute that is commercially 

available. For the final rule, DOE 

continues to analyze the same baseline 

and higher efficacy replacements, 

including the commercially available 

full wattage T5 HO lamp. 

e. General Service Fluorescent Lamp 

Systems 

Because fluorescent lamps operate on 

ballasts in practice, DOE analyzed lampand-ballast systems, thereby more 

accurately capturing real-world energy 

use and light output. In the DOE test 

procedure for GSFLs, and therefore in 

this rulemaking, lamp efficacy is based 

on the initial lumen output. However, 

because light output decreases over 

time, DOE analyzed more efficacious 

systems that maintain mean lumen 

output 29 within 10 percent of the 

baseline system, when possible. Further, 

DOE selected replacement systems that 

do not have higher energy consumption 

than the baseline system. 

DOE considered two different 

scenarios: (1) A lamp replacement 

scenario in which the consumer selects 

a reduced wattage replacement lamp 

that can operate on the installed ballast 

and (2) a lamp-and-ballast replacement 

scenario in which the consumer selects 

a lamp that has the same or lower 

wattage compared to the baseline lamp 

and also selects a new ballast with 

potentially different performance 

characteristics, such as ballast factor 30

(BF) or ballast luminous efficiency 31

(BLE). In the second scenario DOE 

attempted to select a ballast that would 

result in energy savings and still 

maintain the mean lumen output within 

10 percent of the baseline. DOE 

identified a new lamp-and-ballast 

system by pairing a more efficacious 

lamp with a commercially available 

ballast that had the lowest BF possible 

that still maintained system mean 

lumen output within 10 percent of the 

baseline system. When multiple ballast 

options with the same BF existed, DOE 

selected the most efficient ballast based 

on the BLE metric, as this was 

considered to be the most likely ballast 

substitute in a lamp-and-ballast 

replacement scenario designed to 

achieve energy savings. If it was not 

possible to identify a lamp-and-ballast 

replacement that maintained the 10 

percent mean lumen output criterion, 

DOE prioritized energy savings and 

analyzed a lamp-and-ballast system that 

reduced light output by more than 10 

percent 32 but saved energy relative to 

the baseline system. 

NEMA disputed the energy savings 

demonstrated by the lamp-and-ballast 

systems. NEMA commented that reballasting is not common and thus 

spaces will more likely be overlit and 

consume the same amount of system 

energy. NEMA asserted that a 32 W 

fluorescent lamp, even if it’s more 

efficacious, will consume the same 

amount of energy.33 If ballasts were 

replaced, NEMA disagreed with DOE’s 

assessment that, in new construction 

and retrofit scenarios, lamps will be 

paired with low ballast factor ballasts to 

result in lower system energy use. 

Further, NEMA noted that DOE’s 

analysis shows a 2–3 percent change in 

system lumen output which does not 

align with the existing 10 percent steps 

in ballast factors. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 

18) 

DOE agrees that a ballast is not always 

replaced when a lamp fails. DOE 

analyzes a lamp replacement scenario in 

which the existing ballast is not 

replaced and a consumer saves energy 

by choosing a reduced wattage lamp. 

For the instances in which the 

consumer replaces both a lamp and 

ballast, DOE analyzes a lamp-and-ballast 

replacement scenario in which a 

consumer can achieve energy savings by 

pairing a new lamp with an improved 

ballast. DOE selected commercially 

available ballasts to pair with 

representative lamps and found ballasts 

with ballast factors available in 

increments smaller than 10 percent. 

DOE received several comments 

regarding the light level that must be 

maintained when analyzing 

replacement lamp-and-ballast systems. 

CA IOUs stated that they were aware 

that lumens depreciate over time, 

decreasing to about 30 percent of initial 

lumen output. Further, they added that 

in a lighting retrofit the replacement of 

a new lamp-and-ballast system can 

result in up to a 15–17 percent increase 

in light output, and consumers actually 

respond negatively to this increase. 

Therefore, CA IOUs suggested that when 

examining different scenarios of 

sacrificing increased light over energy 

savings or vice versa, DOE prioritize 

energy savings and maintaining 

reasonable light levels. (CA IOUs, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 93–94) 

NEMA disagreed with the comment 

made by the CA IOU’s during the NOPR 

public meeting that consumers would 

not like increased light levels and a 

decrease of up to 10 percent of lumens 

would still be too much light for 

consumers. NEMA stated that recent 

studies show that the aging population 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4069 

34BF is defined as the output of a ballast 

delivered to a reference lamp in terms of power or 

light divided by the output of the relevant reference 

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

2002). Because BF affects the light output of the 

system, manufacturers design ballasts with a range 

of ballast factors to allow consumers to vary the 

light output, and thus power consumed, of a 

fluorescent system. See the 2011 Ballast Rule final 

rule TSD Chapter 3. The Ballast Rule materials are 

available at www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0016. 

35BLE is the ratio of the total lamp arc power to 

ballast input power multiplied by the appropriate 

frequency adjustment factor. 

requires higher light levels and 

regardless, does not agree that 

decreasing light by 10 percent in place 

of energy savings for all applications is 

acceptable due to lumen depreciation 

resulting in light that does not meet the 

required needs, creates safety issue, or 

violates building codes. (NEMA, No. 54 

at pp. 18–19) 

DOE notes that, while it may be 

possible to decrease light output by 

more than 10 percent in certain 

situations to maximize energy savings, it 

is likely not acceptable in all 

applications. DOE tried to select lampand-ballast systems that maintained 

mean lumen output within 10 percent of 

the baseline system, when possible. For 

the lamp-and-ballast replacement 

scenario, DOE attempted to select a 

ballast that would result in energy 

savings and still maintain the mean 

lumen output within 10 percent of the 

baseline. In cases where energy savings 

were not possible without going beyond 

the 10 percent threshold of the baseline 

mean lumen output, DOE gave priority 

to energy savings. 

DOE also received comments 

regarding the pairing of GSFLs with 

dimming ballasts. CA IOUs noted that 

California’s new building codes will 

potentially require almost all lighting to 

use dimming ballasts and therefore the 

ballasts may become common in other 

states as well. CA IOUs noted that this 

presents another opportunity for saving 

energy without increasing light. (CA 

IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 

at pp. 94–96) CA IOUs requested 

clarification on compatibility issues 

when dimming fluorescent lamps 

because of the expected increase in the 

use of dimming products in California. 

(CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 49 at p. 63) ASAP noted that there 

are reduced wattage lamps that are able 

to be dimmed and because it is an 

improving situation, the analysis should 

not be so rigid as to require that there 

always be full wattage lamps available. 

(ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

49 at p. 65) GE responded that while 

reduced wattage lamps can be dimmed, 

their use of krypton makes them more 

susceptible to striations which are 

unacceptable to the consumer. GE 

added that because of this issue, major 

companies recommend using full 

wattage lamps with dimming systems as 

actual energy savings are obtained from 

the wattage at which the lamps are 

being operated rather than their efficacy. 

(GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 

at pp. 66–67) 

DOE agrees with the CA IOUs that the 

market share of dimmable systems may 

increase in the future and therefore 

continued to analyze dimmable systems 

in the final rule. While certain dimming 

ballasts are listed as compatible for 

operation with both full and reduced 

wattage lamps, DOE continues to 

receive feedback that there can be issues 

with dimming reduced wattage lamps. 

Specifically DOE received feedback 

from manufacturer interviews that 

problems that can be encountered when 

dimming linear fluorescent lamps, 

including difficulties in lamp starting, 

striations, and dropout, are exacerbated 

by the use of krypton in reduced 

wattage lamps. Because of these issues, 

DOE has continued to ensure that full 

wattage lamps can meet the efficacy 

levels analyzed. 

In the final rule, DOE continued to 

analyze GSFLs operating on fluorescent 

lamp ballasts. In situations where a 

consumer selects a new ballast in 

addition to a new lamp, DOE allows the 

consumer to select a new ballast with 

potentially different performance 

characteristics, such as BF 34 or BLE.35

DOE maintained the same methodology 

described previously in this section to 

select ballasts in the final rule. 

However, due to certain products being 

discontinued and new products 

introduced, certain ballast selections in 

the final rule for the 4-foot MBP, 8-foot 

SP slimline, and 8-foot RDC HO product 

classes were updated. See chapter 5 of 

the final rule TSD for additional detail. 

f. Max Tech 

When DOE proposes to adopt an 

amended standard for a type or class of 

covered product, it must determine the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency or maximum reduction in 

energy use that is technologically 

feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the 

engineering analysis, DOE determined 

the maximum technologically feasible 

(‘‘max tech’’) improvements in efficacy 

for GSFLs using the design parameters 

for the most efficient products available 

on the market or in working prototypes. 

NEMA advised DOE to be wary of 

claims of ultra-performance lamps in 

the certification database, particularly 

since there have been no technology 

breakthroughs since the 2009 Lamps 

Rule and therefore, the max tech 

established in that rulemaking should 

not change. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 25, 29) 

In reviewing available certification 

data, DOE considered the possibility of 

exorbitant claims or incorrect data. DOE 

identified several efficacy values that it 

did not consider feasible for fluorescent 

lamp technology and therefore did not 

consider in this analysis. In general, 

these outliers were identified based on 

the reported wattage, which indicated 

that these lamps may not have been 

tested correctly. However, DOE still 

identified several commercially 

available lamps performing at efficacy 

levels higher than the max tech levels 

established in the 2009 Lamps Rule 

based on catalog data and certification 

data. Thus, manufacturers appear to be 

utilizing more advanced technologies or 

to be more efficiently utilizing existing 

technologies. 

g. Efficacy Levels 

After identifying more efficacious 

substitutes for each of the baseline 

lamps, in the NOPR DOE developed ELs 

based on the consideration of several 

factors, including: (1) The design 

options associated with the specific 

lamps being studied (e.g., grades of 

phosphor for GSFLs); (2) the ability of 

lamps across wattages to comply with 

the standard level of a given product 

class; and (3) the max tech level. When 

evaluating ELs in the NOPR, DOE 

considered only ELs at which a full 

wattage version of the lamp type was 

available because reduced wattage 

lamps have limited utility. 79 FR at 

24103 (April 29, 2014). DOE received 

several comments on the ELs considered 

in the NOPR. 

Clarification of Standard Levels 

ASAP commented that the 

rulemaking for GSFLs is a performance 

standard and not a design standard, thus 

ensuring that full wattage lamps are 

available should not be a constraint for 

DOE. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 49 at pp. 50–51) 

DOE agrees with ASAP that the 

efficacy levels analyzed in this rule are 

performance standards rather than 

design standards. Thus, DOE does not 

dictate how manufacturers must comply 

with a standard (i.e., requiring that they 

produce full wattage lamps). However, 

DOE must evaluate standards that do 

not lessen utility or performance of a 

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

As described in section VI.D.2.e, DOE 

has determined that reduced wattage 

lamps cannot be used in all of the same 

dimming systems as full wattage lamps 

due to the addition of krypton gas. 

Therefore, DOE has established a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4070 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

36 In the instance where production occurs during 

fewer than 7 of such 12 months, the manufacturer 

shall randomly select 3 or more lamps from each 

month of production, where the number of lamps 

selected for each month shall be distributed as 

evenly as practicable among the months of 

production to attain a minimum sample of 21 

lamps. 

performance standard such that 

manufacturers can continue to produce 

full wattage lamps if required by 

consumers. 

Methodology To Develop Efficacy 

Levels 

EEOs agreed with DOE’s approach 

using catalog lumens and ANSI wattages 

for GSFLs to establish initial efficacy 

levels and then adjusting the levels 

based on certification data to ensure that 

certified values could meet proposed 

standards. EEOs did note that DOE had 

not provided specifics of the 

adjustments based on certification data. 

Based on its observations of the certified 

efficacy levels for a significant number 

of lamps, from several manufacturers, 

EEOs determined that the proposed 

standard levels for the 4-foot and 8-foot 

T8/T12 products were reasonable. 

(EEOs, No. 55 at pp. 4–5) 

However, manufacturers offered 

several comments regarding the 

methodology for determining efficacy 

levels and how it might affect 

manufacturers’ ability to comply with 

an adopted standard level. NEMA stated 

that manufacturers design products 

around the midpoint of a bell 

distribution curve, and therefore when 

the required standard is below the maxtech level, manufacturers have room to 

make adjustments (e.g., reducing 

lifetime, adding costly material) to 

ensure that all their products can meet 

the standard level. However, NEMA 

stated that because DOE’s proposed 

standards for GSFLs are approaching 

max-tech, the design mid-point is above 

this max-tech level which does not 

allow manufacturers to build in 

production tolerances that would ensure 

compliance. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 12) GE 

stated that if DOE sets the level at the 

upper tail of the distribution of data, it 

will be requiring efficacies above max 

tech which is at the center of that 

distribution. GE encouraged DOE to use 

the information in NEMA Lighting 

System Division (LSD)-63 Measurement 

Methods and Performance Variation for 

Verification Testing of General Purpose 

Lamps and Systems paper to analyze 

data in the DOE certification database 

and assess the variation between test 

measurements and in production. (GE, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 

86–88) Further, NEMA noted that while 

there is no statutory definition for the 

term ‘‘standard,’’ NEMA quoted 

specification of the term put forth by the 

International Standards Organization 

and the Office of Management and 

Budget. NEMA stressed that a standard 

must be capable of being met 

consistently and repeatedly by 

manufacturers and one that cannot be is 

not within DOE’s authority to 

promulgate. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 13) 

To demonstrate compliance with 

standards, DOE requires manufacturers 

to test a minimum of 21 lamps 

according to the procedures described 

in 10 CFR 430, subpart B, Appendix R 

and report a value that does not exceed 

the lower of the sample mean or the 95 

percent lower confidence limit (LCL) of 

the true mean divided by 0.97. The 

greater the variation in the tested 

sample, the more likely that 

manufacturers will report the second 

value (i.e., LCL). DOE notes that the 

statistics included in the compliance 

procedures are intended to ensure that 

manufacturers are reporting a value that 

approximates the population mean. 

Each tested lamp is not individually 

required to meet or exceed the standard 

level. Designing products such that their 

population mean or the performance of 

each individual lamp unit within the 

population exceeds DOE’s standard 

level is not required and is done so at 

the discretion of individual 

manufacturers. 

DOE believes the efficacy levels 

analyzed in this rulemaking represent 

expected population means rather than 

outlier data in the high end of a bell 

distribution curve. DOE received 

feedback from manufacturers during 

interviews that catalog data represents 

the long term average performance of 

products. DOE uses catalog data to 

establish initial efficacy levels. DOE 

then compares the efficacy levels to 

available certification data and adjusts 

the levels downward if necessary. DOE 

does not believe that the certification 

values represent outlier data in the high 

end of a bell distribution curve. 

Manufacturers must select a minimum 

of three lamps from each month of 

production for a minimum of 7 months 

out of a 12-month period.36 It is unlikely 

that selecting lamps from multiple 

months of production over the course of 

a year will result in a value that is 

consistently in the high end of a bell 

distribution curve. Furthermore, if 

manufacturers believe their test results 

are artificially high, they have the 

opportunity to report a more 

conservative value as DOE allows 

manufacturers to rate the product 

within the range of the existing standard 

up to the lower of the LCL divided by 

0.97 or the mean. See 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, Appendix R. 

Using this methodology, DOE 

accounts for variation in tested samples 

and ensures efficacy levels are based on 

values determined by DOE’s test 

procedures and reported by 

manufacturers themselves. In this final 

rule, DOE has maintained the same 

methodology to develop efficacy levels. 

Long-Life Lamps 

NEMA stated that GSFL 

manufacturers have recently introduced 

reduced wattage 4-foot T8 MPB lamps 

with 84,000–90,000 hour life and full 

wattage (dimmable) lamps with 67,000– 

70,000 hour life. NEMA noted that these 

products offer more than twice the life 

and better lumen maintenance than 

standard product with the same initial 

lumens, attributes that provide 

consumer utility. However, NEMA 

asserted that the proposed efficacy 

standard levels will eliminate the 4-foot 

32 W dimmable long life and 28W long 

life lamps leaving only the 25W long life 

lamps and also eliminate a patchwork of 

full and reduced wattage standard 

lamps between 42,000 and 52,000 

hours. Additionally, NEMA stated the 

T5 MiniBP HO long-life product would 

also not be able to meet the proposed 

standard. NEMA also warned that 

industry would not produce new 

products in response to the proposed 

standards but instead reduce existing 

product offerings and re-purpose 

existing products, resulting in decreased 

consumer satisfaction. Citing T5s 

specifically, NEMA stated that in order 

to offer choices to consumers, 

manufacturers may have to add more 

rare earth phosphors increasing 

production costs and then also have to 

decrease life to lower cost to the 

consumer. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 17–18, 

47–48) 

DOE reviewed catalog data to identify 

the long life products cited by NEMA. 

DOE found that while some 

manufacturers did offer long life 

products, the lifetimes of these products 

were inconsistent across the industry. 

For example, some manufacturers’ long 

life products are similar in lifetime to 

other manufacturers’ standard life 

products. While catalog data indicates 

that some designated long life products 

would meet analyzed efficacy levels, 

certification data is noticeably lower, 

suggesting that these products may not 

meet the highest level analyzed. DOE 

believes that lifetime is a feature valued 

by consumers. However, DOE considers 

lifetime to be an economic issue unless 

a standard requires the shortening of 

lamp lifetime beyond that which is 

typically available. Because the highest 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4071 

37Based on 3-hour programmed start operation. 

38 In the instance where production occurs during 

fewer than 7 of such 12 months, the manufacturer 

shall randomly select 3 or more lamps from each 

month of production, where the number of lamps 

selected for each month shall be distributed as 

evenly as practicable among the months of 

production to attain a minimum sample of 21 

lamps. 

standard level analyzed will still 

maintain the availability of 4-foot MBP 

GSFLs with lifetimes ranging from 

30,000 to 50,000 hours,37 DOE did not 

adjust the efficacy levels in this final 

rule due to lifetime. 

Four-Foot MBP Lamps 

In the NOPR, DOE analyzed a 

standard 800 series full wattage T8 lamp 

at the baseline. (See chapter 5 of the 

NOPR TSD.) DOE identified two levels 

of efficacy above the baseline. Based on 

catalog data, DOE determined EL 1 (90.0 

lm/W) represented an improved 800 

series full wattage T8 lamp and EL 2 

(93.0 lm/W) represented an 800 series 

high lumen output full wattage T8 lamp 

and the 25 W and 28 W reduced wattage 

lamps. DOE analyzed available 

certification information and found that 

EL 1 did not need to be adjusted from 

90.0 lm/W. DOE adjusted EL 2 from 93.0 

lm/W to 92.4 lm/W based on 

certification data. DOE received several 

comments on the levels analyzed for 4- 

foot MBP lamps. 

NEMA commended DOE on taking an 

analytical approach rather than relying 

only on catalog data or DOE certification 

data to determine efficacy levels for the 

4-foot MBP product class. However, 

NEMA stated that the limitations of both 

the catalog and DOE certification data 

need to be considered to understand the 

efficacy distribution and max tech of 4- 

foot MBP lamps with CCT ≤ 4,500 K. 

(NEMA, No. 54 at p. 22) 

NEMA commented on figure 5.3.2 of 

chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD, which 

shows the certification data for the 4- 

foot MBP lamps with a CCT less than 

4,500 K. NEMA noted that the reported 

reduced wattage T8 lamp data spreads 

up to 10–11 percent over the max tech, 

plausibly indicating a mixture of 

properly measured 60 Hz photometry 

without cathode heat and erroneously 

reported measurements made using the 

normative ANSI HF ballast reference 

circuit. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 24) 

As mentioned in section VI.D.2.f, DOE 

agrees that there may be outliers in 

certification data due to manufacturers’ 

confusion regarding how to test certain 

lamp types. DOE developed initial 

levels based on catalog data and then 

adjusted the levels based on available 

certification data. DOE did not adjust 

levels upward but rather adjusted levels 

downward if certification data was 

noticeably lower than catalog data. Thus 

the erroneously reported measurements 

cited by NEMA would not have resulted 

in an increased standard level. 

NEMA conducted a detailed review of 

how the efficacy levels analyzed in the 

NOPR compared to the available 

certification data. NEMA noted that the 

8 percent tolerance for a 21 sample size 

and 99 percent confidence limit 

specified in NEMA’s LSD 63–2012 

guidance aligns with the spread of 

certification data for full wattage lamps. 

Further, NEMA noted that the high 

lumen full wattage lamps falling at the 

upper levels of 96 lm/W represents max 

tech measured with favorable lab 

measurement bias per LSD 63–2012. 

(NEMA, No. 54 at p. 24) 

NEMA stated that the average 

maximum technically feasible 4-foot 

MBP T8 lamp efficacy measured at 60 

Hz with cathode heat is close to 92 lm/ 

W. NEMA noted that setting a standard 

close to the max tech level of 92 lm/W 

could result in sample measurement 

variation below the requirement 

approaching 50 percent and unintended 

consequences such as statistical 

production disruption of compliant 

designs. NEMA concluded that DOE 

should maintain the current standard at 

89 lm/W for 4-foot MBP T8 lamps to 

allow for the manufacturability of 

consistently compliant products. 

(NEMA, No. 54 at p. 24) 

GE offered a slightly different opinion 

on the average maximum 

technologically feasible efficacy for 4- 

foot MBP lamps. GE expressed concern 

that for the 4-foot MBP product class, EL 

1 represented the central tendency of a 

distribution and EL 2 at 92.4 lm/W was 

based on a data point from DOE’s 

certification database that happened to 

come out at the higher tail of a 

distribution. GE noted this as normal 

statistical variation when taking small 

samples of large quantities of lamps. 

(GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 

at pp. 86–87) 

NEMA noted its concern that the 

rulemaking is not following wellestablished rules for the treatment of 

statistical variation as applied to the 

production of compliant lamps. NEMA 

stated that for the 4-foot MBP product 

class, the proposed efficacy level of 92.4 

lm/W is considered the midpoint of the 

normal distribution performance curve 

of compliant lamps. However, because 

the Certification, Compliance, and 

Enforcement (CCE) rule (76 FR 12422 

(March 7, 2011)) requires almost all 

lamps to meet the proposed efficacy 

level, manufacturers would have to 

design their products above the 

midpoint which would result in 

eliminating most of the current best 

performing argon-based product lines. 

NEMA also noted that the response that 

lamps listed in the CCMS database meet 

the level is not adequate because it 

ignores differences due to the 

understanding of reporting requirements 

and optimistic manufacturer claims. 

NEMA concluded that DOE is proposing 

manufacturers consistently and 

repeatedly produce products above the 

max tech. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 22) 

As described previously in this 

section, the statistics included in the 

compliance procedures are intended to 

ensure that manufacturers are reporting 

a value that approximates the 

population mean. Each tested lamp is 

not individually required to meet or 

exceed the standard level. Designing 

products such that their population 

mean or the performance of each 

individual lamp unit within the 

population exceeds DOE’s standard 

level is not required and is done so at 

the discretion of individual 

manufacturers. 

DOE believes the efficacy levels 

analyzed in this rulemaking represent 

expected population means rather than 

outlier data in the high end of a bell 

distribution curve. DOE received 

feedback from manufacturers during 

interviews that catalog data represents 

the long term average performance of 

products. DOE uses catalog data to 

establish initial efficacy levels. DOE 

then compares the efficacy levels to 

available certification data and adjusts 

the levels downward if necessary. DOE 

does not believe that the certification 

values represent outlier data in the high 

end of a bell distribution curve. 

Manufacturers must select a minimum 

of three lamps from each month of 

production for a minimum of 7 months 

out of a 12-month period.38 It is unlikely 

that selecting lamps from multiple 

months of production over the course of 

a year will result in a value that is 

consistently in the high end of a bell 

distribution curve. Furthermore, if 

manufacturers believe their test results 

are artificially high, they have the 

opportunity to report a more 

conservative value as DOE allows 

manufacturers to rate the product 

within the range of the existing standard 

up to the lower of the LCL divided by 

0.97 or the mean as determined per 10 

CFR 429.27(a)(2)(i). 

Using this methodology, DOE 

accounts for variation in tested samples 

and ensures efficacy levels are based on 

values determined by DOE’s test 

procedures and reported by 

manufacturers themselves. In this final 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4072 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

rule, DOE has maintained the same 

methodology to develop efficacy levels. 

NEMA stated that very high efficacy 

levels proposed and the impossibility of 

reliably meeting them indicates that 

consumers will lose the full-wattage 

(argon-based) lamps in some product 

categories. NEMA asserted that this 

would push consumers to reduced 

wattage (krypton-based) lamps which 

DOE has acknowledged are not suitable 

for dimming applications. Further, 

NEMA stated that control systems are 

expected to deliver more national 

energy savings than the 2 percent 

efficacy difference between the 

proposed EL 1 and EL 2 levels. NEMA 

asserted that the proposed EL 2 limits 

the dimmability and energy saving 

potential if argon-based lamps cannot 

meet the level as they can dim far more 

than 2 percent lower than krypton-based 

lamps. NEMA also noted that end users 

may not be aware of potential issues 

that can occur if reduced wattage lamps 

are used in the wrong application. 

(NEMA, No. 54 at p. 27, 48) 

NEMA stated that in order to ensure 

that dimmable argon-based lamps are 

available to take advantage of energy 

saving controls, the proposed efficacy 

level must be properly adjusted 

downward to make the low end of the 

bell distribution curve the midpoint and 

allow industry to be compliant. 

Specifically, the level must be 

maintained at 89 lm/W to assure that 

the very long life high performing argon 

lamps survive in the marketplace. 

(NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 22–23) 

NEEP commented that high efficacy 

lamps do not impede control 

capabilities. NEEP added that the 

proposed TSL 5 efficacy level allows for 

4-foot MBP full-wattage ‘‘high-lumen’’ 

T8 lamps that have the same control and 

dimming performance as lower efficacy 

lamps eliminated by the standard. 

(NEEP, No. 57 at p. 2) 

As stated previously in this section, 

DOE disagrees that the analyzed levels 

cannot be reliably met by available 

products. Because manufacturers 

demonstrate compliance with energy 

conservation standards by reporting 

values to DOE that are intended to 

represent the population mean, DOE 

develops its efficacy levels based on 

these values. Thus, DOE is not adjusting 

efficacy levels downward to reflect the 

low end of a bell distribution curve. 

Regarding lighting controls, DOE agrees 

with NEMA that dimmable systems can 

offer significant energy savings and 

therefore ensures that the analyzed 

levels maintain the availability of full 

wattage (argon-based) products. 

NEMA stated that the proposed level 

for the 4-foot MBP product class will 

eliminate over 80 percent of the current 

full wattage product offering, including 

the long-life products, and nearly half of 

the reduced wattage lamps. NEMA 

noted that this would result in one lamp 

offering for each of the three common 

color lamps (830, 835 and 841) per 

manufacturer. NEMA concluded that 

this proved DOE’s approach to modeling 

does not work. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 25) 

When DOE proposes to adopt an 

amended standard for a type or class of 

covered product, it must determine the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency or maximum reduction in 

energy use that is technologically 

feasible for such a product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(1)) After determining this level, 

DOE conducts subsequent analysis to 

determine the impact of potential 

standards on individuals, 

manufacturers, and the nation as a 

whole. DOE then considers these results 

to determine whether the benefits of 

potential standard levels outweigh the 

burdens. See section VII.C.1 for this 

discussion. 

For the final rule, DOE updated 

catalog and certification data for all 

products. DOE continued to identify 

two levels of efficacy above the baseline. 

Based on catalog data, DOE determined 

EL 1 (90.0 lm/W) represented an 

improved 800 series full wattage T8 

lamp and EL 2 (93.0 lm/W) represented 

an 800 series high lumen output full 

wattage T8 lamp. Reduced wattage 

lamps also meet EL 2. Based on 

available certification information, DOE 

confirmed that no adjustment to EL 1 

was necessary. As stated, DOE adjusted 

EL 2 to 92.4 lm/W in the NOPR analysis. 

DOE analyzed available certification 

information and found that, given 

additional certification data reported, no 

additional downward adjustments to EL 

2 were necessary. Therefore, DOE 

analyzed EL 1 at 90.0 lm/W and EL 2 

at 92.4 lm/W in the final rule. 

Eight-Foot Slimline Lamps 

In the NOPR, DOE selected a baseline 

lamp that just complies with the 

existing standard level of 97 lm/W. 79 

FR at 24097, 24098 (April 29, 2014). The 

baseline level represents a less efficient 

800 series full wattage T8 lamp. DOE 

then identified two levels of efficacy 

above this baseline that commercially 

available lamps are able to achieve. 

Manufacturer-provided information in 

catalogs indicates that there are two 

distinct product lines available with 

efficacies higher than the baseline 

product. EL 1 represents a standard 800 

series full wattage T8 lamp. EL 2 

represents an improved 800 series full 

wattage T8 lamp in which the phosphor 

mix and/or coating is enhanced to 

increase efficacy. Reduced wattage 

lamps also meet EL 2. DOE found no 

adjustments were necessary based on 

certification data and established EL 1 at 

98.2 lm/W and EL 2 at 99.0 lm/W in the 

NOPR. 

NEMA stated that there is potential 

for erroneous high frequency reference 

ballast photometry testing for full 

wattage (59 W) and reduced wattage (54 

W) 8-foot SP slimline lamps, although 

less likely for 59 W lamps because ANSI 

C78.81–2005 and C78.81–2010 versions 

standardized measurement on low 

frequency circuits for these lamps. 

NEMA noted that measurements with 

54 W lamps tested on high frequency 

circuits were more likely to appear in 

DOE’s certification database because 

this lamp type will be standardized for 

high frequency testing in the version of 

ANSI C 78.81 expected to be published 

in 2014. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 25) NEMA 

commented on figure 5.3.4 of chapter 5 

of the NOPR TSD, which shows all 

certification data reported for the 8-foot 

SP slimline lamps. Specifically, 

examining the data from 97 lm/W 

(current standard) to 102.4 lm/W, 

NEMA stated that the spread was 

approximately 6 percent which is in 

agreement with industry expectations as 

specified in LSD 63–2012 and does not 

indicate the use of high frequency 

photometry testing. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 

25) 

For the 8-foot SP slimline product 

class, NEMA recommended that DOE 

should maintain the current standard of 

97 lm/W in order to allow the 

manufacturability of consistently 

compliant products. NEMA added that 

if DOE intended to propose the max 

tech level of 99 lm/W, it should allow 

for efficacy compliance tolerances of 

approximately 8 percent and require 

reporting only the sample mean value. 

(NEMA, No. 54 at p. 25) 

For the final rule, DOE updated 

catalog and certification data for all 

products. DOE continued to identify 

two distinct levels above the baseline. 

EL 1 at 98.2 lm/W represents a standard 

800 series full wattage T8 lamp and EL 

2 at 99.0 lm/W represents an improved 

800 series full wattage T8 lamp in 

which the phosphor mix and/or coating 

is enhanced to increase efficacy. 

Reduced wattage lamps also meet EL 2. 

DOE found no adjustments were 

necessary based on certification data. As 

described previously in this section, 

DOE believes that catalog and 

certification data approximate the 

population mean and therefore does not 

believe that an efficacy level has to be 

lowered further in order for products 

reporting those values to comply. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4073 

Eight-Foot RDC HO Product Class 

In the NOPR, DOE modeled a baseline 

that just met the existing standard level 

of 92 lm/W, as described in section 

VI.D.2.c. DOE then identified two levels 

of efficacy above the baseline level. EL 

1 represents a 700 series full wattage T8 

lamp with basic coating, gas 

composition, and phosphor mix. EL 2 

represents a shift to an 800 series full 

wattage T8 lamp. DOE analyzed 

publicly available certification data and 

determined that EL 1 should be adjusted 

from 95.2 lm/W to 94.0 lm/W for 700 

series full wattage T8 lamps based on 

available certification data. EL 2 was not 

adjusted based on available certification 

data and remained 97.6 lm/W. 79 FR at 

24103 (April 29, 2014). 

NEMA stated that the DOE 

certification data for the 8-foot RDC HO 

GSFL lamps with CCT ≤4,500 K lamps 

was too sparse for analysis and 

recommended retaining the current 

standard of 92 lm/W. (NEMA, No. 54 at 

p. 25) Although commenting that the 

data was sparse, NEMA claimed that the 

proposed efficacy levels would 

eliminate T8 HO lamps and force 

consumers to change to another fixture 

or retrofit with another technology. 

(NEMA, No. 54 at p. 25) 

For the final rule, DOE updated 

catalog and certification data for all 

products. DOE continued to model a 

baseline lamp that just meets the 

existing standard level of 92 lm/W, 

because feedback from stakeholders and 

manufacturer interviews indicated that 

manufacturers will likely produce 

lamps at the existing standard level 

even if no products are currently 

available. DOE again identified two 

levels of efficacy above the baseline. 

DOE analyzed publicly available 

certification data and determined that 

adjustment to EL 1 in the NOPR analysis 

was still appropriate and maintained the 

adjustment from 95.2 lm/W to 94.0 lm/ 

W for 700 series full wattage T8 lamps 

based on available certification data. EL 

2 was not adjusted based on available 

certification data and remained 97.6 lm/ 

W. While there are fewer product 

offerings for 8-foot RDC HO lamps than 

for other covered lamp types, DOE does 

not believe the data is too sparse for 

analysis. For the final rule, certification 

data was available for 71 percent of 8- 

foot RDC HO lamps. DOE confirmed 

through its assessment of catalog and 

certification data that 8-foot RDC HO 

products meet the analyzed ELs. 

Because manufacturer-reported data 

demonstrates that products can meet the 

analyzed levels, DOE does not believe 

the efficacy levels would eliminate 8- 

foot RDC HO lamps and force 

consumers to switch to another 

technology. 

Four-Foot T5 MiniBP SO Product Class 

In the NOPR, DOE modeled a baseline 

that just met the existing standard level 

of 86 lm/W, as described in section 

VI.D.2.c. The baseline level represents a 

lower efficacy full wattage (28 W) lamp. 

79 FR at 24097, 24098 (April 29, 2014). 

Based on a review of commercially 

available products, DOE then identified 

two levels of efficacy above the baseline 

level at which lamps were consistently 

performing. Manufacturer-provided 

information in catalogs indicates that 

there are two distinct product lines 

available with efficacies higher than the 

baseline product. EL 1 represents an 800 

series full wattage T5 lamp with basic 

coating, gas composition, and phosphor 

mix. EL 2 represents an improved 800 

series full wattage T5 lamp in which the 

phosphor mix and/or coating is 

enhanced to increase efficacy. Reduced 

wattage lamps also meet this level. DOE 

found that no adjustments were 

necessary for EL 1 and therefore 

established EL 1 at 93.5 lm/W. For EL 

2 representing improved 800 series full 

wattage T8 lamps, DOE adjusted EL 2 

from 98.2 lm/W to 97.1 lm/W based on 

certification data. 

NEMA stated that since the 2010– 

2011 rare earth crisis, some efficacious 

phosphors are no longer available and 

thus many of the high performance T5 

lamps currently found in product 

catalogs that meet the proposed 

standard level will be removed from the 

catalogs. Additionally, compliant T5 

lamps may also be removed because 

they do not sell due to high prices. 

(NEMA, No. 54 at p. 19) 

DOE reviewed updated catalogs and 

certification submissions and confirmed 

that the 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO and HO 

lamps analyzed for the final rule were 

still commercially available. DOE found 

no indication in manufacturer literature 

that any T5 lamps were discontinued. 

When considering available products, 

DOE relied on information provided by 

each manufacturer and did not 

speculate on the future discontinuation 

of products. 

NEMA provided several comments on 

how the certification data compared to 

the efficacy levels DOE considered in 

the NOPR. NEMA acknowledged that 

the current standard for 4-foot T5 

MiniBP SO lamps of 86 lm/W is easily 

achievable by max tech designs. 

However, NEMA disagrees with 

eliminating the manufacturability and 

marketing of consistently compliant 

products by setting the minimum 

efficacy level any higher than 89 lm/W, 

which is only about 4 percent below the 

proposed max tech level. (NEMA, No. 

54 at p. 26) NEMA stated that the 

certification data for the 28 W 4-foot 

MiniBP T5 SO lamps shown in figure 

5.3.8 of chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD 

reflects about a 7 percent spread from 93 

lm/W to 100 lm/W and is in agreement 

with their assessment. (NEMA, No. 54 at 

p. 26) 

For the final rule, DOE updated 

catalog and certification data for all 

products. DOE continued to model a 

baseline lamp that just meets the 

existing standard level of 86 lm/W, 

because feedback from stakeholders and 

manufacturer interviews indicated that 

manufacturers will likely produce 

lamps at the existing standard level 

even if no products are currently 

available. DOE again identified two 

levels of efficacy above the baseline. EL 

1 represents an 800 series full wattage 

T5 lamp with basic coating, gas 

composition, and phosphor mix. EL 2 

represents an improved 800 series full 

wattage T8 lamp in which the phosphor 

mix and/or coating is enhanced to 

increase efficacy. Reduced wattage 

lamps also meet this level. DOE 

reviewed available certification data and 

found that no adjustments were 

necessary for EL 1 and therefore 

established EL 1 at 93.5 lm/W. For EL 

2 representing improved 800 series full 

wattage T8 lamps, DOE found that a 

further downward adjustment was 

necessary and adjusted EL 2 from 98.2 

lm/W to 95.0 lm/W. Additional and/or 

revised certification data reported since 

the publication of the NOPR indicated 

that T5 SO lamps had lower efficacies 

than originally indicated. As described 

previously in this section, DOE does not 

believe that catalog or certification data 

inherently represent values at the high 

end of a distribution curve and that an 

efficacy level has to be lowered further 

in order for products reporting those 

values to comply. 

Four-Foot T5 MiniBP HO 

For the NOPR, DOE analyzed one 

level of efficacy above the baseline 

level. DOE modeled a baseline that just 

met the existing standard level of 76 lm/ 

W, as described in section VI.D.2.c. The 

baseline level represents a lower 

efficacy full wattage (54 W) lamp. 

Manufacturer-provided information in 

catalogs indicates that there is one 

distinct product line available with an 

efficacy higher than the baseline 

product. EL 1 represents an 800 series 

full wattage T5 lamp with basic coating, 

gas composition, and phosphor mix. 

Reduced wattage lamps also meet this 

level. DOE did not adjust this level 

based on certification data and is 

therefore evaluated EL 1 at 82.7 lm/W 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4074 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

in the NOPR. 79 FR at 24104 (April 29, 

2014). 

NEMA stated that efficacy levels for 

T5 lamps should not be based on catalog 

rated efficacy at 35 °C because the 

industry standard IEC 60081 and the 

DOE test procedure require 

measurement at 25 °C. NEMA further 

noted that there is no ambiguity in the 

measurement circuit as all T5 lamps are 

measured on high frequency circuits at 

25 °C. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 25–26) 

DOE agrees that T5 lamps must be 

tested at 25 °C per DOE’s test procedure. 

However, not all manufacturers provide 

lumen output data at 25 °C for T5 lamps 

in their catalogs, whereas all 

manufacturers provide data at 35 °C. 

Thus, to consider the entire market DOE 

developed initial efficacy levels based 

on 35 °C catalog data for T5 lamps and 

then adjusted the initial efficacy levels 

to reflect operation at 25 °C. DOE 

compared the 25 °C levels to 

certification data which reflects tested 

values at the same temperature. 

NEMA provided several comments on 

how the certification data compared to 

the efficacy level DOE considered in the 

NOPR. NEMA noted that the spread of 

certification data from 81 lm/W to 96 

lm/W for 54 W 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO 

lamps indicates variability of 17 

percent, which could be explained by 

the steeper slope of lumen output with 

ambient temperature at 25 °C for T5 

compared to T8 lamps. NEMA stated 

that the certification data shown in 

figure 5.3.10 of chapter 5 of the NOPR 

TSD agreed with its assessment of 

DOE’s certification database. NEMA 

noted that for the reduced wattage 4-foot 

T5 MiniBP HO lamps, the certification 

data was shown mostly to be between 

85 and 87 lm/W and with a couple of 

values well above 90 lm/W. Stating that 

it is difficult to determine the max tech 

for this product class, NEMA 

recommended that DOE set the 

minimum efficacy level no higher than 

80 lm/W. NEMA stated that 80 lm/W 

would require centering the practical 

compliant designs near 87 lm/W to 

avoid statistical non-compliant results. 

(NEMA, No. 54 at p. 26) 

For the final rule, DOE updated 

catalog and certification data for all 

products. DOE continued to model a 

baseline lamp that just meets the 

existing standard level of 76 lm/W 

because feedback from stakeholders and 

manufacturer interviews indicated that 

manufacturers will likely produce 

lamps at the existing standard level 

even if no products are currently 

available. DOE again identified one 

level of efficacy above the baseline 

representing an 800 series full wattage 

T5 lamp with basic coating, gas 

composition, and phosphor mix. 

Reduced wattage lamps also meet this 

level. Based on catalog data, DOE 

determined EL 1 to be 82.7 lm/W. DOE 

reviewed available certification data and 

found that the reported values did not 

indicate that any adjustment to the level 

was necessary. The certification data, as 

noted by NEMA, is generally higher 

than the catalog data on which EL 1 is 

based. As described previously in this 

section, DOE does not believe that 

catalog or certification data inherently 

represent values at the high end of a 

distribution curve and that an efficacy 

level has to be lowered further in order 

for products reporting those values to 

comply. 

h. Scaling to Other Product Classes 

As noted previously, DOE analyzes 

the representative product classes 

directly. DOE then scales the levels 

developed for the representative 

product classes to determine levels for 

product classes not analyzed directly. 

For GSFLs, the representative product 

classes analyzed were all lamp types 

with CCTs ≤4,500 K, with the exception 

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

U shaped product class DOE scaled the 

efficacy levels developed for the 4-foot 

MBP product class. 

CCT Scaling 

Finding substantial variation in the 

percent reduction in efficacy associated 

with increased CCT among product 

classes, in the NOPR DOE proposed a 

separate scaling factor for each product 

class. 79 FR at 24105 (April 29, 2014). 

Based on its assessment, DOE proposed 

a 2 percent scaling factor for the 4-foot 

MBP product class, 3 percent scaling 

factor for the 2-foot U-shaped product 

class, 5 percent for the 8-foot SP 

slimline product class, 2 percent for the 

8-foot RDC HO product class, 6 percent 

for the T5 MiniBP SO product class, and 

5 percent for the T5 MiniBP HO product 

class. DOE verified the scaling factors 

developed against certification data. 

Further, DOE confirmed that lamps with 

CCT greater than 4,500 K will meet the 

scaled levels. 

NEMA stated it is well established in 

industry that there is a decrease in 

efficacy of 4–6 percent to go from the 

common 4,100 K 4-foot MBP lamps to 

the 5,000 K tri-phosphor lamps and a 

decrease in efficacy of 6–8 percent to go 

to the 6,500 K tri-phosphor lamps. 

NEMA noted that the reduction in 

efficacy at CCTs greater than 4,500 K 

becomes more significant when 

targeting higher efficacy levels. NEMA 

also contended that the 2009 Lamps 

Rule was erroneous in allowing only a 

1 percent reduction in efficacy for 4-foot 

MBP lamps with a CCT greater than 

4,500 K. NEMA recommended that the 

scaling factor for high CCT lamps allow 

a decrease of at least 7 percent to 

accommodate the average performance 

of higher CCT lamps and at minimum 

be reduced by greater than 4 percent 

unless limited by current regulations. 

NEMA also noted that European 

regulations allow for a decrease of 10 

percent for high CCT lamps, and CEE 

specifications allow for a decrease of 4.3 

percent for high CCT 4-foot T8 MBP 

lamps. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 28) 

DOE revised its scaling analysis for 

CCT in the final rule to use the most 

recent values submitted to DOE for 

compliance purposes rather than catalog 

data. DOE compared certification data 

for each lamp type to determine the 

efficacy differences between low and 

high CCT lamps. The data still 

demonstrated that the difference in 

efficacy between low and high CCT 

lamps varied by lamp type. Therefore, 

DOE maintained a separate scaling 

factor for each product class. However, 

the additional and revised certification 

data indicated slightly different scaling 

factors were necessary. Based on its 

assessment, DOE calculated 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 for the 8-foot SP slimline 

product class, 4 percent for the 8-foot 

RDC HO product class, 6 percent for the 

T5 MiniBP SO product class, and 7 

percent for the T5 MiniBP HO product 

class. DOE applied these scaling factors 

to the low CCT levels to determine the 

appropriate levels for high CCT lamps. 

If applying the scaling factor resulted in 

an efficacy that was lower than that of 

the existing standard, DOE maintained 

the existing standard level to avoid 

backsliding. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) 

DOE compared the scaled efficacy levels 

to available certification data and 

confirmed that high CCT lamps can 

meet the analyzed efficacy levels. 

Two-Foot U-Shaped Scaling 

By comparing certification data for 2- 

foot U-shaped lamps with equivalent 4- 

foot MBP lamps, in the NOPR, DOE 

determined an average efficacy 

reduction of 6 percent for the 2-foot Ushaped lamps from the 4-foot MBP 

lamps was appropriate. 79 FR at 24106 

(April 29, 2014). DOE confirmed that 

the technology impacts of the scaled ELs 

for the 2-foot U-shaped lamps were 

consistent with those of the proposed 

ELs for the 4-foot MBP product class. 

NEMA stated that only the full 

wattage 2-foot U-shaped 15⁄8-inch lamps 

and reduced wattage 2-foot U-shaped 6′′ 

lamps can meet the proposed efficacy 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4075 

39Bloomberg News, ‘‘China Maintains Quotas for 

Heavy Rare Earths, Tungsten,’’ June 19, 2014. 

<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-19/

china-maintains-quotas-for-heavy-rare-earthstungsten.html>. 

40Philips Lighting Company, et al. OHA Case 

Nos. EXC–12–0001, EXC–12–0002, EXC–12–0003 

(2012). Accessible here: http://energy.gov/sites/

prod/files/oha/EE/EXC-12-0001thru03.pdf. 

levels. NEMA explained that consumers 

have switched to reduced wattage 2-foot 

U-shaped 15⁄8-inch lamps which serve 

retail applications and full wattage 2- 

foot U-shaped 6′′ lamps are mainly used 

in offices for dimming purposes. 

Therefore, NEMA concluded that the 

energy savings for the 2-foot U-shaped 

15⁄8-inch lamps would be negative and 

increase the energy consumption by 2 W 

due to the elimination of the reduced 

wattage versions forcing consumers 

back to the full wattage version. NEMA 

stated that DOE should update its 

energy savings estimates accordingly or 

adopt the efficacy level at TSL 3, which 

would allow for both full and reduced 

wattage 2-foot U-shaped lamps to meet. 

(NEMA, No. 54 at p. 15, 27) GE also 

noted that the efficacies of the 2-foot Ushaped class were scaled from the 4-foot 

MBP class which could indicate an 

issue with the scaling or the proposed 

efficacy levels of the 4-foot MBP. (GE, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 

61) 

DOE revised its scaling analysis for 2- 

foot U-shaped lamps in the final rule to 

use the most recent values submitted to 

DOE for compliance purposes. DOE 

compared certification data for 2-foot Ushaped lamps of both spacings (i.e., 6- 

inch and 15⁄8-inch leg spacing) with 

equivalent 4-foot MBP lamps and 

determined an average efficacy 

reduction of 8 percent for the 2-foot Ushaped lamps from the 4-foot MBP 

lamps was appropriate. Thus, DOE 

applied this scaling factor to the 4-foot 

MBP levels to determine the appropriate 

levels for 2-foot U-shaped lamps. If 

applying the scaling factor resulted in 

an efficacy that was lower than that of 

the existing standard, DOE maintained 

the existing standard level to avoid 

backsliding. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) 

DOE compared the scaled efficacy levels 

to available certification data and 

confirmed that both types of 2-foot Ushaped lamps can meet with the 

analyzed efficacy levels. 

i. Rare Earth Phosphors 

DOE understands a constrained 

supply of rare earth phosphors may 

have impacts on the production of 

higher efficacy fluorescent lamps. DOE 

also acknowledges that supply and 

demand of rare earth phosphors should 

be considered when evaluating 

amended standards for GSFLs. Thus, in 

the NOPR analysis, DOE considered a 

scenario of increased rare earth 

phosphor prices in the LCC and NIA. 

NEMA commented that 

manufacturers are at risk of not being 

able to make compliant lamps 

consistently due to the availability of 

high efficiency phosphors for GSFLs. If 

manufacturers cannot consistently 

produce a product, they will stop 

making it as with the 130 V IRLs. 

(NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 13–14) 

NEMA noted that the proposed lm/W 

requirements would increase the use of 

rare earth oxides (REOs) per lamp. 

(NEMA, No. 54 at p. 34) Further, NEMA 

commented that even though it is 

possible to increase GSFL efficacy with 

a more efficient mix of REOs, the high 

material cost of the REOs needed for the 

small increase in efficacy is still 

relevant. NEMA commented that DOE 

should analyze price elasticity and 

consumer behavior during previous 

REO shortages, as the ELs DOE 

proposed in the NOPR would effectively 

cause another shortage of REOs. (NEMA, 

No. 54 at p. 34) 

Noting that that China appealed 

World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) 

ruling demanding greater availability of 

REOs, NEMA stressed that DOE should 

expect China to raise prices on REOs 

through various methods; specifically 

quoting an article from Bloomberg 

News.39 NEMA explained that during 

the last REO shortage, prices increased 

400 to 700 percent, and stated that this 

is cause for DOE to revise their price 

estimates to raise the upper bounds of 

potential spiking during periods of 

criticality to 700 percent of current 

prices. NEMA further noted that while 

they cannot make the same supply 

warnings they provided for the 2009 

Lamps Rule, REO availability continues 

to be an issue and there are significant 

uncertainties regarding future supplies. 

(NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 34–35) 

NEEP noted that REO prices and 

availability had improved in the last few 

years and, according to DOE, would 

continue to fluctuate. NEEP commented 

that DOE appropriately weighed the 

variability of REO prices in the analysis. 

(NEEP, No. 57 at p. 3) 

In April of 2012, several 

manufacturers were granted exception 

relief exempting their 700 series T8 

lamps from the July 2012 standards for 

a period of two years. The waiver was 

granted due to the global supply 

restrictions on rare earth phosphors, the 

rising world demand of these 

phosphors, and the resulting impacts on 

producing higher efficacy GSFLs. DOE 

notes that manufacturers, in their 

applications for exception relief, stated 

that they expected an improvement in 

the rare earth market, specifically noting 

that supplies of key rare earth 

phosphors used in fluorescent lamps 

will become more equal to estimated 

demand beginning in 2014. 

Manufacturers also stated that the twoyear relief would provide time for 

potential development of additional 

supplies outside of China, for progress 

in technology advancements and 

development of alternative technologies 

that use lesser amounts of rare earth 

material, and for the expansion of 

recycling and reclamation initiatives.40

Because this waiver expired in 2014, 

and manufacturers did not reapply for 

exception relief, DOE does not believe 

that the availability of high efficiency 

phosphors will affect manufacturers’ 

ability to consistently produce a 

product. However, DOE acknowledges 

that the market for rare earth phosphors 

is uncertain and therefore continues to 

analyze in this final rule a scenario of 

increased rare earth phosphor prices in 

the LCC and NIA. 

3. Incandescent Reflector Lamp 

Engineering 

For IRLs, DOE received several 

comments on the engineering analysis 

presented in the NOPR. 79 FR at 24106 

(April 29, 2014). Stakeholders provided 

feedback on DOE’s baseline lamps, 

selection of more efficacious substitutes, 

max tech level, ELs, scaling, and xenon. 

The following sections summarize the 

comments and responses received on 

these topics, and present the IRL 

engineering methodology for this final 

rule analysis. 

a. Representative Product Classes 

When a product has multiple product 

classes, DOE identifies and selects 

certain product classes as representative 

and analyzes those product classes 

directly. DOE chooses these 

representative product classes primarily 

due to their high market volumes. For 

IRLs, in the NOPR analysis DOE 

identified standard spectrum lamps, 

with diameters greater than 2.5 inches, 

and input voltage less than 125 V as the 

representative product class, shown in 

gray in Table VI.5. 79 FR at 24107 (April 

29, 2014). NEMA commented that the 

only IRLs that still have any meaningful 

product sales are in the standard 

spectrum, less than 2.5 inches in 

diameter, less than 125 V product class. 

(NEMA, No. 54 at p. 21) Receiving no 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4076 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

41 Vukcevich, Milan R., Science of Incandescence, 

NELA Press, 1992. 

other comments, DOE maintained the same IRL representative product classes 

for the final rule. 

TABLE VI.5—IRL REPRESENTATIVE PRODUCT CLASSES

Lamp type Diameter Voltage 

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

<125 (representative) 

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

<125 

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

<125 

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

<125 

b. Baseline Lamps 

Once DOE identifies representative 

product classes for analysis, it selects 

baseline lamps to analyze in each 

representative product class. Typically, 

a baseline lamp is the most common, 

least efficacious lamp that meets 

existing energy conservation standards. 

DOE reviewed product offerings in 

catalogs, shipment trends, and 

information obtained during 

manufacturer interviews to identify the 

common characteristics of lamps that 

meet standards. In the NOPR, DOE 

identified a PAR38 lamp as the most 

prevalent lamp shape and diameter in 

the representative product class. Id. at 

24109. From all PAR38 lamps with the 

most common characteristics, DOE 

selected a lamp that just met existing 

standards as the baseline: A 60 W 

halogen lamp with a lifetime of 1,500 

hours that utilized a higher efficiency 

inert fill gas and a higher efficiency 

reflector coating, and had an efficacy 

right at the existing standard, 5.9P0.27. 

DOE received several comments on its 

selection of the baseline for IRLs. 

GE stated that they agreed that the 

baseline lamp is representative of its 

product class. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 49 at p. 104) However, 

NEMA commented that a 60 W IRL with 

a lifetime of 1,000 hours should be the 

baseline as it is the lowest performing 

most common product. (NEMA, No. 54 

at p. 29) As noted, the baseline is 

usually representative of the most 

common, least efficacious lamp that 

meets existing energy conservation 

standards. Based on DOE’s review of 

product offerings in catalogs, 1,500 

hours is the most common lifetime. 

Among the covered IRLs product 

offerings, 1,500-hour lamps comprise 27 

percent of offerings while 1,000-hour 

lamps comprise 12 percent. The 1,500- 

hour product selected as the baseline 

lamp in the NOPR performs at the 

minimum efficacy required by existing 

standards. Therefore, DOE is 

maintaining the 1,500-hour lamp as the 

baseline in the final rule analysis. Table 

VI.6 summarizes the performance 

characteristics of the IRL baseline lamp. 

For further information, see chapter 5 of 

the final rule TSD. 

TABLE VI.6—IRL BASELINE LAMP

Representative product class 

Baseline lamp 

Lamp type Descriptor 

Wattage Efficacy Initial light 

output Lifetime 

W lm/W lm hr 

Standard Spectrum, Voltage <125 V, Diameter >2.5 Inches.PAR38 ............ Improved Halogen 60 17.8 1,070 1,500 

c. More Efficacious Substitutes 

DOE selects more efficacious 

replacements for the baseline lamps 

considered within each representative 

product class. DOE considers only 

design options identified in the 

screening analysis. In the NOPR, DOE 

considered substitute lamps that saved 

energy and, where possible, had a light 

output within 10 percent of the baseline 

lamp’s light output. Id. at 24109. In 

identifying the more efficacious 

substitutes, DOE utilized a database of 

commercially available lamps. DOE 

identified two higher efficacy, reduced 

wattage lamps, referred to in this 

analysis as an HIR lamp with a lifetime 

of 2,500 hours and an improved HIR 

lamp with a lifetime of 4,200 hours, as 

more efficacious substitutes for the 

baseline lamp. DOE received several 

comments regarding its choice for the 

more efficacious substitutes. 

NEMA insisted that 3,000-hour and 

longer lifetimes must be available in the 

commercial market for the product line 

to maintain viability, as long life is a 

consumer-demanded utility. Lamp 

lifetimes shorter than 3,000 hours for 

premium and expensive halogen PAR38 

lamps would not be sustainable or 

acceptable in the commercial market. 

(NEMA, No. 54 at p. 21) 

NEMA further explained that the only 

remaining method to increase IRL 

efficacy is by shortening their lifetime, 

and many IRLs are already rated at 

1,000 hours. NEMA noted that a 1,000- 

hour lifetime represents a previous loss 

of utility from complying with efficacy 

requirements, and that the shortened 

lifetime has resulted in public backlash. 

NEMA warned that with the standards 

proposed in the NOPR, consumers 

would lose the utility of lifetime. Using 

a calculation from The Science of 

Incandescence,41 NEMA stated that the 

higher efficacy of EL 1 would result in 

a 30 percent reduction in lifetime for 

these lamps, causing a total loss of 

financial feasibility. (NEMA, No. 54 at 

pp. 21, 29, 49) Westinghouse remarked 

that IRLs are already at max tech, and 

that unlike with GSFLs, there is no 

opportunity for tradeoffs between 

efficacy and utility. (Westinghouse, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4077 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 

54–56) 

DOE recognizes that there is an 

inverse relationship between efficacy 

and lifetime for IRLs. DOE believes 

typical lifetimes of IRLs regulated by 

this rulemaking are between 1,500 and 

4,400 hours. In the engineering analysis, 

DOE only considered lamps with 

lifetimes greater than or equal to the 

baseline when selecting representative 

lamp units. DOE found evidence that 

improved technology lamps (i.e., HIR 

lamps) with lifetimes higher than the 

baseline lifetime are prevalent on the 

market. Both representative lamp units 

that DOE selected in the engineering 

analysis have lifetimes longer than the 

baseline. While manufacturers can 

choose to introduce shorter lifetime 

products in the future, DOE does not 

require shortening of lamp lifetime to 

meet any analyzed level. One of the 

representative units at EL 1 has a 

lifetime of 4,200 hours. Thus, DOE 

ensured that products with lifetimes 

greater than 3,000 hours would be 

available for consumers desiring longer 

life products. 

NEMA commented that the PAR38 

lamp is not an adequately representative 

lamp and inappropriately skews DOE’s 

analysis because it is the only lamp type 

in the class that can physically 

incorporate the largest number of 

technology options, overstating the 

possible energy savings. NEMA 

encouraged DOE to examine smaller 

diameter lamps to better understand 

what technology options are feasible. 

(NEMA, No. 54 at p. 29) As an example, 

NEMA commented that the lifetime of 

the PAR30 lamp would have to be 

shortened to the point of being 

economically infeasible and 

unmarketable to consumers to meet 

standards. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 29–30) 

NEMA could not identify a lamp that 

met the EL proposed in the NOPR while 

still providing adequate lifetime in all 

sizes. Specifically, NEMA stated that the 

rule proposed in the NOPR would allow 

only certain PAR38 lamps to meet the 

regulations and most other types and 

classes of covered IRLs would be 

eliminated. NEMA argued, therefore, 

that the EL proposed in the NOPR is 

invalid for most lamps. (NEMA, No. 54 

at p. 29) 

DOE recognizes that in addition to 

PAR38 lamps, the representative 

product class also includes PAR30 

lamps. Because it is a more common 

lamp size among the covered IRLs, DOE 

selected PAR38 as the diameter for the 

baseline lamp and more efficacious 

substitutes of the baseline. DOE’s 

research indicates that the design 

options identified for PAR38 lamps are 

also applicable to PAR30 lamps. DOE 

assessed the availability of PAR30 

lamps as more efficacious substitutes. 

DOE found that there are PAR30 lamps 

with lifetimes of 3,500 and 4,400 hours 

that are able to achieve the same 

efficacies as PAR38 lamps. See chapter 

5 of the final rule TSD for additional 

details. 

CA IOUs expressed disappointment 

that there were not multiple efficacy 

levels representing higher performance 

products. CA IOUs stated that DOE had 

restricted itself to a small subset of IRLs 

by focusing on PAR38 lamps and 

requiring lumens to be within 10 

percent of the baseline lamp, limiting 

the lumen range to about 963 to 1,170. 

CA IOUs mentioned that any design 

strategies used in other lamp types, (e.g., 

800-lumen lamp, 1,200-lumen lamp, 

PAR30 lamp) that improved efficacy 

would be fairly transferable among lamp 

types. CA IOUs questioned why DOE 

did not consider potential efficacy 

improvements from these lamp types. 

(CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 49 at pp. 107–109) Specifically, CA 

IOUs noted four lamps that have better 

performance than the proposed efficacy 

level: The GE 60 W PAR HIR Plus 

operating at 21 lm/W, the Philips 

PAR38 Energy Halogen DiOptic 

operating at 20 lm/W, the OSRAM 

SYLVANIA PAR38 medium-base warm 

white outdoor halogen flood operating 

at 20 lm/W, and the OSRAM 

SYLVANIA PAR38 warm white outdoor 

halogen flood operating at 21 lm/W. (CA 

IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 

at pp. 107–109, 118) 

ASAP also disagreed with DOE’s 

criteria of restricting lumen output to be 

within 10 percent of the baseline lamp, 

noting that the NOPR analysis seemed 

to suggest that DOE understood that 

technologies used in one lamp to 

achieve a certain lumen package can be 

used in another. Therefore, ASAP 

questioned why DOE rejected a more 

efficacious technology used in another 

lamp due to the lumen output of that 

lamp having a greater than 10 percent 

difference from the baseline lamp. 

ASAP stated that DOE should have 

analyzed the more efficacious 

technology and used scaling to maintain 

the baseline lumen output. (ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 

113) 

GE, on the other hand, commented 

that the analysis presented in the NOPR 

was fairly accurate in terms of 

addressing and looking at the other 

potential more efficacious products. GE 

argued that not all of the lamps 

proposed by commenters to be more 

efficacious were within the scope of this 

rulemaking and not all of the proposed 

technologies were transferable to 

covered lamps. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 49 at p. 112) 

DOE used certain criteria when 

selecting more efficacious substitutes. 

Specifically, DOE only considered 

lamps with the same reflector shape as 

the baseline lamp, wattages less than the 

baseline wattage, lumens within 10 

percent of the baseline lumens, lifetimes 

equal to or greater than the baseline 

lifetime, and that were commercially 

available in the United States or 

available as prototypes. These criteria 

ensured that higher efficacy lamps with 

similar characteristics to the baseline 

were available to consumers at each 

efficacy level analyzed. 

When establishing efficacy levels, 

DOE considered all lamps available. 

DOE reviewed the design options 

incorporated into each lamp, the ability 

of lamps across lumen packages to meet 

the level, and the max tech level. 

Regarding the four lamps that CA IOUs 

noted as having better performance than 

the proposed efficacy level, one of them 

was part of a product line for which 

certification data indicated that the 

product line performed below or much 

closer to EL 1 than indicated by its 

catalog data. Another of the lamps was 

part of a product family for which 

certification data indicated that product 

performance was at the existing 

standard level, or baseline, rather than 

EL 1. A third lamp in the group of four 

did not have certification data available 

for DOE to substantiate its performance 

claims in catalogs. The fourth lamp did 

have both catalog and certification data 

available and that data indicated that it 

performed above EL 1. However, this 

lamp was not part of a full product line 

that would indicate that the technology 

incorporated in the lamps could be used 

across all lumen packages. While DOE 

is aware that it is generally the case that 

technology can be shared among various 

lamps, modeling a product allows DOE 

to estimate lamp performance but not 

confirm performance via certification 

data or independent testing, a 

significant concern in this rulemaking. 

Furthermore, costs for such a product 

would be uncertain as it would not be 

commercially available at the time of 

the analysis. Therefore, DOE chose not 

to model a higher efficacy lamp that met 

its criteria for selecting representative 

units in the NOPR as well as the final 

rule analysis. 

NEEA commented that, unless the 

market shares of the 60 W PAR38 and 

55 W PAR38 lamps are close to 90 

percent of the market, DOE’s analysis 

was incomplete and the more 

efficacious lamps suggested by CA IOUs 

need to be analyzed. (NEEA, Public 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4078 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

42 DOE independently verified efficacy values 

provided by the manufacturer. At the time of NOPR 

analysis, the manufacturer was still conducting 

lifetime testing. DOE did not receive any updates 

on lifetime testing of the prototype lamps at the 

time of the final rule analysis. 

Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 111– 

112) 

Through a review of product offerings 

in catalogs, DOE determined that PAR38 

is the most common lamp diameter and 

60 W is at least twice as common as any 

other wattage. Further, DOE did not 

restrain the representative lamp units to 

55 W but rather required that the 

wattage be less than the baseline. DOE 

found that the majority of product 

offerings on the market have wattages at 

or below 60 W. Thus, DOE finds that the 

baseline and more efficacious lamp 

units analyzed represent the most 

widely offered products on the market. 

Table VI.7 summarizes the performance 

characteristics of the more efficacious 

substitutes for IRLs. For further 

information see chapter 5 of the final 

rule TSD. 

TABLE VI.7—IRL REPRESENTATIVE LAMPS

Representative product class 

Representative Lamps 

Lamp type Descriptor 

Wattage Efficacy * Initial light 

output Lifetime 

W lm/W lm hr 

Standard Spectrum, Voltage <125 V, Diameter >2.5 Inches.PAR38 ................

PAR38 ................

HIR .....................

Improved HIR .....

55 

55 

18.5 

18.5 

980 

1,120 

2,500 

4,200 

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

d. Max Tech 

When DOE proposes to adopt an 

amended standard for a type or class of 

covered product, it must determine the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency or maximum reduction in 

energy use that is technologically 

feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the 

engineering analysis, DOE determined 

the maximum technologically feasible 

(‘‘max tech’’) improvements in energy 

efficiency for IRLs using the design 

parameters for the most efficient 

products available on the market or in 

working prototypes. 

For IRLs, DOE presented one efficacy 

level (EL 1) for consideration in the 

NOPR analysis. Therefore, this level was 

also the max tech level identified for 

IRLs. DOE received several comments 

on the proposed max tech level. 

ASAP and CA IOUs commented that 

DOE made a mistake in not considering 

higher ELs for IRLs. ASAP stated that 

CA IOUs provided reasons for 

considering higher levels in response to 

the preliminary analysis and DOE 

dismissed the suggestions with a ‘‘grab 

bag’’ of unsubstantiated arguments for 

not considering the higher levels. 

(ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

49 at p. 17; CA IOUs, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 49 at p. 20) Further, CA 

IOUs commented that they do not think 

that DOE adequately considered 

alternative technology options they gave 

in response to the preliminary analysis 

for a more efficacious max tech. (CA 

IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 

at p. 114) CA IOUs stated that they 

suggested more efficacious lamps and in 

not considering them, DOE has not 

complied with their statutory 

requirement to investigate max tech. 

(CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 49 at p. 110) CA IOUs continued 

that commercially available products 

were available in different lumen bins 

or that there were different lamp shapes 

from PAR38. CA IOUs noted that some 

of the data they had for support were 

compliance certification values and 

some were prototype products from the 

past or developed recently. (CA IOUs, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 

110) 

DOE evaluated the more efficacious 

lamps proposed by stakeholders in 

response to the preliminary analysis. As 

discussed in the NOPR, DOE did not 

consider some of these lamps when 

evaluating the max tech level because 

they were not available with the same 

reflector shapes or input voltage as the 

IRLs covered by this rulemaking. 79 FR 

at 24111(April 29, 2014). In addition, as 

described in section VI.D.3.c, 

certification data indicates that some 

lamps are not performing at the high 

efficacies advertised in catalogs. Absent 

certification or independent test data, 

DOE is unable to verify high efficacy 

claims. Finally, although certain higher 

efficacy products have certification data 

confirming their performance above EL 

1, they are not part of a full product line 

that would indicate that the technology 

incorporated in the lamps could be used 

across all lumen packages. 

Regarding prototype lamps, for the 

NOPR analysis, DOE contacted 

manufacturers producing high efficacy 

prototype IRLs and conducted 

independent testing of these lamps. The 

testing indicated that these lamps were 

more efficacious than the max tech level 

determined by DOE in this analysis.42

DOE notes that the lamps tested were 

prototype lamps and were not 

manufactured during commercial scale 

production runs. The measured efficacy 

of the prototype lamps greatly exceeded 

the efficacy of commercially available 

lamps with similar lumen packages. 

DOE did not, however, have the 

necessary information to do a cost 

analysis to determine if an efficacy level 

based on these lamps would be 

economically justified. Therefore, in the 

NOPR phase DOE requested information 

on the incremental manufacturer 

production cost of a lamp that could 

achieve the efficacy of the prototype 

lamps compared to a lamp that complies 

with EL 1. DOE also sought information 

on the manufacturing costs including 

equipment and product conversion 

costs necessary to produce lamps at the 

efficacy of the prototype lamps. 

However, DOE did not receive any 

information to conduct a cost 

assessment of the higher efficacy 

prototypes and therefore, did not 

include them in this final rule analysis. 

CA IOUs stated that the efficacy 

standards proposed in the NOPR would 

not be a challenge and an efficacy 

standard of more than three times 

higher, as shown in appendix 5A of the 

NOPR TSD, would be possible and 

likely be cost effective. Most 

manufacturers already have the 

capability to meet the levels proposed in 

the NOPR, and the achievement of 

higher efficacies was proven through the 

testing of prototype lamps. CA IOUs 

commended DOE on its tests of 

prototyped products, but expressed 

confusion over why DOE did not 

develop pricing estimates for these 

products and create a corresponding EL. 

They also questioned why DOE had not 

used the comments on projected sale 

prices given during manufacturer 

interviews in their analysis. CA IOUs 

noted that a pricing estimate could also 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4079 

have been achieved by a teardown 

analysis of the prototype lamps 

compared with similar, commercially 

available components. Specifically, CA 

IOUs gave the example that lamps using 

high performance HIR burner are 

already commercially available in Aline and MR16 bulb shapes, selling for 

$3.49 and $6.90, respectively. 

Supported by these analyses, CA IOUs 

urged DOE to conduct a complete 

review of the higher efficacy prototype 

EL. (CA IOUs, No. 56 at p. 5) 

As noted in the NOPR, while DOE 

was able to test the efficacies of the 

prototype lamps, it had insufficient 

information to perform a cost analysis. 

79 FR at 24111 (April 29, 2014). DOE 

did not find that a teardown analysis of 

the prototype lamps would be a feasible 

method to estimate costs. DOE would be 

unable to determine through teardowns 

whether the halogen burners used in 

various product offerings were the same 

because of the difficulty in analyzing 

the IR coating, specifically identifying 

the combinations of coatings applied. 

Without this knowledge, DOE could not 

distinguish the specific technology 

differences between one halogen burner 

and another and estimate costs 

accordingly. Expected retail prices of 

the prototype lamp were provided 

through comments and manufacturer 

interviews, but the information 

indicated that the prices of the higher 

efficacy products would be less than 

those of the lamps that comply with EL 

1 and even the baseline. As these lamps 

utilize a more advanced IR coating than 

lamps currently available on the market, 

the manufacturer-provided cost was 

inconsistent with the available market 

information. Further, this manufacturer 

does not distribute covered IRLs in the 

U.S. market. Therefore, DOE was unable 

to estimate the price of the prototype 

lamp by comparing it to a similar lamp 

offered by the same manufacturer, 

which would have allowed DOE to 

isolate the change in price due to the 

more efficient coating. For these 

reasons, DOE concluded that it did not 

have the information needed to conduct 

a cost assessment of the higher efficacy 

prototype lamps and therefore, did not 

include them in this final rule analysis. 

e. Efficacy Levels 

After identifying more efficacious 

substitutes for each of the baseline 

lamps, in the NOPR, DOE developed 

ELs based on the consideration of 

several factors, including: (1) The design 

options associated with the specific 

lamps being studied; (2) the ability of 

lamps across wattages to comply with 

the standard level of a given product 

class; and (3) the max tech level. 79 FR 

at 24093 (April 29, 2014). 

For IRLs, DOE developed a 

continuous equation that specifies a 

minimum efficacy requirement across 

wattages and represents the potential 

efficacy a lamp can achieve using a 

particular design option. DOE observed 

an efficacy division among 

commercially available IRL products 

that corresponded to the design options 

utilized to increase lamp efficacy. Based 

on this efficacy division, DOE 

considered one EL in the NOPR 

analysis. Id. at 24113. DOE received a 

comment from NEMA regarding the EL 

presented for IRLs in the NOPR 

analysis. 

NEMA stated that energy conservation 

standards above the current IRL 

standards could not be economically 

justified. NEMA further stated that the 

6.2P 0.27 level proposed in the NOPR is 

inappropriately set at the higher end of 

the normal distribution curve for 

performance. Following the CCE rules, 

if the average performance of the more 

efficacious lamps is 6.2P 0.27, the 

standard should be set at 6.0P 0.27. 

NEMA did note, however, for standard 

spectrum IRLs under 125 V, it would be 

possible to consistently produce lamps 

at a higher efficacy, up to 6.0P 0.27 from 

5.9P0.27, for lamps between 60 W and 

205 W. NEMA expressed their belief 

that only this subset of IRLs could 

reliably increase their efficacy, and only 

by that increment. NEMA doubted that 

this increase would generate significant 

energy savings on its own. (NEMA, No. 

54 at pp. 21–22) 

DOE conducted an updated 

engineering analysis for the final rule 

and determined that EL 1 corresponded 

to an efficacy requirement of 6.2P 0.27

based on certification data. DOE notes 

that the statistics included in the 

compliance procedures are intended to 

ensure that manufacturers are reporting 

a value that approximates the 

population mean. Each tested lamp is 

not individually required to meet or 

exceed the standard level. Designing 

products such that their population 

mean or the performance of each 

individual lamp unit within the 

population exceeds DOE’s standard 

level is not required and is done so at 

the discretion of individual 

manufacturers. Regarding an assessment 

of national energy savings for IRLs see 

section VII.B.3. Regarding DOE’s 

conclusion as to whether a standard is 

economically justified, DOE weighs the 

benefits and burdens in section VII.C.3. 

For the final rule analysis, DOE again 

reviewed the most updated catalog and 

certification data available for covered 

IRLs. As in the NOPR analysis, DOE 

used the catalog data to identify all 

products on the market and ensure 

consideration of all available products 

in the analysis and assessed both catalog 

and certification efficacy values to 

identify efficacy levels. In the NOPR 

analysis, DOE had found there to be 

certification data for 51 percent of 

covered IRL products compliant with 

the July 2012 standards. For the final 

rule analysis, DOE found that updates to 

DOE’s certification database resulted in 

certification data for 61 percent of 

covered IRL products. While this was an 

increase from the NOPR analysis, it still 

did not represent a comprehensive 

dataset on which to base an engineering 

analysis. Therefore, in this final rule 

analysis, DOE again used catalog data to 

identify all products on the market and 

ensure consideration of all available 

products in the analysis. DOE assessed 

both catalog and certification efficacy 

values to identify efficacy levels. Using 

certification data reported for the PAR38 

2,500 hour HIR and 4,200 hour 

improved HIR representative lamps, 

DOE adjusted EL 1. As mentioned 

previously, DOE developed a 

continuous equation that specifies a 

minimum efficacy requirement across 

wattages for IRLs. The EL that DOE 

determined based on the representative 

lamps is a curve that represents a 

standard across all wattages. 

Table VI.8 presents the efficacy level 

for IRLs. See chapter 5 of the final rule 

TSD for additional information on how 

the engineering analysis was conducted. 

TABLE VI.8—EFFICACY LEVELS FOR

STANDARD SPECTRUM, VOLTAGE < 

125 V, DIAMETER > 2.5 INCHES

IRLS

Efficacy level Efficacy requirement 

lm/W 

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

P = rated wattage 

f. Scaling to Other Product Classes 

When more than one product class 

exists for a covered product, DOE 

identifies and selects representative 

product classes to analyze directly. 

Efficacy levels developed for these 

representative product classes are then 

scaled to products not analyzed directly. 

For IRLs, DOE analyzed directly 

standard spectrum lamps greater than 

2.5 inches in diameter and with input 

voltages less than 125 V. The efficacy 

levels developed for this representative 

product class were then scaled to 

product classes not analyzed, using a 

scaling factor to adjust levels for smaller 

diameter lamps, lamps with higher 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4080 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

43While a 130 V lamp is typically operated at 120 

V, DOE test procedures require that lamps rated at 

130 V be tested at 130 V. 

input voltages, and modified spectrum 

lamps. DOE received several comments 

specific to the scaling factors applied to 

develop efficacy levels for the product 

classes analyzed directly. 

Diameters Less Than or Equal to 2.5 

Inches 

In the NOPR analysis, DOE scaled 

from the EL developed for IRLs with 

diameters greater than 2.5 inches 

(hereafter ‘‘large diameter lamps’’) to 

IRLs with diameters less than or equal 

to 2.5 inches (hereafter ‘‘small diameter 

lamps’’). Based on catalog data, DOE 

determined the reduction in efficacy 

caused by the smaller lamp diameter to 

be approximately 12 percent. DOE also 

determined that the more efficient 

double-ended HIR burners could not fit 

into small diameter lamps without 

extending the reflector lens. Therefore, 

in the NOPR analysis, DOE applied an 

additional 3.5 percent reduction to 

account for the ability of small diameter 

lamps to utilize only less efficient 

single-ended HIR burners. 

CA IOUs noted that small diameter 

lamps are less efficacious than larger 

lamps and agreed with DOE’s scaling 

factor as appropriate, except for the 3.5 

percent to account for double-ended 

burners, as CA IOUs believed that small 

diameter lamps are capable of utilizing 

these burners. CA IOUs stated that DOE 

had not provided enough analysis on 

the potential issue that fitting doubleended burners in a small diameter lamp 

would change the physical shape of the 

lamp and thereby impact whether these 

lamps can fit in fixtures in which they 

are currently used. CA IOUs questioned 

if DOE had collected data on the various 

lengths of small diameter lamps on the 

market. CA IOUs noted that they have 

found R20 lamps with single-ended 

burners that range in length from 3.1 to 

4.2 inches. They stated that the R20 

lamp with a double-ended burner they 

submitted to DOE was 3.5 inches long, 

and therefore still in the typical R20 

range. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 124–126, 128– 

129) 

OSI commented that, in general, 

technologies used in PAR30 lamps 

cannot be used in PAR20 lamps. (OSI, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 

127) OSI noted that luminaire 

manufacturers construct luminaires for 

the actual lamp length on the market, 

not to the ANSI specifications for the 

bulb shape. OSI clarified, therefore, that 

a lamp longer than what is otherwise on 

the market would not fit in luminaires, 

regardless of whether it still met the 

ANSI requirements for the bulb shape. 

(OSI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 

at pp. 128–129) GE agreed and added 

that a small increase in lamp length 

would not matter for certain luminaires, 

such as a track lighting fixture, but that 

DOE could not assume the new design 

would fit in all existing fixtures. (GE, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 

125) OSI explained that fitting the lamp 

with the double-ended burner into the 

luminaire would not be the only 

problem, DOE should also consider the 

temperature limits that the doubleended burner might force the lamp to 

exceed. (OSI, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 49 at p. 127) NEMA commented that 

lamps need to be designed to match the 

physical shape of the luminaires in the 

market. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 49) 

DOE must consider how the use of a 

design option affects product utility and 

whether a more efficacious product is 

an appropriate substitute for an existing 

less efficacious product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE confirmed that a 

double-ended burner was present in the 

small diameter (PAR20) prototype lamp 

mentioned previously and also in a 

commercially available PAR20 lamp 

that is outside the scope of this 

rulemaking. However, manufacturers 

noted that fitting a double-ended burner 

into a small diameter lamp requires 

changes to the physical shape of the 

lamp, specifically requiring an 

extension of the reflector lens. (NEMA, 

no. 36 at p. 12; GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 49 at p. 125) While the 

modified lamp may still meet ANSI 

standards for a small diameter lamp 

such as a PAR20, it would be larger than 

PAR20 lamps sold in the past and those 

currently installed. Because the lamp 

shape would be different from the 

standard sizes of commercially available 

small diameter lamps, the modified 

lamp may not fit in existing structures. 

DOE conducted an analysis by 

comparing lengths of small diameter 

lamps to existing fixtures. The lengths 

of lamps with double-ended burners 

varied and DOE cannot state with 

certainty that these lengths will fit in all 

fixtures. Further, within the wattage 

range of lamps covered by this 

rulemaking (40 W or higher), heat 

dissipation in lamps with a smaller 

envelope using a double-ended burner 

could also become an issue. 

Additionally, manufacturer feedback 

indicated that even if the double-ended 

burner could fit into a small diameter 

lamp, it would be difficult to place the 

burner/filament in the optimal position 

such that the benefits in efficacy could 

be realized. 

Therefore, in this final rule DOE 

continued to apply an additional 3.5 

percent reduction factor when scaling 

efficacies of large diameter to small 

diameter lamps to account for the ability 

of small diameter lamps to utilize only 

single-ended burners. 

Operating Voltages Greater Than or 

Equal to 125 Volts 

In the NOPR analysis, DOE scaled 

from IRLs with voltages less than 125 V 

to IRLs with voltages greater than or 

equal to 125 V. DOE developed a scaling 

factor that would require 130 V lamps 

operating at 120 V 43 to use the same 

technology and possess the same 

general performance characteristics as 

120 V lamps operating at 120 V. DOE 

found that while there may be a slight 

decrease in efficacy, the lifetime of a 

130 V lamp is doubled when it is 

operated at 120 V, giving it an advantage 

over 120 V lamps. Using the 

Illuminating Engineering Society of 

North America (IESNA) Lighting 

Handbook equations that relate lifetime, 

lumens, and wattage to voltage of 

incandescent lamps, DOE determined 

that a 15 percent scaling factor was 

necessary. 

NEMA commented that in the 2009 

Lamps Rule, DOE set a level for 130 V 

lamps which was approximately 15 

percent higher than achievable with the 

maximum available technology. NEMA 

argued that, as the efficacy of 130 V 

lamps is actually slightly lower than 120 

V lamps, the only way to achieve such 

efficacy levels is to greatly shorten lamp 

life to less than 500 hours even if a 130 

V lamp was operated on 120 V. If the 

consumer had a high voltage problem 

and was operating near 130 V, the lamp 

life would be shortened to a few 

hundred hours. In both scenarios, very 

short life products are unmarketable to 

the consumer, especially for 130 V 

consumers who were primarily buying 

the lamp due to its long life on 120 V 

operation during voltage fluctuations. 

Giving the example of the 130 V IRL, 

NEMA commented that DOE is incorrect 

in its assumptions that no utility would 

be lost with higher IRL standards. 

Specifically, NEMA explained that 130 

V IRLs were able to operate under 

elevated voltage spike and transient 

conditions, and are now eliminated 

from the market due to the 2009 Lamps 

Rule standards. (NEMA, no. 54 at p. 48) 

Philips commented that the scaling 

factor used for any new 130 V lamp 

standards would not matter as the lamp 

is already out of the market. (Philips, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 

123) GE commented that the max tech 

for 120 V and 130 V lamps are almost 

identical, so the 15 percent scaling 

factor used to scale between the two 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4081 

lamps in the 2009 Lamps Rule is 

responsible for eliminating 130 V lamps 

from the marketplace, along with its 

utility. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 49 at p. 123) 

DOE has not found evidence that 

more efficacious 130 V IRLs are not 

technologically feasible or practicable to 

manufacture. DOE research indicates 

that the basic structure, components, 

and operating requirements of these 

lamps do not prevent the application of 

design options considered in the 

engineering analysis to achieve EL 1. 

Therefore, in this final rule analysis, 

DOE continued to determine a higher 

efficacy level for these lamp types. 

Further, DOE remains concerned, that 

the operation of 130 V lamps at 120 V 

has the potential to significantly affect 

energy savings. DOE’s research has 

shown that 130 V lamps are usually 

operated by consumers at 120 V rather 

than on a higher voltage line. This could 

incentivize manufacturers to design a 

less efficient and less expensive 130 V 

lamp that would meet standards when 

tested at 130 V. Because they would be 

cheaper, there could be a market 

migration to 130 V lamps and due to the 

lower lumen output when 130 V lamps 

are operated at 120 V, consumers may 

purchase more 130 V lamps, resulting in 

increased energy consumption. 

DOE’s research indicates that 

operating 130 V lamps at 120 V 

increases lifetime and lowers efficacy 

compared to operating these lamps at 

130 V. Therefore, to develop an 

appropriate scaling factor, DOE 

determined the efficacy of 130 V lamps 

operated at 120 V if their additional 

lifetime over that of 120 V lamps were 

instead used to increase their efficacy. 

DOE found this increase in efficacy to 

be 15 percent. Therefore in this final 

rule analysis, DOE is using a scaling 

factor of a 15 percent efficacy increase 

from an IRL with voltages less than 125 

V to voltages greater than or equal to 

125 V. 

Modified Spectrum 

In the NOPR analysis, DOE 

established ELs for modified spectrum 

IRLs by scaling from the ELs developed 

for the standard spectrum product class. 

DOE determined that a reduction of 15 

percent from the standard spectrum ELs 

would be appropriate for modified 

spectrum IRLs. 

EEOs cited a 2009 study by Ecos 

Consulting which found a 9–11 percent 

light loss associated with IRL modified 

spectrum lenses, and recommended 

either eliminating the allowance 

altogether or reducing it to 10 percent. 

(EEOs, No. 55 at p. 7) 

Regarding the use of a 15 percent 

scaling factor from standard spectrum to 

modified spectrum IRLs, DOE based this 

determination on both its understanding 

of the differences in characteristics and 

performance of these two lamp types. In 

the 2009 Lamps Rule, DOE assessed the 

efficacy differences between standard 

and modified spectrum IRLs by 

measuring the efficacies of 

commercially available standard and 

modified spectrum lamps. 74 FR 34080 

(July 14, 2009). In that analysis, DOE 

correlated the measured color point data 

of the lamps with lamp light output 

reduction and lamp spectral power 

distribution. By analyzing the data, DOE 

established that a reduction of 15 

percent from the standard spectrum to 

modified spectrum lamps was 

necessary. Using the available data for 

standards-compliant modified spectrum 

lamps on the market, DOE compared the 

efficacies of these two lamps with 

standard spectrum lamps with the same 

wattage and lifetime by the same 

manufacturer, and confirmed a 15 

percent reduction in efficacy from a 

modified spectrum lamp to a standard 

spectrum lamp. Therefore, DOE 

maintained a 15 percent efficacy 

reduction from a standard spectrum IRL 

to a modified spectrum IRL for this final 

rule. 

g. Xenon 

DOE identified higher efficiency inert 

fill gas as a design option for improving 

lamp efficacy of IRLs. Specifically, 

xenon, due to its low thermal 

conductivity, can greatly increase lamp 

efficacy and is utilized in most covered 

standards-compliant IRLs. 

NEMA commented that the scarcity of 

xenon makes it questionable that IRL 

products will be able to comply with the 

proposed standards just by adding more 

xenon to the lamp burners. NEMA 

stated that due to a xenon shortage last 

year manufacturers had to reduce the 

use of xenon. NEMA explained that the 

remaining efficacy margin under current 

standards allows continued production 

of IRLs during xenon shortages. Further, 

NEMA noted that the big xenon 

producing companies have not 

expanded their production capacity as 

much and there is high demand and 

limited production capacity for this gas. 

(NEMA, No. 54 at p. 35) NEMA 

remarked that DOE’s xenon price 

analysis ignores xenon shortages. 

(NEMA, No. 54 at p. 11) Further, NEMA 

stated the current high cost of xenon is 

at 13 Euros per liter compared to its 

previously low price in early 2013. 

NEMA predicted that xenon prices 

would not drop again and instead 

continue to increase with the increased 

number of incandescent A-line 

replacement lamps (which also utilize 

xenon). (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 35) 

NEMA warned that manufacturers are 

at risk of not being able to make 

compliant lamps consistently due to the 

availability of xenon for IRLs, and if are 

unable to do so, they will stop making 

them, as they did with the 130 V IRLs. 

(NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 13–14) NEMA 

reported that a member’s global buyer 

for noble gases had reported that xenon 

availability is at a minimum. NEMA 

concluded that the EL should be 

reduced due to the unavailability of 

xenon and noted that lighting legislation 

hugely affects the supply and demand of 

xenon. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 35) 

DOE acknowledges that xenon supply 

and prices are important factors for 

IRLs. Therefore, in the NOPR analysis 

DOE conducted a market assessment of 

xenon supply, demand, and prices as 

well as LCC and NIA sensitivities to 

determine the impact of increased end 

user lamp prices due to increases in the 

price of xenon. DOE updated this 

market and price assessment as well as 

the sensitivities for the final rule 

analysis. 

Based on this research, DOE 

determined that even if there are short 

term shortages of xenon, the long term 

supply of xenon is stable due to its 

availability in the air. Thus, supply 

could be increased to meet a continued 

increase in demand. DOE acknowledges 

that the supply of xenon cannot be 

quickly altered in the short term, and 

therefore conducted a sensitivity 

analysis to determine the impact of an 

increased price of xenon. In the final 

rule analysis, using NEMA’s estimation 

of the current price of xenon, DOE 

updated the xenon price utilized in the 

LCC sensitivity analysis from $10 per 

liter to $18 per liter. Based on the 

results of this analysis, DOE determined 

that positive LCC savings could still be 

achieved at EL 1 with higher xenon 

prices. Additionally, in the NIA, DOE 

performed an alternative analysis in 

which the price of xenon is assumed to 

increase by a factor of ten in the near 

future and remain at these elevated 

levels throughout the analysis period. 

The impacts of the modeled xenon price 

increase on the NES and NPV of this 

rulemaking were minimal. See appendix 

7C of the final rule TSD for complete 

details on the xenon price sensitivity 

conducted in the LCC, and chapter 12 

of this final rule TSD for details on the 

xenon price sensitivity conducted in the 

NIA. 

h. Proprietary Technology 

In response to the EL (and max tech) 

proposed for IRLs in the NOPR, DOE 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4082 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

44U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer Products: 2010 

U.S. Lighting Market Characterization. 2012. 

Washington, DC. http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/2010-lmc-final-jan2012.pdf. 

45U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration. Commercial Building Energy 

Consumption Survey: Micro-level data, file 2 

Building Activities, Special Measures of Size, and 

Multi-building Facilities. 2003. Washington, DC. 

www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2003/

index.cfm?view=microdata. 

46U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration. Manufacturing Energy 

Consumption Survey, Table 9.1: Enclosed 

Floorspace and Number of Establishment Buildings. 

2006. Washington, DC. www.eia.gov/consumption/ 

manufacturing/data/2006/xls/Table9_1.xlsl. 

47U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration. RECS Public Use Microdata files. 

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

residential/data/2009. 

48U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration. Manufacturing Energy 

Consumption Survey, Table 9.1: Enclosed 

Floorspace and Number of Establishment Buildings. 

received several comments regarding 

proprietary technology. 79 FR at 24111 

(April 29, 2014). NEMA stated that 

processes for silver, the best higher 

efficiency reflector coating, are patentprotected intellectual property (IP). 

(NEMA, No. 54 at p. 21) 

While DOE had determined in the 

2009 Lamps Rule that the silver reflector 

was patented technology, DOE research 

indicated that there were alternate 

pathways to achieve this level, such as 

filament redesign to achieve higher 

temperature operation (thus reducing 

the lifetime), non-proprietary higher 

efficiency reflectors, and a higher 

efficiency IR coating. 74 FR 34080, 

34133 (July 14, 2009). For this 

rulemaking, in interviews conducted in 

the preliminary analysis, manufacturers 

indicated that there were no specific 

patent or intellectual property barriers 

to obtaining commercially available IRL 

technologies. Further, for the NOPR 

analysis, DOE confirmed during 

interviews that proprietary technology 

is not a barrier to achieving the 

proposed max tech level. Therefore, 

DOE has concluded that several 

manufacturers have found means of 

designing more efficacious IRLs that are 

commercially available, such as through 

the use of IR glass coatings and higher 

efficiency reflector coatings that do not 

use proprietary technology. Hence, the 

EL for IRLs in this final rule is based on 

a commercially available improved HIR 

lamp that does not require proprietary 

technology to achieve its efficacy. 

Therefore, DOE has determined that this 

level can be achieved without the use of 

proprietary technology. 

E. Product Pricing Determination 

Typically, DOE develops 

manufacturer selling prices (MSPs) for 

covered products and applies markups 

to create end-user prices to use as inputs 

to the LCC analysis and NIA. Because 

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

DOE did not use this approach to derive 

end-user prices for the lamps covered in 

this rulemaking. 

In the NOPR analysis, DOE gathered 

publicly available lamp pricing data 

after the compliance date of the July 

2012 standards. 79 FR at 24116 (April 

29, 2014). Based on feedback from 

manufacturer interviews, DOE 

determined that GSFLs and IRLs are 

sold through three main channels (state 

procurement; large distributors, 

including do-it-yourself (DIY) stores 

[i.e., Lowe’s and Home Depot]; and 

Internet retailers). Using these main 

channels and the pricing data, DOE 

developed three different end-user 

prices as representative of a range of 

publicly available prices: low, based on 

the state procurement channel; medium, 

based on large distributors and DIY 

stores; and high, based on Internet 

retailers. DOE then developed an enduser price weighted by distribution 

channel. Using manufacturer feedback 

in interviews, DOE determined an 

aggregated percentage of shipments that 

go through each of the main channels 

for GSFLs and IRLs. The large 

distributors and DIY stores channel was 

estimated at 85 percent, the state 

procurement channel at 10 percent, and 

the Internet retail channel at 5 percent. 

DOE then applied these percentages 

respectively to the average medium 

price determined for large distributor 

and DIY stores, the average low price 

determined for state procurement 

contracts, and the average high price 

determined for Internet retailers. The 

sum of these weighted prices was used 

as the average consumer price for GSFLs 

and IRLs in the main LCC analysis and 

NIA. DOE continued to utilize the low 

prices and high prices in a sensitivity 

analysis in the LCC analysis. DOE 

received several comments on the 

pricing analysis. 

GE remarked that the pricing 

methodology presented in the NOPR is 

a reasonable approach. (GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 130– 

131) CA IOUs agreed that the pricing 

methodology is appropriate for GSFLs 

but not for IRLs, as the latter is 

predominantly purchased through retail 

channels for homes and small 

businesses instead of through 

distributors or state procurements. (CA 

IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 

at p. 131; NEEA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 131–132) 

DOE’s assessment of the GSFL and 

IRL markets indicated that there are 

three main distribution channels. Of 

these three, DOE determined that the 

majority of volume goes through the 

large distributors and DIY stores and 

assigned it an 80 percent weighting. 

Because this channel includes stores 

such as Home Depot and Lowes in 

addition to distributors, it encompasses 

channels through which residential and 

small business consumers are more 

likely to make their purchases. 

Additionally, DOE determined that 

while the volume may be low, IRLs are 

included in state procurement contracts; 

therefore, DOE included them as a 

distribution channel and assigned them 

a low weighting. 

In the final rule analysis, DOE used 

the same methodology as described for 

the NOPR analysis. For the final rule, 

DOE scaled the prices from 2012$ to 

2013$ in the LCC analysis and NIA, 

using the ratio of the 2013 consumer 

price index (CPI) and 2012 CPI 

multiplied by the 2012$ price. See 

chapter 7 of the final rule TSD for 

further information on the pricing 

analysis. 

F. Energy Use 

For the energy-use analysis, DOE 

estimated the energy use of lamps in the 

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

consumers). The energy-use analysis 

provided the basis for other DOE 

analyses, particularly assessments of the 

energy savings and the savings in 

consumer operating costs that could 

result from DOE’s adoption of amended 

standard levels. 

1. Operating Hours 

In the NOPR, to develop annual 

energy-use estimates, DOE multiplied 

annual usage (in hours per year) by the 

lamp power (in watts) for IRLs and the 

lamp-and-ballast system input power (in 

watts) for GSFLs. Id. at 24117. DOE 

characterized representative lamp or 

lamp-and-ballast systems in the 

engineering analysis (see section VI.D). 

To characterize the country’s average 

use of lamps for a typical year, DOE 

developed annual operating hour 

distributions by sector, using data 

published in the 2010 U.S. Lighting 

Market Characterization report (2010 

LMC),44 the Commercial Building 

Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS),45

the Manufacturer Energy Consumption 

Survey (MECS),46 and the Residential 

Energy Consumption Survey 

(RECS).47 Id. at 24118. DOE did not 

receive any comments on this subject 

and maintained this approach for 

determining operating hours for this 

final rule. DOE updated the MECS data 

to 2010 data.48

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4083 

2010. Washington, DC. http://www.eia.gov/

consumption/manufacturing/data/2010/. 

2. Lighting Controls 

DOE evaluated the impact of lighting 

controls on the energy use of GSFLs and 

IRLs. Most lighting controls have one of 

two impacts: reducing operating wattage 

or reducing operating hours. DOE refers 

to these two groups of controls as 

dimmers or light sensors, and 

occupancy sensors, respectively. The 

calculated operating hours used in the 

reference case already account for the 

use of occupancy sensors because the 

2010 LMC operating hour data are based 

on building surveys and metering data. 

In the NOPR analysis, DOE accounted 

for the use of dimmers or light sensors 

by modeling GSFLs and IRLs on 

dimmers and developing associated 

energy-use results for both types of 

covered lamps as a sensitivity analysis. 

See appendix 6A of the final rule TSD 

for further information. 

DOE received an overall comment 

regarding its approach to lighting 

controls for GSFLs and IRLs. 

Westinghouse suggested that DOE 

separate dimming percentages between 

IRLs and GSFLs because in the 

commercial sector, GSFLs are generally 

dimmed more often and IRLs are on 

simple switch circuits, and in the 

residential sector, IRLs are frequently 

dimmed and GSFLs are almost never 

dimmed. (Westinghouse, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 49 at p. 142) 

DOE agrees with Westinghouse that 

GSFLs and IRLs are used differently and 

that usage varies depending on the 

market sector. DOE calculated separate 

dimming percentages for GSFL and IRL 

and for each market sector in which 

they are present. The following sections 

discuss these percentages in more 

detail. 

a. General Service Fluorescent Lamp 

Lighting Controls 

In the NOPR, DOE assessed the 

impacts of dimmers on GSFLs by 

determining the reduction in system 

lumen output and system input power 

as a result of using dimming ballasts. Id. 

Based on product research and 

manufacturer feedback, DOE analyzed 

dimming scenarios for 2-lamp 4-foot 

MBP systems, 4-lamp 4-foot MBP 

systems, 2-lamp 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO 

systems, and 2-lamp 4-foot T5 MiniBP 

HO systems operating in the commercial 

and industrial sectors. DOE did not 

analyze dimmable GSFL systems in the 

residential sector because DOE believes 

these systems are rarely dimmed. DOE 

determined that the average reduction of 

system lumen output for GSFLs was 33 

percent, based on research and 

manufacturer input. DOE did not 

receive any comments on this approach 

to analyzing GSFL dimming and 

therefore maintained this approach in 

the final rule. 

b. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Lighting 

Controls 

In the NOPR analysis, DOE research 

indicated that, on average, consumers 

using dimmers reduce lamp wattage by 

20 percent, corresponding to a lumen 

reduction of 25 percent and an increase 

in lifetime by a factor of 3.94. Id. at 

24119. DOE analyzed two scenarios in 

LCC sensitivity analyses: (1) The light 

output of the baseline lamp was reduced 

by 25 percent and more efficient lamps 

were dimmed to the same light output 

and (2) the characteristics of the lamps 

analyzed represented the distribution of 

dimmers across the nation. For the 

second scenario, DOE used the 2010 

LMC to determine that 29 percent of 

halogen IRLs operate on dimmers or 

light sensors in the residential sector 

and 5 percent of halogen IRLs operate 

on dimmers in the commercial sector 

and used these percentages to calculate 

weighted-average performance 

characteristics. DOE received several 

comments on its approach to analyzing 

IRL dimming. 

Philips disagreed with only 5 percent 

dimming in the commercial sector, 

stating that given the 30-year analysis 

period, this percentage is understated. 

Philips specifically referenced 

California’s new requirements for 

dimming in all renovations and new 

buildings and American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and Air 

Conditioning Engineers’ (ASHRAE’s) 

support of these measures driving 

increased dimming prevalence across 

the country. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 137–138) 

NEEA agreed with Philips that 5 percent 

dimming for the commercial sector is 

too low and added that the 29 percent 

dimming DOE used for the residential 

sector is far too high. Westinghouse also 

questioned the 29 percent dimming 

estimate for the residential sector noting 

that if the percentage was for residential 

IRLs only, it may be representative but 

was too high for GSFLs as homeowners 

tend not to dim those lamps. 

(Westinghouse, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 49 at p. 141) 

To update DOE’s numbers, NEEA 

suggested a report they had completed 

on a 13-month residential metering 

study that studied 2,200 sensors in 103 

houses by fixture type, technology, and 

room. NEEA explained that their data 

include the wattage of the lamp, the 

controls on the socket, the number of 

lamps per fixture, the number of lamps 

per switch, the type of fixture, and room 

in which it is located. NEEA suggested 

that the data contain enough samples to 

characterize residential lighting in the 

four states included. NEEA also 

mentioned a census they conducted 

across 1,400 houses that gathered the 

same data, which can then be applied 

across the entire region. NEEA sent a 

summary of the data to DOE for 

immediate use, and stated that the rest 

of the data would be available for 

download on NEEA’s and NEMA’s Web 

sites. (NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 49 at pp.138, 140) 

Regarding the accuracy of the 

percentages, the 29 percent of lamps on 

dimmers was applied to IRLs for the 

residential sector analysis and the 5 

percent of lamps on dimmers was 

applied to IRLs for the commercial 

sector. As noted, these values are based 

on the 2010 LMC and DOE believes are 

an accurate representation of the 

percentage of IRLs on dimmers in each 

sector. Regarding the potential increase 

in percentage, while the percentage of 

occupancy sensors may increase, DOE 

assumed that the percentage of IRLs on 

dimmers will remain relatively constant 

because dimmers provide utility for 

consumers beyond energy savings. DOE 

also reviewed NEEA’s data, but 

ultimately maintained the methodology 

described above because NEEA’s data is 

limited to the Northwest region while 

the 2010 LMC lighting controls data is 

based several building audit studies, 

spanning several geographic regions and 

years of data collection, which was then 

scaled based an inventory of lighting at 

the national level. Therefore, for this 

final rule, DOE maintained its 

methodology for analyzing dimming for 

IRLs. 

G. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis and Payback 

Period Analysis 

In the NOPR analysis, DOE conducted 

LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the 

economic impacts of proposed energy 

conservation standards for GSFLs and 

IRLs on individual consumers. 79 FR at 

24119 (April 29, 2014). The LCC is the 

total consumer expense over the life of 

a product, consisting of purchase, 

installation, and operating costs 

(operating costs are expenses for energy 

use, maintenance, and repair). To 

compute the operating costs, DOE 

discounted future operating costs to the 

time of purchase and summed them 

over the lifetime of the product. The 

PBP is the estimated amount of time (in 

years) it takes consumers to recover the 

increased purchase cost (including 

installation) of a more efficient product 

through lower operating costs. DOE 

calculates the PBP by dividing the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4084 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

49Fuller, Sieglinde K. and Stephen R. Peterson. 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Handbook 135 (1996 Edition); Life-Cycle Costing 

Manual for the Federal Energy Management 

Program. (Prepared for U. S. Department of Energy, 

Federal Energy Management Program, Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Conservation and Renewable 

Energy.) February 1996. NIST: Gaithersburg, MD. 

Available at: http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build96/

PDF/b96121.pdf. 

50Monte Carlo simulations model uncertainty by 

utilizing probability distributions instead of single 

values for certain inputs and variables. 

change in purchase cost (normally 

higher) by the change in average annual 

operating cost (normally lower) that 

results from the higher efficiency 

standard. DOE used a ‘‘simple’’ PBP for 

this rulemaking, which does not take 

into account other changes in operating 

expenses over time or the time value of 

money. 

For any given efficacy or energy-use 

level, DOE measures the PBP and the 

change in LCC relative to an estimated 

base-case product efficacy or energy-use 

level. The base-case estimate reflects the 

market without new or amended 

mandatory energy conservation 

standards, including the market for 

products that exceed the current energy 

conservation standards. 

Inputs to the calculation of total 

installed cost include the cost of the 

product—which includes consumer 

product price and sales taxes—and 

installation costs. Inputs to the 

calculation of operating expenses 

include annual energy consumption, 

energy prices and price projections, 

repair and maintenance costs, product 

lifetimes, discount rates, and the year in 

which compliance with proposed 

standards would be required. DOE also 

incorporated a residual value 

calculation to account for any remaining 

lifetime of lamps at the end of the 

analysis period. The residual value is an 

estimate of the product’s value to the 

consumer at the end of the LCC analysis 

period. In addition, this residual value 

recognizes that a lamp may continue to 

function beyond the end of the analysis 

period. DOE calculates the residual 

value by linearly prorating the product’s 

initial cost consistent with the 

methodology described in the Life-Cycle 

Costing Manual for the Federal Energy 

Management Program.49

As inputs to the PBP analysis, DOE 

used the total installed cost of the 

product to the consumer for each 

efficacy level, as well as the first-year 

annual operating costs for each efficacy 

level. The calculation requires the same 

inputs as the LCC, except for energy 

price trends and discount rates; only 

energy prices for the year in which 

compliance with any new standard 

would be required (2018, in this case) 

are needed. 

To account for uncertainty and 

variability, DOE created value 

distributions for inputs as appropriate, 

including operating hours, electricity 

prices, discount rates and sales tax rates, 

and disposal costs. For example, DOE 

created a probability distribution of 

annual energy consumption in its 

energy-use analysis, based in part on a 

range of annual operating hours. The 

operating hour distributions capture 

variation across census divisions and 

large states, building types, and lamp or 

lamp-and-ballast systems for three 

sectors (commercial, industrial, and 

residential). 

DOE conducted the LCC and PBP 

analyses using a spreadsheet model 

developed in Microsoft Excel. When 

combined with Crystal Ball (a 

commercially available software 

program), the spreadsheet model 

generates a Monte Carlo simulation 50 to 

perform the analysis by incorporating 

uncertainty and variability 

considerations. The Monte Carlo 

simulations randomly sample input 

values from the probability distributions 

and lamp user samples, performing 

1,000 iterations per simulation run. 

DOE did not receive any comments on 

the general methodology regarding the 

LCC and PBP assessment. In the final 

rule analysis, DOE generally maintained 

the methodology from the NOPR 

analysis, with a few changes. Table VI.9 

summarizes the approach and data DOE 

used to derive inputs to the LCC and 

PBP calculations for the NOPR, as well 

as the changes made for this final rule. 

The final rule TSD chapter 8 and its 

appendices provide details on the 

spreadsheet model and of all the inputs 

to the LCC and PBP analyses. The final 

rule TSD appendix 8B provides results 

of the sensitivity analyses conducted 

using Monte Carlo simulation. The 

subsections that follow discuss the 

comments regarding each initial input 

and any changes made to them in the 

final rule analysis. 

TABLE VI.9—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS IN THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSES * 

Inputs NOPR TSD Changes for the Final Rule 

Consumer Product Price ............... Applied discounts to manufacturer catalog (‘‘blue book’’) pricing 

in order to represent low, medium, and high prices for all 

lamp categories. Used a weighted-average price in the main 

analysis based on the percentage of shipments that go 

through the distribution channel having low, medium, or high 

prices.

No change. 

Sales Tax ...................................... Derived sector-specific average tax values based on the probability of purchasing a GSFL or IRL in each census division 

and large state from data provided by the Sales Tax Clearinghouse.

No change. 

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

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to obtain average labor times 

for installation, as well as labor rates for electricians and 

helpers based on wage rates, benefits, and training costs.

No change. 

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

a GSFL or IRL in a specific building type using the average 

lamps per square foot and the percentage of lamps of each 

type with regional distributions of various building types using 

the 2010 LMC and EIA’s 2003 CBECS, 2009 RECS, and 

2006 MECS.

Updated MECS data to 2010 data. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4085 

51 Damodaran Online, The Data Page: Historical 

Returns on Stocks, Bonds, and Bills—United States 

(2014). Available at: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/∼

adamodar. 

52U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 

Circular No. A–94 Appendix C (2013). Available at: 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a094/a94_

appx-c. 

53Federal Reserve Board, Statistics: Releases and 

Historical Data—Selected Interest Rates—State and 

Local Bonds (2014). Available at: 

www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/

Build.aspx?rel=H15. 

54The Federal Reserve Board, Survey of 

Consumer Finances. Available at: 

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

scfindex.html. 

TABLE VI.9—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS IN THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSES *—Continued 

Inputs NOPR TSD Changes for the Final Rule 

Product Energy Consumption 

Rate.

Determined lamp input power for IRLs based on published 

manufacturer literature. Calculated system input power for 

GSFLs. Used lamp arc power, catalog BF, number of lamps 

per system, and tested BLE (when possible) to calculate system input power for each unique lamp-and-ballast combination.

No change. 

Electricity Prices ............................ Electricity: Based on EIA’s Form 861 data for 2011 scaled to 

2012 (the dollar year of the analysis) using AEO 2013 and 

the consumer price index.

Variability: Weighted-average national price for each sector and 

lamp type calculated from the probability of a GSFL or IRL 

purchased in each census division or large state.

Electricity: Based on EIA’s Form 861 data 

for 2012 scaled to 2013 (the dollar year 

of the analysis) using AEO 2014 and 

the consumer price index. 

Variability: No change. 

Electricity Price Projections .......... Forecasted using AEO 2013 ....................................................... Forecasted using AEO 2014. 

Replacement and Disposal Costs Commercial and industrial: Included labor and materials costs 

for lamp replacement, and disposal costs for failed GSFLs.

Residential: Included only materials cost for lamps, with no 

lamp disposal costs.

No change. 

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

2011 Ballast Rule. Lamp lifetime based on published manufacturer literature where available.

No change. 

Discount Rates .............................. Commercial and industrial: Derived discount rates using the 

cost of capital of publicly traded firms in the sectors that purchase lamps, based on data in the 2003 CBECS, 

Damodaran Online,51 Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Circular No. A–94,52 and state and local bond interest 

rates.53

Residential: Derived discount rates using the finance cost of 

raising funds to purchase lamps either through the financial 

cost of any debt incurred to purchase product or the opportunity cost of any equity used to purchase equipment, based 

on the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances 

data 54 for 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, and 

2010.

No change. 

Analysis Period ............................. IRLs and commercial and industrial GSFLs: Based on the 

baseline lamp life in hours divided by the annual operating 

hours of that lamp.

Residential GSFLs lamp failure: Based on the lifetime of the 

ballast.

Residential GSFLs ballast failure and new construction/renovation: Based on the lifetime of the ballast.

No change. 

Compliance Date of Standards ..... 2017 ............................................................................................. 2018. 

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

only), and new construction/renovation.

No change. 

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

1. Consumer Product Price 

In the NOPR, DOE used a variety of 

sources to develop consumer product 

prices, including lamp prices from 

manufacturers’ blue books, state 

procurement contracts, large electrical 

supply distributors, hardware and home 

improvement stores, Internet retailers, 

and other similar sources. 79 FR at 

24122 (April 29, 2014). DOE then 

developed low, medium, and high 

prices based on its findings. DOE 

calculated a weighted-average price 

based on the percentage of shipments 

going through the low discount (high 

price), medium discount (medium 

price), and high discount (low price) 

distribution channels. Because 

fluorescent lamps operate on a ballast in 

practice, DOE analyzed lamp-andballast systems in the engineering 

analysis and therefore also determined 

end-user prices for ballasts. DOE 

utilized the end-user prices from the 

2011 Ballast Rule converted to 2012$ to 

develop prices for replacement ballasts. 

In the final analysis, DOE maintained 

the same methodology, but converted 

the prices to 2013$ instead of 2012$. For 

further discussion regarding end-user 

prices, see section VI.E. 

On February 22, 2011, DOE published 

a notice of data availability (NODA; 76 

FR 9696) stating that DOE may consider 

whether its regulatory analysis would be 

improved by addressing product price 

trends. Using three decades of historic 

data on the quantities and values of 

domestic shipments of fluorescent 

lamps and PAR lamps reported by the 

U.S. Census Bureau in their Current 

Industrial Reports, DOE examined 

product prices trends, fitting the data to 

an experience curve, as described in 

chapter 11 of the NOPR TSD. DOE 

found that the data are well-represented 

by the experience curve and consistent 

with price learning theory. Therefore, 

consistent with the NODA, DOE 

incorporated price trends into this 

rulemaking. In the LCC analysis, DOE 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4086 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

55Sales Tax Clearinghouse. Aggregate State Tax 

Rates. (2014). Available at: http://thestc.com/

STrates.stm. 

56Environmental Health and Safety Online’s 

fluorescent lights and lighting disposal and 

recycling Web page—Recycling Costs. Available at 

www.ehso.com/fluoresc.php. 

57Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers, 

‘‘National Mercury-Lamp Recycling Rate and 

Availability of Lamp Recycling Services in the 

U.S.’’ Nov. 2004. 

adjusts prices for each year using the 

experience curve. 

2. Sales Tax 

In the NOPR analysis, DOE obtained 

state and local sales tax data from the 

Sales Tax Clearinghouse. Id. The data 

represented weighted averages that 

included county and city rates. DOE 

used the data to calculate a weightedaverage sales tax based on the 

probability of a GSFL or IRL purchased 

for a particular building type in each 

census division and large state (New 

York, California, Texas, and Florida). 

DOE used information in the 2010 LMC, 

such as the number of lamps per square 

feet and the percentage of lamps within 

a building that are linear fluorescent or 

halogen. In combination with this 

information, DOE used CBECS, MECS, 

and RECS, respectively, for commercial, 

industrial, and residential building data 

on building types in each census 

division and large state. DOE did not 

receive any feedback on its approach to 

determining sales tax. In this final rule 

analysis, DOE used the same 

methodology with updated sales tax 

data from the Sales Tax 

Clearinghouse.55

3. Installation Cost 

The installation cost is the total cost 

to the consumer to install the product, 

excluding the consumer product price. 

Installation costs include labor, 

overhead, and any miscellaneous 

materials and parts. As detailed in the 

NOPR analysis, DOE considered the 

total installed cost of a lamp or lampand-ballast system to be the consumer 

product price (including sales taxes) 

plus the installation cost. For the 

commercial and industrial sectors, DOE 

assumed consumers must pay to install 

the lamp or lamp-and-ballast system 

and assumed the installation cost was 

the product of the average labor rate and 

the time needed to install a lamp or 

lamp and ballast. In the residential 

sector, DOE assumed that consumers 

must pay for only the installation of a 

lamp-and-ballast system. Therefore, the 

installation cost assumed was the 

product of the average labor rate and the 

time needed to install the lamp-andballast system. DOE assumed that 

residential consumers would install 

their own replacement lamps and, thus, 

would incur no installation cost when 

replacing their own lamp. Id. 

DOE did not receive any comments on 

the installation cost. DOE retained this 

methodology for determining 

installation costs in this final rule 

analysis. 

4. Annual Energy Use 

As discussed in section VI.F, DOE 

estimated the annual energy use of 

representative lamp or lamp-and-ballast 

systems by multiplying input power and 

sector operating hours. For further 

discussion regarding annual energy-use 

calculations, see section VI.F.1. DOE 

maintained its methodology of 

determining annual energy-use inputs 

in this final rule analysis. 

5. Product Energy Consumption Rate 

As in the NOPR analysis, DOE 

determined lamp input power for IRLs 

based on published manufacturer 

literature. 79 FR at 24123 (April 29, 

2014). For GSFLs, DOE calculated the 

system input power using published 

manufacturer literature and test data. 

DOE used lamp arc power, catalog BF, 

number of lamps per system, and tested 

BLE (when possible) to calculate system 

input power for each unique lamp-andballast combination. The rated system 

input power was then multiplied by the 

annual operating hours of the system to 

determine the annual energy 

consumption. DOE did not receive any 

comments on energy consumption rate 

calculations. DOE retained this 

methodology for determining energy 

consumption in this final rule analysis. 

6. Electricity Prices 

For the LCC and PBP in the NOPR 

analysis, DOE derived average energy 

prices for 13 U.S. geographic areas 

consisting of the nine census divisions, 

with four large states (New York, 

Florida, Texas, and California) treated 

separately. Id. For census divisions 

containing one of these large states, DOE 

calculated the regional average, 

excluding the data for the large state. 

The derivation of prices was based on 

data from EIA Form 861, ‘‘Annual 

Electric Power Industry Database.’’ DOE 

calculated weighted-average electricity 

prices based on the probability of a 

GSFL or IRL purchased in each census 

division and large state. The same 

methodology as noted previously for 

determining average weighted sales tax 

was used to calculate average weighted 

electricity prices. DOE used data 

published in the 2010 LMC in 

combination with CBECS, MECS, and 

RECS to determine an average weighted 

electricity price based on the probability 

of a GSFL or IRL in a particular building 

type in each census division and large 

state. DOE did not receive any 

comments on this approach. DOE 

retained this methodology for 

determining electricity prices in this 

final rule analysis. 

7. Electricity Price Projections 

To estimate the trends in energy 

prices for the NOPR analysis, DOE used 

the price forecasts in AEO 2013. Id. To 

arrive at prices in future years, DOE 

multiplied current average prices by the 

forecast of annual average price changes 

in AEO 2013. In this final rule analysis, 

DOE used the same approach, but 

updated its energy price forecasts using 

AEO 2014. In addition, the spreadsheet 

tools that DOE used to conduct the LCC 

and PBP analyses allow users to select 

price forecasts from AEO’s low-growth, 

high-growth, and reference case 

scenarios to estimate the sensitivity of 

the LCC and PBP to different energy 

price forecasts. DOE did not receive any 

comments on this approach and 

maintained this methodology for 

determining electricity price projections 

in the final rule analysis. 

8. Replacement and Disposal Costs 

In its NOPR analysis, DOE addressed 

lamp replacements occurring within the 

analysis period as part of installed costs 

for considered lamp or lamp-and-ballast 

system designs. Id. Replacement costs in 

the commercial and industrial sectors 

included the labor and materials costs 

associated with replacing a lamp at the 

end of its lifetime, discounted to 2012$. 

For the residential sector, DOE assumed 

that consumers would install their own 

replacement lamps and incur no related 

labor costs. 

Some consumers recycle failed 

GSFLs, thus incurring a disposal cost. In 

its research, DOE found average 

disposal costs of 10 cents per linear foot 

for GSFLs.56 A 2004 report by the 

Association of Lighting and Mercury 

Recyclers noted that approximately 30 

percent of lamps used by businesses and 

2 percent of lamps in the residential 

sector are recycled nationwide.57 DOE 

considered the 30 percent lamprecycling rate to be significant and 

incorporated GSFL disposal costs into 

the LCC analysis for commercial and 

industrial consumers. Given the very 

low (2 percent) estimated lamprecycling rate in the residential sector, 

DOE assumed that residential 

consumers would be less likely to 

voluntarily incur the higher disposal 

costs. Therefore, DOE excluded the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4087 

disposal costs for lamps and ballasts 

from the LCC analysis for residential 

GSFLs. 

DOE received no comments 

concerning these assumed recycling 

rates, disposal costs, and their 

application in the LCC analysis. DOE 

maintained this approach in the final 

rule analysis. 

9. Lamp Purchase Events 

DOE designed the LCC and PBP 

analyses for this rulemaking around 

scenarios where consumers need to 

purchase a lamp. Each of these events 

may give the consumer a different set of 

lamp or lamp-and-ballast designs and, 

therefore, a different set of LCC savings 

for a certain efficacy level. In the NOPR 

analysis, DOE evaluated three types of 

events that would prompt a consumer to 

purchase a lamp. Id at 24123. These 

events are described in the following 

list. Though described primarily in the 

context of GSFLs, lamp purchase events 

can be applied to IRLs as well. However, 

considering that IRLs are not used with 

a ballast, the only lamp purchase events 

applicable to IRLs are lamp failure 

(Event I) and new construction and 

renovation (Event III). 

• Lamp Failure (Event I): This event 

reflects a scenario in which a lamp has 

failed (spot relamping) or is about to fail 

(group relamping). In the base case, 

identical lamps are installed as 

replacements. In the standards case, the 

consumer installs a standards-compliant 

lamp that is compatible with the 

existing ballast. 

• Ballast Failure (Event II): This is a 

scenario in which the failure of the 

installed ballast triggers a lamp-andballast purchase. 

• New Construction and Renovation 

(Event III): This event encompasses all 

fixture installations where the lighting 

design will be completely new or can be 

completely changed. During new 

construction and renovation, the spatial 

layout of fixtures in a building space is 

not constrained to any previous 

configuration. However, because DOE’s 

higher efficacy replacements generally 

maintain lumen output within 10 

percent of the baseline system, DOE did 

not assume that spacing was changed. 

DOE received several comments 

regarding the lamp purchasing events 

assessed in the NOPR analysis. OSI 

questioned if, in the event of ballast 

failure in the new construction and 

renovation scenario, the installed cost 

includes the price of controls that are 

required by recent building codes, 

especially ASHRAE 90.1. (OSI, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 144– 

145) ASHRAE 90.1 is a standard that 

provides the minimum requirements for 

energy-efficient design of certain 

commercial buildings. OSI noted that 

any replacement of lamps and ballasts 

that could be considered renovation 

would be subject to building codes 

requiring the installation of lighting 

controls, and this cost should be added 

to the scenarios. (OSI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 49 at p. 146) 

Westinghouse agreed, stating that 

having to buy a control for a lamp 

should be treated no differently than 

having to hire an electrician and is part 

of the installation cost for a typical enduser product. (Westinghouse, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 145) 

NEEA acknowledged that controls may 

be required by building codes, but 

pointed out that a building code would 

apply regardless of the EL chosen. Thus 

the costs of controls would be the same 

at each level and would be unlikely to 

change the incremental installed costs 

analyzed in the LCC analysis. (NEEA, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 

146) 

DOE agrees that in the LCC analysis, 

a consumer that purchases a new lamp 

will have to comply with the same 

building code in both the base case 

(absent amended energy conservation 

standards) and the standards case (with 

amended energy conservation 

standards). In instances where the 

building code would require lighting 

controls, DOE reviewed the lighting 

systems analyzed in the GSFL 

engineering analysis for this rulemaking 

and determined that the required 

controls would not differ between the 

baseline systems analyzed and each 

higher efficacy system. Because the 

controls would be the same at each 

level, the incremental costs associated 

with the controls (price and installation) 

would not be different for the different 

ELs, Therefore, DOE did not include the 

cost of controls in the final rule 

analysis. 

Regarding more efficient replacement 

systems analyzed, NEMA noted 

switching from T12 or T8 to T5 lamps 

is expensive, and therefore suggested 

that the LCC and PBP analyses include 

the re-ballasting costs for lamps, 

luminaires, ballasts, labor, and down 

time. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 48) 

The LCC and PBP analyses determine 

the economic impacts to a consumer 

within an individual product class. 

Because only one type of lamp (i.e., T5 

or T8) is specified within each product 

class, DOE does not account for product 

class switching in the LCC and PBP 

analyses. DOE does, however, account 

for product class switching in the 

shipments analysis and, subsequently, 

the NIA. See VI.I for additional details 

on product class switching in the 

shipments analysis. 

DOE received no other comments on 

lamp purchase events and is 

maintaining the lamp purchase events 

and the associated assumptions in this 

final rule analysis. 

10. Product Lifetime 

a. Lamp Lifetime 

In the NOPR analysis, DOE used 

manufacturer literature to determine 

lamp lifetimes. DOE also considered the 

impact of group relamping practices on 

GSFL lifetime in the commercial and 

industrial sectors. In the NOPR analysis, 

DOE assumed that a lamp subject to 

group relamping operates for 85 percent 

of its rated lifetime based on 

information from manufacturers in 

interviews that consumer behavior had 

changed due to recent economic 

conditions and group relamping 

occurred at 85–90 percent of rated life. 

Id. at 24124. 

Westinghouse agreed that relamping 

would occur at 85 percent of rated life 

in the commercial sector, however, they 

noted that in the residential sector, 

relamping would occur when the 

resident cannot see or when the lamp 

fails. (Westinghouse, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 49 at p. 144) Philips 

further commented that older 

consumers would relamp sooner, due to 

impaired eyesight. (Philips, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 144) 

DOE assumed that during group 

relamping, a consumer removes and 

replaces a collection of lamps that are 

near the end of their lives at once, as a 

way of avoiding the failure of any 

individual lamp in the collection. While 

DOE models this behavior in the 

commercial sector, DOE assumed that 

residential sector consumers replace 

their lamps either when they fail or 

when the associated fixture is removed; 

thus, there are no spot or group 

relamping lifetime impacts on the 

residential sector. 

NEMA noted that group relamping is 

commonly recommended at 70–80 

percent of rated life. During the 2010– 

2011 rare earth crises, group relamping 

may have been delayed, but it has since 

come back in line with the 

recommended time frame. (NEMA, No. 

54 at p. 32) 

DOE acknowledges that the economic 

conditions that impacted group 

relamping decisions may have been 

temporary and, taking into 

consideration NEMA’s observation, 

changed the group relamping 

assumption to 75 percent of rated life 

for the final rule analysis. See chapter 

8 of the final rule TSD for further 

details. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4088 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

58Economic Research Associates, Inc., and 

Quantec, LLC. Revised/Updated EULs Based On 

Retention And Persistence Studies Results. 

Southern California Edison, 2005. 

59The consumer discount rate is in contrast to the 

discount rates used in the NIA, which are intended 

to represent the rate of return of capital in the U.S. 

economy, as well as the societal rate of return on 

private consumption. 

60The Federal Reserve Board. Survey of 

Consumer Finances 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 

2004, 2007, 2010. Federal Reserve Board: 

Washington, DC. Available at: 

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

scfindex.html. 

In the NOPR, DOE used 15 years as 

the estimated fixture and ballast lifetime 

in the residential sector for purposes of 

its analyses. NEMA commented that 

DOE should not assume a normal 

average lifetime for residential GSFLs as 

these lamps typically fail from frequent 

switching rather than deterioration of 

the emitter. NEMA mentioned that 

failure due to rapid switching is 

unpredictable and variable, based on the 

frequency of switches, and therefore it 

is difficult to define an average lifetime 

in this sector. NEMA suggested that 

DOE review their analysis for residential 

GSFL lifetime by incorporating 

switching and hours of use data from 

the NEEA residential building stock 

assessment metering study. (NEMA, No. 

54 at pp. 31–32) 

Based on a report, DOE found that the 

average fixture and ballast in the 

residential sector lasts for 15 years.58

Therefore, in its residential sector 

analysis for GSFLs, DOE established 15 

years as the average ballast lifetime in 

the residential sector, regardless of 

operating hours. Because the lamp 

lifetime exceeds the ballast lifetime 

under average operating hours 

conditions, DOE assumed that the 

ballast lifetime of 15 years limits the 

lamp lifetime. While the typical lifetime 

of a GSFL is about 37 years in the 

residential sector, by basing the analysis 

period on the ballast lifetime, DOE used 

a much shorter analysis period than the 

product lifetime in its analysis for 

residential GSFLs and, therefore, likely 

accounted for early failure of lamps due 

to frequent switching. As recommended 

by NEMA, DOE also reviewed NEEA’s 

data, but found that the data did not 

provide the lifetime data on the GSFLs 

DOE analyzed in the residential sector. 

Therefore, DOE maintained the lamp 

lifetime of 15 years based on the ballast 

lifetime for this final rule analysis. 

b. Ballast Lifetime 

Chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD detailed 

DOE’s development of average ballast 

lifetimes, which were based on 

assumptions used in the 2011 Ballast 

Rule. For ballasts in the commercial and 

industrial sectors, DOE used an average 

ballast lifetime of 49,054 hours. 

Consistent with the 2011 Ballast Rule, 

DOE assumed an average ballast lifetime 

of approximately 15 years in the 

residential sector. DOE received no 

comments on this approach and 

retained these ballast lifetimes in the 

final rule. 

11. Discount Rates 

The calculation of consumer LCC 

requires the use of an appropriate 

discount rate. DOE used the discount 

rate to determine the present value of 

lifetime operating expenses. The 

discount rate used in the LCC analysis 

represents the rate from an individual 

consumer’s perspective.59

In the NOPR analysis, for the 

residential sector, DOE derived discount 

rates from estimates of the interest or 

‘‘finance cost’’ to purchase residential 

products. 79 FR at 24125 (April 29, 

2014). The finance cost of raising funds 

to purchase these products can be 

interpreted as: 1) the financial cost of 

any debt incurred to purchase products 

(principally interest charges on debt), or 

2) the opportunity cost of any equity 

used to purchase products (principally 

interest earnings on household equity). 

Household equity is represented by 

holdings in assets, such as stocks and 

bonds, as well as the return on 

homeowner equity. Much of the data 

required, which involves determining 

the cost of debt and equity, comes from 

the Federal Reserve Board’s triennial 

‘‘Survey of Consumer Finances.’’ 60 For 

the commercial and industrial sectors, 

DOE derived discount rates from the 

cost of capital of publicly traded firms 

in the business sectors that purchase 

lamps. 

DOE received no comments 

concerning the determination of 

discount rates. Thus, DOE maintained 

this approach in the final rule analysis. 

For further details on discount rates, see 

chapter 8 and appendix 8C of the final 

rule TSD. 

12. Analysis Period 

The analysis period is the span of 

time over which the LCC is calculated. 

In the NOPR analysis, DOE used the 

longest baseline lamp life in a product 

class divided by the annual operating 

hours of that lamp as the analysis 

period. Id. During Monte Carlo 

simulations for the LCC analysis, DOE 

selected the analysis period based on 

the longest baseline lamp life divided by 

the annual operating hours chosen by 

Crystal Ball. For GSFLs in the 

residential sector, the analysis period is 

based on the useful life of the baseline 

lamp for a specific event. GE and 

Philips commented that this approach 

seemed reasonable. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 49 at p. 147; Philips, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 

148) DOE maintained this approach for 

determining the analysis period in the 

final rule analysis. 

13. Compliance Date of Standards 

The compliance date is the date when 

a covered product is required to meet a 

new or amended standard. Consistent 

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

a compliance date in 2018, three years 

after the publication of the final 

amended standards. DOE calculated the 

LCC for all end users, as if each one 

would purchase a new lamp in the year 

compliance with the standard is 

required. 

14. Incandescent Reflector Lamp LifeCycle Cost Results in the NOPR 

DOE received several comments 

regarding the LCC results of IRLs in the 

NOPR analysis. GE commented that the 

LCC analysis appeared to be done 

mostly for commercial customers of 

PAR38 lamps and would have a 

dramatically different and negative 

outcome for the residential sector and 

other consumers. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 49 at p. 152) 

DOE conducted separate LCC analyses 

for the commercial sector and 

residential sector. See chapter 8 of the 

final rule TSD for all results by sector. 

NEMA commented that consumers 

were unlikely to realize the operating 

cost savings DOE claimed in the NOPR. 

(NEMA, No. 54 at p. 11) NEMA 

questioned how the proposed 

rulemaking can generate positive 

savings for consumers of IRLs when the 

increased product costs are higher than 

the energy savings. NEMA reasoned that 

an 18.75 lm/W PAR38 would need an 

infrared coated burner to reach an 

efficacy of 19.57 lm/W to comply with 

the standards proposed in the NOPR. 

The increased efficacy would save the 

consumer $0.36 per year while the 

burner would add about $1 to the cost 

of the lamp. NEMA further argued that 

the lamp is only rated at 1,100 hours, so 

the consumer will never see the payback 

from the improved lamp. NEMA 

commented that DOE cannot assume 

that technological breakthroughs yet to 

be discovered would improve the 

efficacy and lifetime of the lamp. As 

such, NEMA concluded that DOE 

cannot prove that a full range of 

products would comply with the 

standards proposed in the NOPR, and 

that DOE has not adequately addressed 

the negative cost effects on the 

consumer. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 32–33) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4089 

61NEMA cited the following reference for this 

calculation: Vukcevich, Milan R. The Science of 

Incandescence. NELA Press, 1992. 

62Navigant Consulting, Inc. Energy Savings 

Potential of Solid-State Lighting in General 

Illumination Applications. U.S. DOE Solid State 

Lighting Program, January 2012. Available at http:// 

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

ssl/ssl_energy-savings-report_jan-2012.pdf. 

63For discussion of approaches for incorporating 

learning in regulatory analysis, see Taylor, 

Margaret, and Sydny K. Fujita. Accounting for 

Technological Change in Regulatory Impact 

Analyses: The Learning Curve Technique. Berkeley: 

Continued 

In its analysis, DOE considered only 

more efficacious replacements with 

lifetimes greater than or equal to the 

baseline lifetime. Both representative 

lamp units that DOE analyzed at EL 1 

have lifetimes longer than the baseline. 

The characteristics of the representative 

lamp units were used as inputs to the 

LCC analysis. The LCC analysis assumes 

that the analysis period is the lifetime 

of the baseline lamp. Any lamps at 

higher efficacy levels that have longer 

lifetimes than that of the baseline 

product incorporate a residual value 

into the life-cycle cost, which subtracts 

the value of the lamp at the end of the 

analysis period from the total life-cycle 

cost. Thus, the residual values of the 

longer lifetime lamps increase the LCC 

savings. 

NEMA commented that the increased 

efficacy of the EL 1 proposed in the 

NOPR would result in a 30 percent 

reduction in lifetime,61 meaning a total 

loss of financial feasibility as the 

payback period would be longer than 

the lifetime of the more efficacious 

lamps. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 29) 

DOE recognizes that there is an 

inverse relationship between efficacy 

and lifetime for IRLs. The engineering 

analysis focuses on commercially 

available products and DOE does not 

analyze efficacy levels that require 

shorter lifetimes than the baseline 

product. However, DOE is aware that to 

meet higher efficacy levels, 

manufacturers can choose to produce 

lamps with shorter lifetimes than the 

baseline lamp to achieve higher 

efficacies. Given that manufacturers 

responded to the July 2012 standards by 

introducing IRLs with shorter lifetimes, 

DOE understands this is a likely path 

manufacturers may take in response to 

higher standards. To capture the 

impacts of the relationship between 

lifetime and efficacy in IRLs, DOE 

determined how much the lifetime of a 

lamp with the same wattage as the 

baseline lamp must be shortened to 

achieve each efficacy level in the final 

rule analysis. (See chapter 5 of the final 

rule TSD for further information.) The 

impact of these shortened lifetime 

lamps are assessed as sensitivities in the 

LCC, NIA, and MIA. (See respectively, 

appendix 8B, chapter 12, and appendix 

13B of the final rule TSD). For the 

shortened lifetime sensitivity, because 

the wattage is the same as the baseline, 

there are no energy savings and 

therefore, the LCC savings are negative 

and a payback period cannot be 

calculated. 

H. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

In analyzing the potential impact of 

new or amended standards on 

consumers, DOE evaluates the impact 

on identifiable subgroups of consumers 

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

national standard may 

disproportionately affect. In the NOPR 

analysis, DOE evaluated low-income 

consumers and institutions that serve 

low-income populations (e.g., small 

nonprofits) as subgroups. DOE did not 

receive any comments regarding 

subgroups and therefore maintained this 

approach for assessing consumer 

subgroups in the final rule analysis. 

Chapter 9 of the final rule TSD presents 

the results of the consumer subgroup 

analysis. 

I. Shipments Analysis 

DOE uses projections of product 

shipments to calculate the national 

impacts of standards on energy use, 

NPV, and future manufacturer cash 

flows. DOE develops shipment 

projections based on historical data and 

an analysis of key market drivers for 

each product. Historical shipments data 

are used to build up a product stock and 

also to calibrate the shipments model. 

The details of the shipments model are 

described in chapter 11 of the final rule 

TSD. 

The shipments model projects 

shipments of GSFLs and IRLs over a 30- 

year analysis period for the base case 

(no standards) and for all standards 

cases. Separate shipments projections 

are calculated for the residential sector 

and for the commercial and industrial 

sectors. The shipments model used to 

estimate GSFL and IRL lamp shipments 

for this rulemaking has four main 

interacting elements: (1) A lamp 

demand module that estimates the 

demand for GSFL and IRL lighting for 

each year of the analysis period; (2) a 

price-learning module, which projects 

future prices based on historic price 

trends; (3) substitution matrices, which 

specify the product choices available to 

consumers (lamps as well as lamp-andballast combinations for fluorescent 

lamps) depending on whether they are 

renovating lighting systems, installing 

lighting systems in new construction, or 

simply replacing lamps; and (4) a 

market-share module that assigns 

shipments to product classes, ballasts, 

and lamp options, based on consumer 

sensitivities to first costs (prices) and 

operation and maintenance costs. 

The lamp demand module first 

estimates the lumen demand for GSFL 

and IRL lighting. The lumen demand 

calculation assumes that sector-specific 

lighting capacity (maximum lumen 

output of installed lamps) remains fixed 

per square foot of floor space over the 

analysis period. Floor space changes 

over the analysis period according to the 

EIA’s AEO 2014 projections of 

residential and commercial floor space; 

industrial floor space is assumed to 

grow at the same rate as commercial 

floor space. A lamp turnover calculation 

estimates shipments of lamps in each 

year given the initial stock, the expected 

lifetimes of the lamps (and ballasts for 

GSFLs), and sector-specific assumptions 

on operating hours. The turnover model 

attempts to meet the lumen demand as 

closely as possible, subject to the 

constraint that the areal density of 

lighting fixtures is fixed for existing 

buildings that are not renovated. 

The lamp demand module accounts 

for the penetration of LED lighting into 

the GSFL and IRL markets. The 

reference assumption for LED market 

penetration is based on projections 

developed for DOE’s Solid-State 

Lighting (SSL) Program.62 The SSL 

Program projections extend only to 

2030; DOE extrapolated to the end of the 

shipments forecast period. DOE fitted 

the technology adoption curve to allow 

for an entire market takeover by LEDs. 

Given the best fit to the SSL forecast, 

DOE estimates that LEDs will achieve 

close to 100 percent penetration in both 

the GSFL and IRL markets by 2046. 

The shipments model accounts for the 

use of lighting controls, including 

dimming and on-off controls, because 

controls affect ballast and lamp 

requirements and, therefore, lifetimes 

and shipments. The reference 

assumption for lighting system controls 

for the commercial sector is that state 

building energy code requirements for 

lighting controls remain constant at 

current levels, as does the ratio of 

voluntary to code-driven demand. 

Because code provisions are 

implemented only in new construction 

and building renovations that meet 

certain threshold requirements, codedriven implementation of lighting 

controls grows in slowly over time. 

The price-learning module estimates 

lamp and ballast prices in each year of 

the analysis period using a standard 

price-learning model.63 The model is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4090 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2013. 

LBNL–6195E. 

calibrated using three decades of 

historic data on the volume and value 

of fluorescent and PAR lamp shipments 

in the U.S. market, from which 

cumulative shipments and average 

prices are derived. Prices and 

cumulative shipments are fit to an 

experience curve. They are then 

augmented in each subsequent year of 

the analysis based on the shipments 

determined for the prior year by the 

module that assigns shipments to 

product classes and ELs. The current 

year’s shipments, in turn, affect the 

subsequent year’s prices. As shown in 

chapter 11 of the final rule TSD, because 

fluorescent and PAR lamps have been 

on the market for decades, cumulative 

shipments are changing slowly. 

Therefore, experience curve effects are 

relatively small—an effect that is further 

constrained by the expected incursion 

of solid-state lighting into the GSFL and 

IRL markets. 

The market-share module apportions 

the lamp and ballast shipments in each 

year among the different product 

classes, ballast types, and lamp options 

based on consumer sensitivities to first 

costs and operation and maintenance 

costs. To determine the prices used as 

inputs to the market-share module, DOE 

uses the ballast prices, weighted-average 

lamp prices, and installation costs 

developed in the engineering and LCC 

analyses. The operation and 

maintenance costs are based on the 

power required to operate a particular 

lamp-and-ballast system, the price of 

electricity, and the annualized cost of 

lamp replacements over the lifetime of 

that system. To enable a fair comparison 

between systems with different light 

output, the module considers the prices 

and operating and maintenance costs 

computed per kilolumen of light output. 

For consumers replacing lamps on 

existing ballasts, only the lamp-related 

prices and energy costs are considered 

by the market-share module. For 

consumers replacing an entire lampand-ballast system, the full price of the 

system, as well as the energy and 

annualized relamping costs, are 

considered. 

The ballast types and lamp options 

considered in the shipments model 

were determined in the engineering 

analysis. Whereas the earlier analyses 

considered only lamp-and-ballast 

combinations that did not increase 

energy relative to the baseline system, 

the shipments analysis allows 

consumers to choose among different 

lamp-and-ballast systems. These lampand-ballast combinations include full 

wattage and reduced wattage lamps 

coupled to ballasts with high, normal, or 

low ballast factors, and dimming 

ballasts. Programmed start and instant 

start ballasts are also considered 

separately, where appropriate. DOE 

limits or excludes lamp-and-ballast 

combinations that DOE’s research 

indicates would not provide acceptable 

performance or would only do so in 

limited circumstances. The remaining 

combinations allow for a variety of 

different energy-saving and non-energysaving options relative to the baseline. 

Details of the selection of allowable 

lamp-and-ballast combinations are given 

in chapter 11 of the final rule TSD. 

The market-share module allows for 

the possibility that consumers will 

switch among the different product 

classes, ballast types, and lamp options 

over time. Substitution matrices were 

developed to specify the product 

choices available to consumers (lamps 

as well as lamp-and-ballast 

combinations), depending on whether 

they are retrofitting lighting systems, 

renovating the lighted space, installing 

lighting systems in new construction, or 

simply replacing lamps, and depending 

on the particular lighting application. In 

this way, the module assigns market 

shares to the different product classes, 

ballast types, and ELs based on 

historical observations of consumer 

sensitivity to price and to operating and 

maintenance costs. 

DOE projects that some fraction of the 

lighting market currently being served 

by T8 lamps will migrate to T5 lamps 

in the absence of standards. At the 

NOPR stage, DOE projected that the 

standards in this rulemaking would 

make certain T5 systems more cost 

competitive relative to certain T8 

systems, resulting in an increase in the 

rate of this T8 to T5 lamp migration. 

DOE received comments regarding 

product class switching between T8 

lamps and T5 lamps. Philips, NEMA, 

and GE commented that consumers will 

not switch from T8 lamps to T5 lamps. 

Philips and NEMA stated that T5s have 

been on the market for 20 years and 

have not been used as substitutes for 

T8s. NEMA and GE mentioned that T5 

lamps are shorter than T8 lamps; 

therefore, T5 lamps cannot be used to 

retrofit T8 fixtures and vice versa. 

Philips, NEMA, and GE also noted that 

T5 and T8 lamps are used in different 

applications. Because T5 lamps have 

higher luminance than T8 lamps, T5 

lamps are typically used in indirect 

fixtures or places with high ceiling 

heights, whereas T8 lamps are used in 

direct fixtures or places with lower 

ceiling heights. Hence Philips, NEMA, 

and GE stated that these lamps cannot 

be used interchangeably. (Philips, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 

163–164; GE, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 49 at p. 163, p. 167–168; NEMA, No. 

54 at p. 14, p. 46) 

DOE is aware that there are physical 

and optical differences between T8 and 

T5 lamps. DOE assumes in its modeling 

for this rulemaking that switching 

between T8 and T5 lamps does not 

occur during retrofits. The potential for 

substitution of 4-foot MBP and 8-foot 

slimline with T5 SO Lamps is only 

assumed at the time of new construction 

and renovation, when a new luminaire 

would be specified. DOE’s analysis 

indicates that there exist T5 luminaires 

that compete directly with 4-foot MBP 

T8 luminaires in most applications in 

the largest luminaire markets (e.g., 

commercial offices, education, 

industrial). In some cases, luminaire 

manufacturers offer essentially identical 

luminaires in 4-foot T8 and T5 versions. 

Therefore, DOE believes that the 

switching from T8s to T5s estimated in 

the NOPR, and in the final rule, is 

reasonable. See appendix 11C of the 

final rule TSD for examples of these 

luminaires and a discussion of DOE’s 

analysis of the substitution potential for 

4-foot MBP and T5 SO Lamps. 

NEMA noted that first cost is a 

significant driver of consumers’ choice 

of product class and, as a consequence, 

higher initial T8 lamp costs would drive 

consumers to T5 products or LED 

products in new construction and 

renovation projects. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 

46) This comment is consistent with 

DOE’s assumptions in the analysis for 

this rulemaking. 

NEMA noted that, even if the 

standards required the 4-foot MBP T8 to 

increase phosphor use, T5 lamps would 

remain more expensive than T8 lamps 

owing to differences in manufacturing 

technology. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 34) 

DOE determined the end-user prices of 

lamps by applying a shipment-weighted 

discount to the blue book price of the 

lamp. In certain cases the end-user 

prices for 4-foot MBP T8 lamps are 

higher than for T5 MiniBP SO lamps 

(see chapter 7 of the final rule TSD). At 

max tech, the full-wattage 4-foot MBP 

T8 lamp end-user prices are higher than 

the full wattage T5 MiniBP SO. 

NEMA also commented that T5 lamp 

sales are not from T8 consumers but are 

mainly from consumers switching from 

older inefficient technology, like HID 

lamps. However, NEMA added that this 

rulemaking would slow down the 

transition from HID products to T5 

lamps. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 47) 

In its assessment of the market, DOE 

did not find any T5 HO lamps at the 

baseline efficacy level considered here. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4091 

64Bass, F.M. A New Product Growth Model for 

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

215–227. 

Thus, the amended standard represents 

the least efficacious T5 HO lamps on the 

market. For this reason DOE believes 

that this standard will have no impact 

on the transition from HID to T5 

technology. 

NEMA noted that the inability of nonPAR38 lamps to meet the proposed 

standard would cause consumers to 

switch to either expensive LED lamps or 

BR lamps that consume more energy 

than PAR lamps. NEMA calculated that 

the overall energy savings could be 

negative. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 20, 29) 

NEMA stated that significant energy 

savings would be lost under the 

proposed standards due to forcing 

halogen PAR30 lamp consumers to 

switch to LED lamps, the reduced 

wattage 39W PAR30 lamps, or 65W 

BR30 lamps after PAR30 lamps are 

eliminated from the market. NEMA and 

GE predicted that the majority of 

consumers would switch to the BR30 

lamps, which would cause an increase 

of 97 kWh per year, an inadvertent 

increase of 0.03 quads of energy. NEMA 

stated that, given the popularity of these 

IRLs and the alternative lamps once 

they are eliminated, no new standard 

should be set for PAR30 lamps. (NEMA, 

No. 54 at pp. 48–49; GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 121–122) 

ASAP noted that there are substitute 

lamps outside of the scope of this 

rulemaking and that DOE needed to 

consider what consumer choices could 

be made among the unregulated product 

options. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 114–115) GE 

disagreed and stated that consumers 

purchase quite a number of regulated 

products, such as PAR20, PAR30, and 

90W PAR38 lamps. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 115–116) 

DOE’s analysis indicates that there are 

PAR30 and PAR20 products on the 

market that meet EL 1. DOE recognizes 

that BR lamps are potential substitutes 

for non-PAR38 IRLs. However, given the 

large price difference between PAR and 

BR lamps in the current market, DOE 

believes that all consumers currently 

using PAR lamps are obtaining a unique 

utility from the PAR lamps for which 

they are willing to pay a substantial 

price premium. Thus, DOE believes that 

all potential switching from PAR to BR 

lamps has already taken place. DOE 

accounts for some consumers shifting to 

LED lamps with the use of an LED 

market adoption curve. 

The market-share module 

incorporates a limit on the diffusion of 

new technology into the market using 

the widely accepted Bass adoption 

model,64 the parameters of which are 

based on historic penetration rates of 

new lighting technologies into the 

market. It also accounts for other 

observed deviations from purely priceand cost-driven behavior using an 

acceptance factor, which sets an upper 

limit on the market share of certain 

product classes and lamp options that 

DOE research indicates are acceptable 

only to a subset of the market. The 

available options depend on the case 

under consideration; in each of the 

standards cases corresponding to the 

different TSLs, only those lamp options 

at or above the particular standard level 

in each product class are considered to 

be available. 

Because DOE executes the marketshare module for the base case and each 

of the standards cases independently, 

the shipments analysis allows for the 

possibility that setting a standard on one 

product class could shift market share 

toward a different product class. The 

costs and benefits accruing to 

consumers from such market share 

shifts are fully accounted for in the NIA. 

When the shipments model selects 

lamps for replacement, retrofit, 

renovation, or new construction, it 

accepts only lamps or lamp-and-ballast 

combinations that retain lumen capacity 

within acceptable bounds. 

As discussed previously, based on 

manufacturer feedback, DOE 

determined that consumers would not 

notice a change in light output that is up 

to 10 percent, and that some consumers 

will choose to reduce light levels 

beyond 10 percent to conserve energy. 

Accordingly, in the shipments analysis, 

DOE assumes that consumers choose 

between lighting systems within 10 

percent of current light output by 

considering the trade-off between first 

cost and operating costs, and not the 

relative light output. In this approach, 

systems that save energy in a costeffective way will tend to be selected 

over systems that increase light output 

without saving energy. DOE further 

assumes that the fraction of the market 

that will accept larger reductions in 

lumen output is fixed throughout the 

analysis period. The size of this market 

segment was estimated from the current 

market share of reduced wattage lamps 

that reduce light levels by more than 10 

percent compared to the baseline lamp. 

The model does not allow cumulative 

reductions in light levels. The model 

retains national average light levels 

within 10 percent of the average level at 

the beginning of the analysis period. No 

potential standards considered in this 

analysis lead to average light levels 

outside of this range. 

DOE is aware of the substantial 

impact of the ballast and lamp choice on 

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

this section, the shipments analysis 

explicitly models the possibility that 

consumers will choose to reduce their 

ballast factor during a renovation or 

retrofit or switch to reduced wattage 

lamps when relamping an existing 

system. In addition, this analysis 

models the growth of dimming ballasts 

in the market and allows a variety of 

lamps to be coupled to dimming ballasts 

to achieve a fixed light output. Thus, 

when high-efficacy lamps are coupled to 

dimming ballasts, the overall energy 

savings are greater than those that are 

achieved when lower efficacy lamps are 

coupled to dimming ballasts. DOE 

assigns market share to these lamp-andballast pairings using a model based on 

historical consumer sensitivity to price 

and operating costs. When a particular 

pairing saves energy in a cost-effective 

manner compared to other pairings, its 

market share is increased compared to 

less cost-effective options. As in the 

NOPR analysis, DOE did not consider 

delamping in this final rule because 

manufacturer feedback confirmed that 

delamping is not common practice 

when retrofitting existing T8 systems as 

lumen output levels have already been 

reduced to comply with newer 

recommended lighting levels and 

building codes. The shipments model, 

however, allows for the possibility that 

consumers will alter the number of 

lamps per square foot during 

renovations to maintain light levels. 

NEMA noted that future installations 

or retrofits would not adequately ‘‘tune’’ 

lamp and ballast pairings, by 

manipulating the ballast factor, 

especially during the maintenance 

phase of system lifetime when lamps 

and ballasts get replaced on a case-bycase basis. Furthermore, without this 

ballast tuning, consumers would have 

increased light density with the same 

energy consumption as the previous 

lamp-and-ballast system had. (NEMA, 

No. 54 at pp. 18 and 36) 

DOE is aware that the ballast factor is 

not typically modified during the 

maintenance phase of a lamp-ballast 

system. DOE assumes in its modeling 

for this rulemaking that any tuning of 

the ballast and lamp pairing does not 

occur during the maintenance phase. 

Adequate tuning is only assumed at the 

time of new construction, renovation, 

and retrofitting. 

GE and NEMA disagreed with the 

assumption that ballast factors can be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4092 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

65Available at www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/24. 

tuned to maintain the same light output. 

They both stated that ballast factors are 

only available in 10 percent increments 

while the resulting increase in efficacy 

is only about 2–3 percent. They 

commented that consumers will keep 

the same ballast factor for retrofits, 

which means that the lamps will still 

consume the same amount of energy but 

will be giving 2–3 percent more lumen 

output. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 49 at p.196–198; NEMA, No. 54 at 

p. 18) 

DOE is aware that ballast factors tend 

to cluster around modal values that are 

separated by roughly 10 percent. 

However, in analyzing the market, DOE 

identified ballasts with a broad range of 

ballast factors that were not restricted to 

these modal values. Moreover, DOE 

notes that the increase in lumen output 

from the baseline to the full-wattage EL 

2 lamp is 7 percent for 4-ft MBP lamps, 

and 16 percent for T5 SO lamps. DOE 

believes that, for consumers undertaking 

renovations, lighting retrofits, and new 

construction, the selection of ballast 

factor will be informed by the lamps 

available on the market and that an 

increased fraction of consumers will 

choose lower ballast factors than are 

now typical if typical lamp lumen 

ratings increase. 

DOE notes that full wattage lamp 

options are available for all product 

classes at all efficacy levels considered 

in this analysis. DOE’s research 

indicates that krypton gas is generally 

used to reduce the wattage of lamps and 

that full wattage lamps can generally be 

dimmed reliably. Also, as discussed 

previously, DOE found that dimming 

ballasts for 4-foot MBP lamps are 

commonly marketed as compatible with 

reduced wattage lamps, which are 

presumably krypton filled. Accordingly, 

in the shipments analysis and the NIA, 

DOE allows all full wattage lamp 

options to be coupled to dimming 

ballasts. DOE also allowed reduced 

wattage options in the 4-foot MBP 

category to be coupled to dimming 

ballasts, but, because the range of 

applications for this combination is 

restricted, DOE limits its market share 

in the analysis. 

NEMA provided their Ballast Section 

market survey data, indicating that 

dimming ballast sales decreased 

between 2010 and 2013. NEMA 

acknowledged that CA Title 24 and 

ASHRAE 90.1 may increase these 

shipments, but stated that the increase 

in shipments could not be properly 

estimated at this time due to their recent 

or sporadic adoption. NEMA noted that 

the last rulemaking constrained this 

decreasing market. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 

33, p. 35, p. 47) 

DOE thanks NEMA for the input on 

dimming ballast shipments. DOE 

believes that, given the many recently 

updated commercial building codes that 

require lighting controls, the market 

share of dimming ballasts is very likely 

to increase in the future and that the 

recent decline is likely transitory. 

Therefore, DOE has modeled the 

fraction of commercial floorspace that is 

subject to such codes and utilizes this 

in its analysis to estimate the future 

market share of dimming ballasts, based 

on current usage of dimming in 

fluorescent lighting systems. 

Rare earth oxides (REOs) are used in 

GSFL phosphors to increase their 

efficacy. The shipments model 

considers the potential impact of 

changes in rare earth oxide prices on 

fluorescent lamp prices and, thereby, on 

GSFL shipments. Large increases in rare 

earth oxide prices in 2010 and 2011 

raised manufacturer concerns that 

future price increases could have 

adverse impacts on the market. DOE 

developed shipments scenarios in its 

NOPR to reflect uncertainties in the 

prices of rare earth oxides. 

NEMA noted that the prices during 

the last REO crisis increased by 400 to 

700 percent. Due to decreased REO 

prices and subsequent slowing of REO 

supply expansion, NEMA mentioned 

the possibility of another price increase 

as future supplies are uncertain. 

Therefore, NEMA suggested that DOE 

revise the estimates of the high end of 

possible prices to 700 percent of current 

prices. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 34–35) 

DOE has examined the rare earth 

oxide market and still considers future 

rare earth prices significantly uncertain. 

DOE considered two price scenarios in 

its shipments modeling for GSFLs, as 

described in appendix 11B of the final 

rule TSD. The reference scenario 

assumes that rare earth prices remain 

fixed at their June 2014 level. The high 

rare earth price scenario assumes an 

average rare earth price 4.5 times the 

reference level, representing a value that 

is half way between the low pre-2010 

baseline price and the 2011 peak price. 

This scenario represents the average 

price of regular price fluctuations 

between the peak and baseline amounts. 

DOE notes that the high rare earth price 

scenario represents a high price 

volatility scenario where the price could 

fluctuate at higher or lower levels than 

4.5 times the baseline rare earth price. 

J. National Impact Analysis—National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

Analysis 

The NIA assesses the NES and the 

national NPV of total consumer costs 

and savings expected to result from 

amended standards for GSFLs and IRLs 

at specific efficacy levels. Analyzing 

impacts of potential energy conservation 

standards for GSFLs and IRLs requires 

comparing projections of total energy 

consumption with amended energy 

conservation standards to projections of 

energy consumption without the 

standards (the base case). 

As the shipments model allows for 

substitutions across product classes 

when lighting systems are selected 

during renovation or new construction, 

understanding the impact of setting a 

standard at any given level for any given 

product class requires considering the 

impact on all other product classes. 

Therefore, in addition to conducting the 

analysis for the covered products as a 

whole, DOE evaluated the NPV and NES 

by product class to determine the 

impact of consumer switching between 

product classes. The NIA was developed 

in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet,65

allowing access to a broad range of 

scenario assumptions for conducting 

sensitivity analyses on specific input 

values. The major inputs for the NIA are 

described in Table VI.10. 

TABLE VI.10—INPUTS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

Input Description 

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

Compliance date of standard .............................. January 1, 2018. 

Base case efficiencies ......................................... Estimated by market-share module of shipments model. 

Standards case efficiencies ................................ Estimated by market-share module of shipments model. 

Annual energy consumption per unit .................. Calculated for each efficacy level and product class based on inputs from the energy use 

analysis. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4093 

66Williams, A., B. Atkinson, K. Garbesi, E. Page, 

and F. Rubinstein (2012). Lighting controls in 

commercial buildings. Leukos 8(3): 161–180. 

www.ies.org/leukos/samples/1_Jan12.pdf. 

TABLE VI.10—INPUTS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS—Continued 

Input Description 

Total installed cost per unit ................................. Lamp prices by efficacy level, ballast prices by ballast type, and lamp and ballast installation 

costs. The weighted-average prices and installation costs developed in the engineering 

analysis and LCC analysis were used. 

Electricity expense per unit ................................. Annual energy use for each product class is multiplied by the corresponding average energy 

price. 

Escalation of electricity prices ............................. AEO 2014 forecasts (to 2040) and extrapolation beyond 2040. 

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

losses. 

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

Present year ........................................................ 2014. 

1. National Energy Savings 

The inputs for determining the NES 

for each product class are: (1) Lamp 

shipments; (2) annual energy 

consumption per unit; (3) installed 

stocks of lamps (coupled to each 

analyzed ballast type for GSFLs) in each 

year; and (4) site-to-primary energy and 

FFC conversion factors. The lamp stocks 

were calculated by the shipments model 

for each year of the analysis period from 

the prior year’s stock, minus 

retirements, plus new shipments, 

accounting for lamp and ballast 

lifetimes. DOE calculated the national 

electricity consumption in each year by 

multiplying the number of units of each 

product class and EL in the stock by 

each unit’s power consumption and 

operating hours. The power 

consumption is determined by the lamp 

wattage and, for each GSFL, by the 

ballast type to which each lamp is 

coupled. The operating hours are 

estimated by taking a weighted average 

of the distributions developed in the 

LCC analysis. The electricity savings are 

estimated from the difference in 

national electricity consumption by 

GSFLs between the base case (without 

new standards) and each of the 

standards cases for lamps shipped 

during the 2018–2047 period. 

DOE accounted for the impact of 

lighting system controls on lighting 

energy use as well as on lamp 

shipments, as discussed in the previous 

section. DOE understands that many 

lighting control systems may not 

achieve the savings for which they were 

designed. Accordingly, the estimated 

average energy reduction from controls 

is based on a meta-analysis of studies on 

the performance of actual lighting 

controls systems in the field.66

NEMA requested clarification on 

DOE’s assumption that no individual 

reduced wattage lamp option will be 

coupled to more than 10 percent of the 

dimming ballasts in the installed stock, 

owing to performance problems that 

may arise in some applications. (NEMA, 

No. 54 at p. 33) NEMA further 

commented that DOE cannot assume 

energy savings from pairing 28W 

energy-saver lamps with dimming 

ballasts, as DOE cannot presume that 

consumers will tolerate not having full 

dimming functionality with these 

lamps. NEMA specified that DOE must 

remove all energy savings estimated to 

result from the energy-saver lamps in 

this scenario and instead assume fullwattage lamps would be installed. 

(NEMA, No. 54 at p. 36) 

In its assessment of the market, DOE 

noted the presence of T8 dimming 

ballasts whose marketing materials 

indicated compatibility with reduced 

wattage lamps. Therefore, DOE believes 

that at least some consumers with 

dimming ballasts would consider 

coupling them to such lamps. DOE is 

aware, however, that in some cases 

significant performance degradation is 

possible when coupling reduced 

wattage lamps to dimming ballasts. 

Therefore, DOE assumed that only a 

small fraction of consumers with 

dimming ballasts would consider 

purchasing reduced wattage lamps to 

install on their ballasts. Specifically, 

DOE took this fraction to be 10 percent 

of consumers who have dimming 

ballasts. This represents the fraction of 

consumers who would consider such a 

lamp-ballast combination among the set 

of plausible options; not all such 

consumers will in fact decide to 

purchase reduced wattage lamps. Thus, 

the fraction of dimming ballasts that are 

coupled to reduced wattage lamps 

remains exceedingly small in DOE’s 

projections throughout the analysis 

period. 

NEMA commented that, although 4- 

foot T8 argon lamps can have efficacies 

of 89, 90, 91, or 92.4 lumens per watt, 

at different efficacies these lamps will 

still operate at the same wattages, and 

instead they would just provide 

different illumination. Therefore, NEMA 

stated that there is no meaningful 

difference in national energy use impact 

from choosing any of these three levels 

above 89 lm/W. Furthermore, NEMA 

added that an energy conservation 

standard for 4-foot MBP GSFLs at 89 lm/ 

W will maintain consumer utility as 

well as increase national energy savings 

by increasing use of dimming systems. 

(NEMA, No. 54 at p. 14) 

DOE does not agree that lamps at 

different efficacies will still operate at 

the same wattages. DOE considers two 

modes by which energy savings can be 

achieved with full-wattage lamps. First, 

when using more efficacious lamps, 

consumers with dimming ballasts may 

dim their systems to a lower input 

wattage to achieve the same light 

output. Second, consumers undertaking 

renovations, lighting retrofits, and new 

construction may select lower ballast 

factors on average if only high-efficacy 

lamps are available on the market. 

Regarding NEMA’s claim that a standard 

at 89 lm/W will increase national energy 

savings by maintaining utility and 

increasing use of dimming systems, 

DOE has ensured that, at all ELs 

considered for 4-foot MBP lamps, lamp 

options are available that can be 

coupled to dimming systems. Therefore 

DOE does not believe that this final rule 

will negatively impact the energy 

savings that is available from dimming. 

DOE accounts for the direct rebound 

effect in its NES analysis. Direct 

rebound reflects the idea that, as 

appliances become more efficient, 

consumers use more of their service 

because their operating cost is reduced. 

In the case of lighting, the rebound 

could be manifested in increased hours 

of use or in increased lighting density 

(fixtures per square foot). Based on 

information evaluated for the 

preliminary analysis, DOE assumed no 

rebound for the residential or 

commercial lighting in its reference 

scenario for the final rule analysis. 

NEMA commented that, if light levels 

are reduced through energy-saver lamps 

or lower ballast factor ballasts, end users 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4094 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

could offset the reduction in light levels 

by increasing the GSFL use or through 

other technologies, thereby reducing the 

energy-saving benefit. NEMA referenced 

an article and a report that they believe 

support their point of view. (NEMA, No. 

54 at p. 36) Additionally, Miller 

commented that DOE should evaluate 

whether there was a measurable 

rebound effect resulting from use of 

more energy-efficient lamps. (Miller, 

No. 50 at p. 12) 

DOE is not aware of any 

methodologically sound studies that 

have quantified a direct rebound effect 

for lighting efficacy improvement in 

commercial buildings, where most 

GSFLs are used. As discussed in chapter 

12 of the final rule TSD, DOE did not 

find evidence of systematic increases in 

operating hours or lighting density of 

GSFLs or IRLs with increased efficacy of 

these products. The items mentioned by 

NEMA refer to the potential for higher 

lighting demand when consumers start 

using LEDs. DOE believes that adoption 

of LEDs would not be impacted by the 

standards in this notice, so any rebound 

effect associated with this lighting 

technology is not germane. Based on the 

weight of the evidence, DOE assumed 

zero rebound for GSFLs or IRLs with 

increased efficacy. DOE also conducted 

a sensitivity analysis assuming a high 

rebound rate of 15 percent, which is 

presented in chapter 12 of the final rule 

TSD. Using a high rebound rate does not 

change the relative ranking of the 

considered TSLs. 

DOE converted the site electricity 

consumption and savings to primary 

energy (power sector energy 

consumption) using annual conversion 

factors derived from the AEO 2014 

version of NEMS. Cumulative energy 

savings are the sum of the NES for each 

year in which product shipped during 

2018 through 2047 continue to operate. 

DOE has historically presented NES 

in terms of primary energy savings. In 

2011, response to the recommendations 

of a committee on ‘‘Point-of-Use and 

Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement 

Approaches to Energy Efficiency 

Standards’’ appointed by the National 

Academy of Science, DOE announced 

its intention to use FFC measures of 

energy use and emissions in the NIA 

and emissions analysis included in 

future energy conservation standards 

rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (August 18, 

2011). After evaluating the approaches 

discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, 

DOE published a statement of amended 

policy in the Federal Register in which 

DOE explained its determination that 

NEMS is the most appropriate tool for 

its FFC analysis and its intention to use 

NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701 

(August 17, 2012). Therefore DOE is 

using a NEMS-based approach to 

conduct FFC analyses for this rule. This 

approach is further described in 

appendix 12C of the final rule TSD. 

GE and NEMA stated that there are no 

energy savings from switching from T8 

lamps to T5 lamps. GE mentioned that, 

although the efficacies of T5 lamps are 

measured at high frequency and T8 

lamps are measured at low frequency, 

the lamps have similar efficacies. (GE, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 

163) NEMA commented that the 

efficiencies of T8 and T5 lamps are not 

directly comparable, because the 

efficiencies are measured differently. 

(NEMA, No. 54 at p. 14, p. 46) NEMA 

further added that the T5 lamp-ballast 

systems have the same power 

consumption as the equivalent T8 lampballast systems. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 49 at p. 163; NEMA, No. 

54 at p. 46) 

DOE does not assume an automatic 

energy savings from switching from a T8 

system to a T5 system. The energy use 

of a lamp-and-ballast system is 

calculated using the wattage of the 

installed lamps as well as the ballast 

factor and ballast luminous efficacy of 

the ballast on which the lamps are 

installed. DOE notes that, while it does 

not assume automatic energy savings of 

a T5 system compared to a T8 system, 

there are T5 lamp-and-ballast 

combinations (e.g., low ballast factor 

ballast coupled with high efficacy 

lamps) that can have lower power 

consumption compared to a T8 system 

of similar light output. Further, DOE 

agrees that testing on high frequency 

circuits versus low frequency circuits 

impacts efficacy measurements. Per 

DOE test procedure, GSFLs are tested at 

low frequency unless only high 

frequency reference ballast 

specifications are available. The T5 

MiniBP SO and HO lamps and 8-foot 

RDC HO should be tested on high 

frequency circuits, as those are the only 

specifications provided for these lamp 

types. The 4-foot MBP, 2-foot U-shaped 

and 8-foot SP slimline lamps should be 

tested on low frequency circuits. 

Therefore, within each product class, 

the lamp efficacies should be 

comparable, however, efficacies of 

lamps across product classes may not be 

comparable. 

NEMA noted that PAR38 lamps that 

currently meet the proposed standard 

are not available through consumer 

channels and consumers would lose all 

reasonable options for PAR lamps. 

(NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 10) DOE 

understands that the availability of 

certain PAR lamps may be concentrated 

in the commercial sector. However, DOE 

does not find that to be a barrier to such 

lamps becoming available and used in 

other sectors of the market. 

NEMA noted that setting new 

standards for 130 V IRLs would be a 

waste of resources and would skew 

energy savings estimates, as the product 

is no longer available. (NEMA, No. 54 at 

p. 54) DOE assumes in its analysis that 

there are no 130 V IRLs on the market. 

No energy savings from such products 

are assumed. 

2. Net Present Value of Consumer 

Benefit 

The inputs for determining the NPV 

of the total costs and benefits 

experienced by consumers of the 

considered product are: (1) Total annual 

installed cost; (2) total annual savings in 

operating costs; and (3) a discount factor 

to calculate the present value of costs 

and savings. DOE calculated net savings 

each year as the difference between the 

base case and each standards case in 

terms of total savings in operating costs 

versus total increases in installed costs. 

DOE calculated savings over the lifetime 

of products shipped during in the 2018– 

2047 period. The NPV was calculated as 

the difference between the present value 

of operating cost savings and the present 

value of total installed costs. 

a. Total Annual Installed Cost 

The total installed cost includes both 

the product price and the installation 

cost. For each product class, DOE 

utilized weighted-average prices for 

each of the lamp-and-ballast options, as 

well as installation costs, as developed 

in the engineering and LCC analyses. 

DOE calculated the total installed cost 

for each lamp-and-ballast option and 

determined annual total installed costs 

based on the annual shipments of lamps 

and ballasts determined in the 

shipments model. As noted in section 

VI.I, DOE assumed that GSFL and IRL 

prices decline slowly over the analysis 

period according to a learning rate 

developed from historical data. 

As discussed in section VI.I, DOE 

considered two price scenarios in its 

modeling for GSFLs. The reference 

scenario assumes that rare earth prices 

remain fixed at their June 2014 level. 

The high rare earth price scenario 

assumes that rare earth prices are 4.5 

times higher than the reference level, 

representing a value at the midpoint of 

the low pre-2010 baseline price and the 

peak 2011 price. The impact of the latter 

scenario on the NPV results is discussed 

in section VII.B.3.c. 

NEEP expressed support for DOE’s 

REO pricing analysis (NEEP, No. 57 at 

p. 3), but NEMA stated that DOE does 

not include an analysis of price 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4095 

67OMB Circular A–4, section E (Sept. 17, 2003). 

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

a004_a-4. 

elasticity and consumer buying 

practices during previous REO 

shortages. NEMA also noted that the 

proposed standards would create an 

REO shortage. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 34; 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 

180–182) 

DOE estimates that, for the amended 

standards, the annual increase in 

demand for REOs will be approximately 

300 tons per year in the first 5 years, 

which amounts to less than 1 percent of 

the annual 8,000-ton global demand for 

REOs used in phosphors. DOE expects 

that demand will steadily decrease over 

the analysis period owing to the 

increasing LED market. Therefore, DOE 

does not believe that the amended 

standards will cause a significant 

change in the supply of REOs. 

For IRLs, DOE conducted a sensitivity 

analysis on the potential impact on the 

rulemaking of a 10-fold increase in 

xenon prices. The impact of the scenario 

on the results is discussed in section 

VII.B.3.c. 

b. Total Annual Operating Cost Savings 

The per-unit energy savings were 

derived as described in section III.C. To 

calculate future electricity prices, DOE 

applied the projected trend in national 

average commercial and residential 

electricity prices from the AEO 2014 

Reference case, which extends to 2040, 

to the energy prices derived in the LCC 

and PBP analysis. DOE used the trend 

from 2030 to 2040 to extrapolate beyond 

2040. In addition, DOE analyzed 

scenarios that used the trends in the 

AEO 2014 Low Economic Growth and 

High Economic Growth cases. These 

cases have energy price trends that are, 

respectively, lower and higher in the 

long term compared to the Reference 

case. These price trends, and the NPV 

results from the associated cases, are 

described in chapter 12 of the final rule 

TSD. 

DOE estimated that annual 

maintenance costs do not vary with 

efficacy within each product class, so 

they do not figure into the annual 

operating cost savings for a given 

standards case. DOE utilized the lamp 

disposal costs developed in the LCC 

analysis, along with the shipments 

model forecast of the lamp retirements 

in each year, to estimate the annual cost 

savings related to lamp disposal costs 

from extended lamp lifetime. In the 

NIA, DOE assumes that 30 percent of 

commercial consumers are subject to 

disposal costs. 

In calculating the NPV, DOE 

multiplies the net savings in future 

years by a discount factor to determine 

their present value. In accordance with 

OMB’s guidelines on regulatory 

analysis,67 DOE calculated the NPV 

using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent 

real discount rate. The 7-percent rate is 

an estimate of the average before-tax rate 

of return on private capital in the U.S. 

economy; it reflects the returns on real 

estate and small business capital as well 

as corporate capital. This discount rate 

approximates the opportunity cost of 

capital in the private sector. The 3- 

percent rate reflects the potential effects 

of standards on private consumption 

(e.g., through higher prices for product 

and reduced purchases of energy). This 

rate represents the rate at which society 

discounts future consumption flows to 

their present value. It can be 

approximated by the real rate of return 

on long-term government debt (i.e., 

yield on U.S. Treasury notes), which has 

averaged about 3 percent for the past 30 

years. 

K. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

DOE conducted separate MIAs for 

GSFLs and IRLs to estimate the financial 

impact of potential amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of GSFLs and IRLs, 

respectively. The MIA has both 

quantitative and qualitative aspects. The 

quantitative part of the MIA relies on 

the GRIM, an industry cash-flow model 

customized for GSFLs and IRLs covered 

in this rulemaking. The key GRIM 

inputs are data on the industry cost 

structure, product costs, shipments, and 

assumptions about markups and 

conversion costs. The key MIA output is 

INPV. DOE used the GRIM to calculate 

cash flows using standard accounting 

principles and to compare changes in 

INPV between a base case and various 

TSLs (the standards cases). The 

difference in INPV between the base and 

standards cases represents the financial 

impact of potential amended energy 

conservation standards on GSFL and 

IRL manufacturers. Different sets of 

assumptions (scenarios) produce 

different INPV results. The qualitative 

part of the MIA addresses factors such 

as manufacturing capacity; 

characteristics of, and impacts on, any 

particular subgroup of manufacturers; 

impacts on competition; and the 

cumulative regulatory burden placed on 

GSFL and IRL manufacturers. 

DOE outlined its complete 

methodology for the MIA in the 

previously published NOPR. Also, the 

complete MIA is presented in chapter 

13 of the final rule TSD. 

1. Manufacturer Production Costs 

Manufacturing more efficacious lamps 

is typically more expensive than 

manufacturing baseline lamps due to 

the need for more costly components 

and materials used in the lamps as well 

as more extensive R&D to design the 

more efficacious lamps. The resulting 

changes in the manufacturer product 

costs (MPCs) of the representative lamps 

can affect the revenues, gross margins, 

and cash flows of lamp manufacturers. 

DOE strives to accurately model the 

potential changes in these production 

costs, as they are a key input for the 

GRIM and DOE’s overall analysis. For 

the final rule, DOE updated the dollar 

year of the MPCs from 2012$, the dollar 

year used in the NOPR, to 2013$. 

2. Shipment Projections 

Changes in sales volumes and efficacy 

distribution of lamps over time can 

significantly affect manufacturer 

finances. The GRIM estimates 

manufacturer revenues based on total 

unit shipment projections and the 

distribution of shipments by efficacy 

level. For the final rule, DOE slightly 

altered the distribution of shipments 

based on interested party comments. 

DOE also updated the shipments to 

reflect the potential amended standard 

going into effect in 2018 as opposed to 

2017, the standard compliance date 

used in the NOPR. This had a negligible 

effect on the MIA results. For the MIA, 

the GRIM used the NIA’s annual 

shipment projections from 2015, the 

base year, to 2047, the end of the 

analysis period. For a complete 

description of the shipment analysis see 

chapter 11 of the final rule TSD. 

3. Markup Scenarios 

For the GSFL and IRL NOPR MIAs, 

DOE modeled two standards case 

markup scenarios to represent the 

uncertainty regarding the potential 

impacts on prices and profitability for 

manufacturers following the 

implementation of potential amended 

energy conservation standards: (1) A 

flat, or preservation of gross margin, 

markup scenario and (2) a preservation 

of operating profit markup scenario. 

Each scenario leads to different 

manufacturer markup values, which 

when applied to the inputted MPCs, 

result in varying revenue and cash-flow 

impacts. 

During the NOPR public meeting, 

Philips and Westinghouse commented 

that DOE should consider a third 

markup scenario for GSFLs where 

manufacturers are not able to maintain 

the absolute dollars on their GSFLs, as 

they do in the preservation of operating 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4096 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

profit, due to the increase in MPC of 

GSFLs as a result of amended energy 

conservation standards. Philips stated 

that amended standards could cause a 

total commoditization of the GSFL 

market, especially at max-tech, so the 

only way to differentiate products is by 

price. They also stated that since 

manufacturers have already established 

the pricing levels for these GSFLs, it is 

hard to justify an increase in the price 

after standards go into effect, as many of 

the big box retail stores are not going to 

accept a higher price for GSFLs. Both of 

the factors likely will result in 

manufacturers reducing their 

manufacturer markups. (Philips, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 216– 

217; Westinghouse, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 221–222) 

Based on the GSFL market pricing 

conditions described during 

manufacturer interviews, DOE 

concluded that the markup scenario 

recommended by Philips and 

Westinghouse is a realistic markup 

scenario that should be incorporated 

into the MIA to reflect the range of 

possible outcomes following GSFL 

standards. Therefore, DOE examined the 

INPV impacts of a two-tiered markup 

scenario in the final rule for the GSFL 

MIA as a result of these comments. The 

results of this additional markup 

scenario are displayed in section 

VII.B.2.a, along with the rest of the 

manufacturer INPV results. 

In the two-tiered markup scenario, 

DOE assumed that higher efficacy 

GSFLs command a higher manufacturer 

markup and baseline efficacy GSFLs 

subsequently have a lower manufacturer 

markup. DOE estimated the 

manufacturer markups for GSFLs under 

a two-tier pricing strategy in the base 

case based on manufacturer interviews 

conducted as part of the NOPR analysis. 

In the standards case, DOE modeled the 

situation in which portfolio reduction 

reduces the margin of higher efficacy 

GSFLs as they become the new baseline 

efficacy products due to amended 

standards. This new two-tiered markup 

scenario represents the lower bound 

profitability markup scenario. 

4. Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

Amended energy conservation 

standards will cause manufacturers to 

incur one-time conversion costs to bring 

their production facilities and product 

designs into compliance. For the MIA, 

DOE classified these one-time 

conversion costs into two major groups: 

(1) Product conversion costs and (2) 

capital conversion costs. Product 

conversion costs are one-time 

investments in R&D, testing, 

compliance, marketing, and other noncapitalized costs necessary to make 

product designs comply with amended 

standards. Capital conversion costs are 

one-time investments in property, plant, 

and equipment necessary to adapt or 

change existing production facilities 

such that new product designs can be 

fabricated and assembled. For the final 

rule, DOE only updated the dollar year 

of the conversion costs from 2012$, the 

dollar year used in the NOPR, to 2013$. 

During the NOPR public meeting GE 

and Philips commented that they 

believe that IRL manufacturers would be 

unwilling to make large investments to 

make sure IRLs comply with energy 

conservation standards at TSL 1, since 

the market is changing so rapidly to 

LEDs and manufacturers might not ever 

be able to recover any substantial 

investment put in upgrading their IRLs. 

(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

49 at p. 231 & GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 49 a pp. 231–232) DOE 

understands manufacturers’ concern 

with making significant investments in 

a product that is rapidly losing market 

share and projected to experience a 

significant decline in shipments over 

the analysis period. DOE took these 

manufacturers’ concerns into account 

when selecting the standards for IRLs in 

this final rule. 

5. Other Comments From Interested 

Parties 

During the NOPR public meeting and 

comment period, interested parties 

commented on the assumptions, 

methodology, and results of the NOPR 

MIA. DOE received comments about the 

potential high cost to manufacturers 

versus the relatively low energy savings 

for the NOPR standards proposed; the 

potential negative impacts on 

competition due to standards; and the 

potential impact of standards on 

alternative lighting technologies. These 

comments are addressed in the 

following sections. 

a. High Cost to Manufacturers Versus 

Relatively Low Energy Savings 

NEMA and GE commented that the 

pending IRL standards as proposed in 

the NOPR would have a significant 

negative impact on IRL manufacturers’ 

INPV while only marginally 

contributing to the projected energy 

savings. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 3–5 & GE, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 

217–218) DOE agrees that as proposed 

in the NOPR, the IRL standards at TSL 

1 could reduce IRL manufacturers’ INPV 

by up to 29.5 percent and would save 

an estimated 0.013 quads. DOE carefully 

examines all potential burdens, such as 

a potential decrease in manufacturers’ 

INPV and the cumulative regulatory 

burden placed on manufacturers by 

additional regulations, against potential 

benefits, such as energy savings and 

consumer benefits, when determining 

final standards. Both the benefits and 

burdens for this rulemaking were 

closely examined before making a final 

decision regarding the IRL standards. 

See section VII.C.3 of this final rule for 

a complete description of the potential 

benefits and burdens of IRL standards. 

b. Impacts on Competition 

A couple of interested parties 

commented that DOE should use the 

Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) to 

examine whether potential energy 

conservation standards could 

significantly lessen competition in an 

industry. (Kidwell, No. 53 at pp. 1–6 & 

Miller, No. 50 at pp. 10–11, 13) The HHI 

is used by DOJ to examine market 

consolidation in the case of potential 

mergers. In these cases there is clear 

market share information before and 

after the event being analyzed, a 

potential merger. However, when 

examining potential energy 

conservation standards it is more 

difficult to accurately predict how 

individual manufacturers will respond 

to potential standards. 

The decision of an individual 

manufacturer to make an upfront 

investment in order to comply with 

potential standards and remain in an 

existing market as opposed to exit the 

market is a complex business. For the 

GSFL and IRL rulemakings there is no 

technical reason any of the major 

manufacturers could not continue to 

manufacture compliant products, could 

maintain their current market share 

within an industry, or would be forced 

to exit the market. DOE acknowledges 

that both the GSFL and IRL markets are 

moderately concentrated markets, 

according to the HHI. However, based 

on manufacturer interviews, DOE does 

not believe there is any technical or 

proprietary reason the market share of 

either the GSFL or IRL markets would 

substantially change due to the energy 

conservation standards established in 

this final rule. Therefore, an analysis 

using the HHI would not be able to 

determine if standards lessened 

competition, since the market share 

before the standards would be similar to 

the market share after the standards. 

c. Impact of GSFL and IRL Standards on 

Alternative Lighting Technologies 

NEEP commented that the MIA 

should account for the potential growth 

in other lighting technologies (i.e., 

LEDs), since alternative lighting sales 

are projected to take market share away 

from GSFLs and IRLs in the future. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4097 

68 DOE’s FFC was amended in 2012 for reasons 

unrelated to the inclusion of CH4 and N2O. 77 FR 

49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). 

69http://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/

inventory/ghg-emissions.html. 

70 IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical 

Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to 

the Fifth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

[Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, 

S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex 

and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University 

Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, 

NY, USA. Chapter 8. 

71See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. 

Cir. 2008); North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). 

72See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 

696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 81 

U.S.L.W. 3567, 81 U.S.L.W. 3696, 81 U.S.L.W. 3702 

(U.S. June 24, 2013) (No. 12–1182). 

73On April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court 

reversed the judgment of the D.C. Circuit and 

remanded the case for further proceedings 

consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. The 

Supreme Court held in part that EPA’s methodology 

for quantifying emissions that must be eliminated 

in certain states due to their impacts in other 

downwind states was based on a permissible, 

workable, and equitable interpretation of the Clean 

Air Act provision that provides statutory authority 

for CSAPR. See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 

No 12–1182, slip op. at 32 (U.S. April 29, 2014). On 

October 23, 2014, the DC Circuit lifted the stay of 

CSAPR and CSAPR is scheduled to go into effect 

(and the CAIR will sunset) as of January 1, 2015. 

Because DOE is using emissions factors based on 

AEO 2014 for this rule, the final rule assumes that 

CAIR, not CSAPR, is the regulation in force. The 

difference between CAIR and CSAPR is not relevant 

for the purpose of DOE’s analysis of SO2 emissions. 

(NEEP, No. 57 at p.3) DOE’s shipment 

analysis does predict that LEDs and 

other alternative lighting technologies 

will significantly take more and more 

market share away from GSFLs and IRLs 

in future years. This growing LED 

market share is modeled in the base case 

of the shipment analysis when no 

energy conservation standards are 

enacted, and is therefore independent 

from any GSFL or IRL standards that are 

being analyzed in this rulemaking. 

The shipment analysis does not 

anticipate that consumers will shift to 

LEDs as a result of potential GSFL or 

IRL standards and therefore the total 

number of lighting hours fulfilled by 

GSFLs and IRLs is the same in the base 

case as in the standards cases. Since 

DOE is attempting to model the direct 

impacts of the GSFL and IRL standards 

independently from other external 

factors that are occurring in the GSFL 

and IRL markets, DOE does not believe 

it should include revenue from the sale 

of alternative lighting technologies in 

the MIA for GSFLs and IRLs. See the 

shipments analysis in chapter 11 of the 

final rule TSD for a complete 

description of how GSFL and IRL 

shipments change in response to 

potential GSFL and IRL standards. 

6. Manufacturer Interviews 

DOE interviewed manufacturers 

representing more than 90 percent of 

covered GSFL and more than 80 percent 

of covered IRL sales in the United 

States. The NOPR interviews were in 

addition to the preliminary interviews 

DOE conducted as part of the 

preliminary analysis. DOE outlined the 

key issues for the rulemaking for GSFL 

and IRL manufacturers in the NOPR. 79 

FR at 24136–7 (April 29, 2014) DOE 

considered the information received 

during these interviews in the 

development of the NOPR and this final 

rule. Comments on the NOPR regarding 

the impact of potential amended 

standards on manufacturers were 

discussed in the previous sections. DOE 

did not conduct interviews with 

manufacturers between the publication 

of the NOPR and this final rule. Also, 

DOE did not receive any comments on 

the manufacturer key issues identified 

in the NOPR. 

L. Emissions Analysis 

In the emissions analysis, DOE 

estimated the reduction in power sector 

emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), and mercury (Hg) from potential 

energy conservation standards for 

GSFLs and IRLs. In addition, DOE 

estimates emissions impacts in 

production activities (extracting, 

processing, and transporting fuels) that 

provide the energy inputs to power 

plants. These are referred to as 

‘‘upstream’’ emissions. Together, these 

emissions account for the full-fuel-cycle 

(FFC). In accordance with DOE’s FFC 

Statement of Policy (76 FR 51282 (Aug. 

18, 2011)),68 the FFC analysis also 

includes impacts on emissions of 

methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), 

both of which are recognized as 

greenhouse gases. 

DOE primarily conducted the 

emissions analysis using emissions 

factors for CO2 and most of the other 

gases derived from data in AEO 2014. 

Combustion emissions of CH4 and N2O 

were estimated using emissions 

intensity factors published by the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), GHG Emissions Factors Hub.69

DOE developed separate emissions 

factors for power sector emissions and 

upstream emissions. The method that 

DOE used to derive emissions factors is 

described in chapter 14 of the final rule 

TSD. 

For CH4 and N2O, DOE calculated 

emissions reduction in tons and also in 

terms of units of carbon dioxide 

equivalent (CO2eq). Gases are converted 

to CO2eq by multiplying the physical 

units by the gas’ global warming 

potential (GWP) over a 100-year time 

horizon. Based on the Fifth Assessment 

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change,70 DOE used GWP 

values of 28 for CH4 and 265 for N2O. 

EIA prepares the Annual Energy 

Outlook using NEMS. Each annual 

version of NEMS incorporates the 

projected impacts of existing air quality 

regulations on emissions. AEO 2014 

generally represents current legislation 

and environmental regulations, 

including recent government actions, for 

which implementing regulations were 

available as of October 31, 2013. 

SO2 emissions from affected electric 

generating units (EGUs) are subject to 

nationwide and regional emissions capand-trade programs. Title IV of the 

Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions 

cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 

contiguous states and the District of 

Columbia (DC). SO2 emissions from 28 

eastern states and DC were also limited 

under the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR; 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005)), 

which created an allowance-based 

trading program that operates along 

with the Title IV program. CAIR was 

remanded to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) by the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit but it remained in 

effect.71 In 2011, EPA issued a 

replacement for CAIR, the Cross-State 

Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 76 FR 

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

2012, the DC Circuit issued a decision 

to vacate CSAPR.72 The court ordered 

EPA to continue administering CAIR. 

The emissions factors used for this rule, 

which are based on AEO 2014, assume 

that CAIR remains a binding regulation 

through 2040.73

The attainment of emissions caps is 

typically flexible among EGUs and is 

enforced through the use of emissions 

allowances and tradable permits. 

Beginning in 2016, however, SO2

emissions will decline significantly as a 

result of the Mercury and Air Toxics 

Standards (MATS) for power plants. 77 

FR 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012). In the final 

MATS rule, EPA established a standard 

for hydrogen chloride as a surrogate for 

acid gas hazardous air pollutants (HAP), 

and also established a standard for SO2

(a non-HAP acid gas) as an alternative 

equivalent surrogate standard for acid 

gas HAP. The same controls are used to 

reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas; 

thus, SO2 emissions will be reduced as 

a result of the control technologies 

installed on coal-fired power plants to 

comply with the MATS requirements 

for acid gas. AEO 2014 assumes that, in 

order to continue operating, coal plants 

must have either flue gas 

desulfurization or dry sorbent injection 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4098 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

74CSAPR also applies to NOX, and it would 

supersede the regulation of NOX under CAIR. As 

stated previously, the current analysis assumes that 

CAIR, not CSAPR, is the regulation in force. The 

difference between CAIR and CSAPR with regard to 

DOE’s analysis of NOX is slight. 

systems installed by 2016. Both 

technologies, which are used to reduce 

acid gas emissions, also reduce SO2

emissions. Under the MATS, emissions 

will be far below the cap established by 

CAIR, so it is unlikely that excess SO2

emissions allowances resulting from the 

lower electricity demand would be 

needed or used to permit offsetting 

increases in SO2 emissions by any 

regulated EGU. Therefore, DOE believes 

that energy efficiency standards will 

reduce SO2 emissions in 2016 and 

beyond 

CAIR established a cap on NOX

emissions in 28 eastern States and the 

District of Columbia.74 Energy 

conservation standards are expected to 

have little effect on NOX emissions in 

those States covered by CAIR because 

excess NOX emissions allowances 

resulting from the lower electricity 

demand could be used to permit 

offsetting increases in NOX emissions. 

However, standards would be expected 

to reduce NOX emissions in the States 

not affected by the caps, so DOE 

estimated NOX emissions reductions 

from the standards considered in this 

rule for these States. 

The MATS limit mercury emissions 

from power plants, but they do not 

include emissions caps. DOE estimated 

mercury emissions reduction using 

emissions factors based on AEO 2014, 

which incorporates the MATS. 

M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and 

Other Emissions Impacts 

As part of the development of this 

rule, DOE considered the estimated 

monetary benefits from the reduced 

emissions of CO2 and NOX that are 

expected to result from each of the TSLs 

considered. In order to make this 

calculation similar to the calculation of 

the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE 

considered the reduced emissions 

expected to result over the lifetime of 

products shipped in the forecast period 

for each TSL. This section summarizes 

the basis for the monetary values used 

for each of these emissions and presents 

the values considered in this 

rulemaking. 

For this rule, DOE is relying on a set 

of values for the social cost of carbon 

(SCC) that was developed by an 

interagency process. A summary of the 

basis for these values is provided in the 

following section, and a more detailed 

description of the methodologies used is 

provided as an appendix to chapter 15 

of the final rule TSD. 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

The SCC is an estimate of the 

monetized damages associated with an 

incremental increase in carbon 

emissions in a given year. It is intended 

to include (but is not limited to) changes 

in net agricultural productivity, human 

health, property damages from 

increased flood risk, and the value of 

ecosystem services. Estimates of the 

SCC are provided in dollars per metric 

ton of carbon dioxide. A domestic SCC 

value is meant to reflect the value of 

damages in the United States resulting 

from a unit change in carbon dioxide 

emissions, while a global SCC value is 

meant to reflect the value of damages 

worldwide. 

Under section 1(b)(6) of Executive 

Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), 

agencies must, to the extent permitted 

by law, assess both the costs and the 

benefits of the intended regulation and, 

recognizing that some costs and benefits 

are difficult to quantify, propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. The 

purpose of the SCC estimates presented 

here is to allow agencies to incorporate 

the monetized social benefits of 

reducing CO2 emissions into costbenefit analyses of regulatory actions 

that have small, or ‘‘marginal,’’ impacts 

on cumulative global emissions. The 

estimates are presented with an 

acknowledgement of the many 

uncertainties involved and with a clear 

understanding that they should be 

updated over time to reflect increasing 

knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts. 

As part of the interagency process that 

developed the SCC estimates, technical 

experts from numerous agencies met on 

a regular basis to consider public 

comments, explore the technical 

literature in relevant fields, and discuss 

key model inputs and assumptions. The 

main objective of this process was to 

develop a range of SCC values using a 

defensible set of input assumptions 

grounded in the existing scientific and 

economic literatures. In this way, key 

uncertainties and model differences 

transparently and consistently inform 

the range of SCC estimates used in the 

rulemaking process. 

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

When attempting to assess the 

incremental economic impacts of carbon 

dioxide emissions, the analyst faces a 

number of challenges. A report from the 

National Research Council points out 

that any assessment will suffer from 

uncertainty, speculation, and lack of 

information about: (1) Future emissions 

of greenhouse gases; (2) the effects of 

past and future emissions on the climate 

system; (3) the impact of changes in 

climate on the physical and biological 

environment; and (4) the translation of 

these environmental impacts into 

economic damages. As a result, any 

effort to quantify and monetize the 

harms associated with climate change 

will raise serious questions of science, 

economics, and ethics and should be 

viewed as provisional. 

Despite the limits of both 

quantification and monetization, SCC 

estimates can be useful in estimating the 

social benefits of reducing carbon 

dioxide emissions. The agency can 

estimate the benefits from reduced (or 

costs from increased) emissions in any 

future year by multiplying the change in 

emissions in that year by the SCC values 

appropriate for that year. The NPV of 

the benefits can then be calculated by 

multiplying each of these future benefits 

by an appropriate discount factor and 

summing across all affected years. 

It is important to emphasize that the 

interagency process is committed to 

updating these estimates as the science 

and economic understanding of climate 

change and its impacts on society 

improves over time. In the meantime, 

the interagency group will continue to 

explore the issues raised by this analysis 

and consider public comments as part of 

the ongoing interagency process. 

b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon 

Values 

In 2009, an interagency process was 

initiated to offer a preliminary 

assessment of how best to quantify the 

benefits from reducing carbon dioxide 

emissions. To ensure consistency in 

how benefits are evaluated across 

Federal agencies, the Administration 

sought to develop a transparent and 

defensible method, specifically 

designed for the rulemaking process, to 

quantify avoided climate change 

damages from reduced CO2 emissions. 

The interagency group did not 

undertake any original analysis. Instead, 

it combined SCC estimates from the 

existing literature to use as interim 

values until a more comprehensive 

analysis could be conducted. The 

outcome of the preliminary assessment 

by the interagency group was a set of 

five interim values: global SCC 

estimates for 2007 (in 2006$) of $55, 

$33, $19, $10, and $5 per metric ton of 

CO2. These interim values represented 

the first sustained interagency effort 

within the U.S. government to develop 

an SCC for use in regulatory analysis. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4099 

75Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Interagency 

Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United 

States Government, February 2010. http://www.

whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/foragencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-for-RIA.pdf. 

76 It is recognized that this calculation for 

domestic values is approximate, provisional, and 

highly speculative. There is no a priori reason why 

domestic benefits should be a constant fraction of 

net global damages over time. 77Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon 

for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive 

Order 12866. Interagency Working Group on Social 

Cost of Carbon, United States Government. May 

2013; revised November 2013. http://www.

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

inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-forregulator-impact-analysis.pdf. 

The results of this preliminary effort 

were presented in several proposed and 

final rules. 

c. Current Approach and Key 

Assumptions 

After the release of the interim values, 

the interagency group reconvened on a 

regular basis to generate improved SCC 

estimates. Specifically, the group 

considered public comments and 

further explored the technical literature 

in relevant fields. The interagency group 

relied on three integrated assessment 

models commonly used to estimate the 

SCC: the FUND, DICE, and PAGE 

models. These models are frequently 

cited in the peer-reviewed literature and 

were used in the last assessment of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC). Each model was given 

equal weight in the SCC values that 

were developed. 

Each model takes a slightly different 

approach to model how changes in 

emissions result in changes in economic 

damages. A key objective of the 

interagency process was to enable a 

consistent exploration of the three 

models while respecting the different 

approaches to quantifying damages 

taken by the key modelers in the field. 

An extensive review of the literature 

was conducted to select three sets of 

input parameters for these models: 

climate sensitivity, socio-economic and 

emissions trajectories, and discount 

rates. A probability distribution for 

climate sensitivity was specified as an 

input into all three models. In addition, 

the interagency group used a range of 

scenarios for the socio-economic 

parameters and a range of values for the 

discount rate. All other model features 

were left unchanged, relying on the 

model developers’ best estimates and 

judgments. 

The interagency group selected four 

sets of SCC values for use in regulatory 

analyses.75 Three sets of values are 

based on the average SCC from three 

integrated assessment models, at 

discount rates of 2.5 percent, 3 percent, 

and 5 percent. The fourth set, which 

represents the 95th-percentile SCC 

estimate across all three models at a 3- 

percent discount rate, is included to 

represent higher-than-expected impacts 

from climate change further out in the 

tails of the SCC distribution. The values 

grow in real terms over time. 

Additionally, the interagency group 

determined that a range of values from 

7 percent to 23 percent should be used 

to adjust the global SCC to calculate 

domestic effects,76 although preference 

is given to consideration of the global 

benefits of reducing CO2 emissions. 

Table VI.11 presents the values in the 

2010 interagency group report, which is 

reproduced in appendix 15A of the final 

rule TSD. 

TABLE VI.11—ANNUAL SCC VALUES FROM 2010 INTERAGENCY REPORT, 2010–2050 

[In 2007 dollars per metric ton CO2] 

Year 

Discount rate % 

5 3 2.5 3 

Average Average Average 95th Percentile 

2010 ................................................................................................................. 4.7 21.4 35.1 64.9 

2015 ................................................................................................................. 5.7 23.8 38.4 72.8 

2020 ................................................................................................................. 6.8 26.3 41.7 80.7 

2025 ................................................................................................................. 8.2 29.6 45.9 90.4 

2030 ................................................................................................................. 9.7 32.8 50.0 100.0 

2035 ................................................................................................................. 11.2 36.0 54.2 109.7 

2040 ................................................................................................................. 12.7 39.2 58.4 119.3 

2045 ................................................................................................................. 14.2 42.1 61.7 127.8 

2050 ................................................................................................................. 15.7 44.9 65.0 136.2 

The SCC values used for the rule were 

generated using the most recent versions 

of the three integrated assessment 

models that have been published in the 

peer-reviewed literature.77 Table VI.12 

shows the updated sets of SCC estimates 

from the 2013 interagency update in 

five-year increments from 2010 to 2050. 

Appendix 15B of the final rule TSD 

provides the full set of values. The 

central value that emerges is the average 

SCC across models at 3-percent discount 

rate. However, for purposes of capturing 

the uncertainties involved in regulatory 

impact analysis, the interagency group 

emphasizes the importance of including 

all four sets of SCC values. 

TABLE VI.12—ANNUAL SCC VALUES FROM 2013 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2010–2050 

[In 2007 dollars per metric ton CO2] 

Year 

Discount rate % 

5 3 2.5 3 

Average Average Average 95th Percentile 

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

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

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4100 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VI.12—ANNUAL SCC VALUES FROM 2013 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2010–2050—Continued 

[In 2007 dollars per metric ton CO2] 

Year 

Discount rate % 

5 3 2.5 3 

Average Average Average 95th Percentile 

2025 ................................................................................................................. 14 47 69 143 

2030 ................................................................................................................. 16 52 75 159 

2035 ................................................................................................................. 19 56 80 175 

2040 ................................................................................................................. 21 61 86 191 

2045 ................................................................................................................. 24 66 92 206 

2050 ................................................................................................................. 26 71 97 220 

It is important to recognize that a 

number of key uncertainties remain, and 

that current SCC estimates should be 

treated as provisional and revisable 

since they will evolve with improved 

scientific and economic understanding. 

The interagency group also recognizes 

that the existing models are imperfect 

and incomplete. The National Research 

Council report mentioned above points 

out that there is tension between the 

goal of producing quantified estimates 

of the economic damages from an 

incremental ton of carbon and the limits 

of existing efforts to model these effects. 

There are a number of analytical 

challenges that are being addressed by 

the research community, including 

research programs housed in many of 

the Federal agencies participating in the 

interagency process to estimate the SCC. 

The interagency group intends to 

periodically review and reconsider 

those estimates to reflect increasing 

knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts, as well as 

improvements in modeling. 

In summary, in considering the 

potential global benefits resulting from 

reduced CO2 emissions, DOE used the 

values from the 2013 interagency report, 

adjusted to 2013$ using the Gross 

Domestic Product price deflator. For 

each of the four SCC cases specified, the 

values used for emissions in 2015 were 

$12.0, $40.5, $62.4, and $119 per metric 

ton avoided (values expressed in 

2013$). DOE derived values after 2050 

using the relevant growth rates for the 

2040–2050 period in the interagency 

update. 

DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions 

reduction estimated for each year by the 

SCC value for that year in each of the 

four cases. To calculate a present value 

of the stream of monetary values, DOE 

discounted the values in each of the 

four cases using the specific discount 

rate that had been used to obtain the 

SCC values in each case. 

The Associations objected to DOE’s 

continued use of the SCC in the costbenefit analysis performed in 

connection with this proposed rule, and 

they believe the SCC should be 

withdrawn as a basis for the rule. They 

stated that the SCC calculation should 

not be used in any rulemaking or 

policymaking until it undergoes a more 

rigorous notice, review, and comment 

process. (The Associations, No. 51 at p. 

4) In contrast, the Joint Commenters 

stated that the current SCC values are 

sufficiently robust and accurate to 

continue to be the basis for regulatory 

analysis going forward. They argued 

that, if anything, current values are 

significant underestimates of the SCC. 

They stated that the interagency 

working group’s analytic process was 

science-based, open, and transparent, 

and the SCC is an important and 

accepted tool for regulatory policymaking, based on well-established law 

and fundamental economics. (The Joint 

Comment, 48 at p. 1) 

NEMA presented a critique—based 

largely on the writing of Robert Pindyck 

of the Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology—of the integrated 

assessment models (IAMs) used in 

projecting future damages from CO2

emissions. The critique included strong 

criticisms of the IAMs’ climate 

sensitivity analysis and damage 

function. NEMA argued that given the 

enormous uncertainty in the IAMs, 

these models—even ‘‘averaged’’ as the 

Interagency Working Group has done— 

are poor tools for agency decisionmaking, particularly with respect to 

products regulated by EPCA that are not 

themselves a source of emissions. 

(NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 39–44) 

DOE acknowledges the limitations of 

the SCC estimates, which are discussed 

in detail in the 2010 interagency 

working group’s report. Specifically, 

uncertainties in the assumptions 

regarding climate sensitivity, as well as 

other model inputs such as economic 

growth and emissions trajectories, are 

discussed and the reasons for the 

specific input assumptions chosen are 

explained. However, the three 

integrated assessment models used to 

estimate the SCC are frequently cited in 

the peer-reviewed literature and were 

used in the last assessment of the IPCC. 

In addition, new versions of the models 

that were used in 2013 to estimate 

revised SCC values were published in 

the peer-reviewed literature (see 

appendix 15B of the final rule TSD for 

discussion). Although uncertainties 

remain, the revised estimates used for 

this rule are based on the best available 

scientific information on the impacts of 

climate change. The current estimates of 

the SCC have been developed over 

many years, and with input from the 

public. In November 2013, OMB 

announced a new opportunity for public 

comment on the interagency technical 

support document underlying the 

revised SCC estimates. 78 FR 70586. 

OMB is reviewing comments and 

considering whether further revisions to 

the SCC estimates are warranted. DOE 

stands ready to work with OMB and the 

other members of the interagency 

working group on further review and 

revision of the SCC estimates as 

appropriate. 

NEMA stated that the monetized 

benefits of carbon emission reductions 

are informative at some level, but 

should not be considered as 

determinative in the Secretary’s 

decision-making under EPCA. NEMA 

believes that DOE should base its net 

benefit determination for justifying a 

particular energy conservation on the 

traditional criteria relied upon by DOE: 

impacts on manufacturers, consumers, 

employment, energy savings, and 

competition. (NEMA, 54 at pp. 38 and 

44) In a similar vein, the Associations 

believe the SCC should be withdrawn as 

a basis for the proposed rule. (The 

Associations, No. 51, p. 4) 

The monetized benefits of carbon 

emission reductions are one factor that 

DOE considers in its evaluation of the 

economic justification of proposed 

standards. As shown in Table VII.58, the 

benefits of these standards in terms of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4101 

78U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 2006 Report 

to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal 

Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, 

Local, and Tribal Entities (2006) (Available at: 

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

assets/omb/inforeg/2006_cb/2006_cb_final_

report.pdf). 

79Roop, J. M., M. J. Scott, and R. W. Schultz, 

ImSET: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies, 

2005. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 

Richland, WA. Report No. PNNL–15273. <http://

www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/

technical_reports/PNNL-15273.pdf>. 

consumer operating cost savings exceed 

the incremental costs of the standardscompliant products. The benefits of CO2

emission reductions were considered by 

DOE, but were not determinative in 

DOE’s decision to adopt these 

standards, nor were they a primary basis 

of that decision. 

2. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

As noted previously, DOE has taken 

into account how amended energy 

conservation standards would reduce 

site NOX emissions nationwide and 

increase power sector NOX emissions in 

those 22 States not affected by the CAIR. 

DOE estimated the monetized value of 

net NOX emissions reductions resulting 

from each of the TSLs considered for 

this rule based on estimates found in the 

relevant scientific literature. Estimates 

of monetary value for reducing NOX

from stationary sources range from $476 

to $4,893 per ton in 2013$.78 DOE 

calculated monetary benefits using a 

medium value for NOX emissions of 

$2,684 per short ton and real discount 

rates of 3 percent and 7 percent. 

DOE is evaluating appropriate 

monetization of avoided SO2 and Hg 

emissions in energy conservation 

standards rulemakings. It has not 

included monetization in the current 

analysis. 

N. Utility Impact Analysis 

The utility impact analysis estimates 

several effects on the power generation 

industry that would result from the 

adoption of new or amended energy 

conservation standards. In the utility 

impact analysis, DOE analyzes the 

changes in installed electricity capacity 

and generation that would result for 

each TSL. The utility impact analysis is 

based on published output from NEMS. 

Each year, NEMS is updated to produce 

the AEO reference case as well as a 

number of side cases that estimate the 

economy-wide impacts of changes to 

energy supply and demand. DOE uses 

those published side cases that 

incorporate efficiency-related policies to 

estimate the marginal impacts of 

reduced energy demand on the utility 

sector. The output of this analysis is a 

set of time-dependent coefficients that 

capture the change in electricity 

generation, primary fuel consumption, 

installed capacity and power sector 

emissions due to a unit reduction in 

demand for a given end use. These 

coefficients are multiplied by the stream 

of energy savings calculated in the NIA 

to provide estimates of selected utility 

impacts of new or amended energy 

conservation standards. Chapter 16 of 

the final rule TSD describes the utility 

impact analysis in further detail. 

O. Employment Impact Analysis 

Employment impacts from new or 

amended energy conservation standards 

include direct and indirect impacts. 

Direct employment impacts are any 

changes in the number of employees of 

manufacturers of the product subject to 

standards; the MIA addresses those 

impacts. Indirect employment impacts 

are changes in national employment 

that occur due to the shift in 

expenditures and capital investment 

caused by the purchase and operation of 

more efficient product. Indirect 

employment impacts from standards 

consist of the jobs created or eliminated 

in the national economy, other than in 

the manufacturing sector being 

regulated, due to: (1) Reduced spending 

by end users on energy; (2) reduced 

spending on new energy supply by the 

utility industry; (3) increased consumer 

spending on the purchase of new 

product; and (4) the effects of those 

three factors throughout the economy. 

One method for assessing the possible 

effects on the demand for labor of such 

shifts in economic activity is to compare 

sector employment statistics developed 

by the Labor Department’s Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (BLS). BLS regularly 

publishes its estimates of the number of 

jobs per million dollars of economic 

activity in different sectors of the 

economy, as well as the jobs created 

elsewhere in the economy by this same 

economic activity. Data from BLS 

indicate that expenditures in the utility 

sector generally create fewer jobs (both 

directly and indirectly) than 

expenditures in other sectors of the 

economy. There are many reasons for 

these differences, including wage 

differences and the fact that the utility 

sector is more capital-intensive and less 

labor-intensive than other sectors. 

Energy conservation standards have the 

effect of reducing consumer utility bills. 

Because reduced consumer 

expenditures for energy likely lead to 

increased expenditures in other sectors 

of the economy, the general effect of 

efficiency standards is to shift economic 

activity from a less labor-intensive 

sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more 

labor-intensive sectors (e.g., the retail 

and service sectors). Based on the BLS 

data, DOE expects that net national 

employment may increase because of 

shifts in economic activity resulting 

from amended standards. 

For the standard levels considered for 

the final rule, DOE estimated indirect 

national employment impacts using an 

input/output model of the U.S. economy 

called Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies, Version 3.1.1 (ImSET).79

ImSET is a special-purpose version of 

the ‘‘U.S. Benchmark National InputOutput’’ (I–O) model, which was 

designed to estimate the national 

employment and income effects of 

energy-saving technologies. The ImSET 

software includes a computer-based I–O 

model having structural coefficients that 

characterize economic flows among the 

187 sectors. ImSET’s national economic 

I–O structure is based on a 2002 U.S. 

benchmark table, specially aggregated to 

the 187 sectors most relevant to 

industrial, commercial, and residential 

building energy use. DOE notes that 

ImSET is not a general equilibrium 

forecasting model, and understands the 

uncertainties involved in projecting 

employment impacts, especially 

changes in the later years of the 

analysis. Because ImSET does not 

incorporate price changes, the 

employment effects predicted by ImSET 

may over-estimate actual job impacts 

over the long run. DOE used ImSET 

only to estimate short-term employment 

impacts. For more details on the 

employment impact analysis, see 

chapter 17 of the final rule TSD. 

P. Proposed Standards in April 2014 

NOPR 

In the NOPR, DOE proposed to adopt 

new and amended standards for all 

GSFL product classes and amended 

standards for all IRL product classes. 

For GSFLs, DOE proposed adopting TSL 

5, which represented the max tech and 

maximum NES. Specifically, TSL 5 

would set energy conservation 

standards at EL 2 for the 4-foot MBP, 8- 

foot SP slimline, 8-foot RDC HO, and T5 

MiniBP SO product classes. For IRLs, 

DOE proposed adopting TSL 1, which 

was EL 1 and represented max tech. 

DOE received general comments on the 

proposed standards. 

Miller stated that there are three 

problems that DOE states it is trying to 

address by setting efficacy standards for 

GSFLs and IRLs: lack of consumer 

information, asymmetric information 

about the benefits of energy-efficient 

commercial appliances, and 

externalities related to greenhouse gas 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4102 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

80Available at http://energy.gov/gc/services/

open-government/restrospective-regulatory-review. 

81These reports are also available at http://

energy.gov/gc/services/open-government/

restrospective-regulatory-review. 

emissions. However, two of the 

problems cited by DOE—lack of 

consumer information about energy 

efficiency and information asymmetry— 

are not addressed in its proposed 

efficacy standards. Additionally, DOE 

does not explain why GSFL and IRL 

consumers would suffer from either 

informational deficits or cognitive 

biases that would cause them to 

purchase products with high lifetime 

costs without demanding higher price, 

higher efficacy products. Miller further 

states that this asymmetric information, 

if it exists, could be remedied by 

improved labeling or other types of 

consumer education campaigns rather 

than banning products from the 

marketplace, especially given the 

projected penetration rates of LEDs. 

(Miller, No. 50 at p. 11) 

Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review’’ requires Federal agencies to 

identify the problem that it intends to 

address, including, where applicable, 

the failures of private markets or public 

institutions that warrant new agency 

action, as well as to assess the 

significance of that problem. 58 FR 

51735 (Oct. 4, 1993) Section 1(b) also 

states that agencies should adhere to the 

listed principles to the extent permitted 

by law. DOE’s standards rulemaking 

process is intended to fulfill the 

requirements of EPCA. Any amended 

standard for a covered product must be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may 

not adopt any standard that would not 

result in the significant conservation of 

energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) The 

proposed standards, and the standards 

established in this final rule, meet these 

criteria. By adopting standards that 

achieve maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, this 

rulemaking is indirectly addressing any 

potential lack of consumer information 

regarding energy efficiency and 

asymmetric information regarding these 

products. Alternative remedies 

proposed by Miller, such as labeling and 

consumer information, are covered by 

other programs established by EPCA. 

(42 U.S.C. 6294 and 42 U.S.C. 6307) 

However, the existence of such 

programs does not obviate DOE’s legal 

requirement to adhere to the standards 

rulemaking process laid out in EPCA. 

Miller stated that DOE’s approach is 

contrary to instruction to agencies in 

Executive Order 13563, which requires 

agencies to identify and consider 

regulatory approaches that reduce 

burdens and maintain flexibility and 

freedom of choice for the public. Miller 

noted that this included warnings, 

appropriate default rules, and disclosure 

requirements, and providing clear and 

intelligible information to the public. 

(Miller, No. 50 at p. 11) 

DOE identified and evaluated nonregulatory approaches to improving the 

efficacy of GSFLs and IRLs, as described 

in chapter 18 of the final rule TSD. DOE 

currently does not have statutory 

authority to implement most of these 

alternatives. Furthermore, DOE 

concluded that all of the non-regulatory 

alternatives would save less energy and 

have a lower NPV than adopted 

standards. 

Regarding warnings, default rules, 

and disclosure requirements, in this 

final rule notice DOE clearly describes 

amendments to existing standards being 

adopted in this rule and explains that 

compliance to the new and amended 

standards will be required three years 

after the publication date of this notice. 

See section VI.G.13 for compliance date 

information. DOE has held public 

meetings and invited comments from 

stakeholders in the framework, 

preliminary analysis, and NOPR stages 

of this rulemaking and held interviews 

with manufacturers at the preliminary 

and NOPR stages. At each stage DOE has 

published documents, including this 

final notice, that clearly lay out the 

methodology, assumptions, analysis, 

and results, as well as describe in detail 

comments received from stakeholders 

and DOE’s responses. 

Miller also stated that DOE’s proposal 

does not maintain flexibility and 

freedom of choice for purchasers of 

GSFLs and IRLs, and the resulting 

benefits do not justify the costs as 

required both by statute and by 

Executive Order. (Miller, No. 50 at p. 

12) 

DOE determined that the proposed 

levels in the NOPR and the standard 

being adopted do not lessen the utility 

or performance of GSFLs and IRLs. DOE 

has ensured that the typical 

characteristics of lamps meeting the 

existing standard, such as shape, CCT, 

CRI, lifetime, and lumen package are 

represented at the higher efficacy levels 

proposed in the NOPR and being 

adopted in this rule. Further, consumers 

will continue to have a range of 

purchasing choices under the adopted 

standards. For further comments and 

discussion on the impact of higher 

efficacy levels on product availability, 

see section VI.D.2 for GSFLs and section 

VI.D.3 for IRLs. 

Miller stated that if DOE proceeds to 

issue the standards as proposed in the 

NOPR, DOE should commit to 

retrospective review to assess whether 

the rule meets the statutory standard of 

achieving the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that is both 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, while also 

resulting in a significant conservation of 

energy. Miller outlined a number of 

metrics to consider in a retrospective 

review. These included quantifying 

environmental benefits and security, 

reliability, and costs of maintaining the 

nation’s energy system as a result of 

standards; and potentialities such as a 

rebound effect, impedance of LED 

technology, adverse impacts on 

manufacturers, increased mercury, and 

loss of product utility and optionality as 

a result of standards. (Miller, No. 50 at 

p. 12) Miller also noted that DOE should 

commit to measuring metrics and 

assumptions of this final rule on a 

regular basis and collecting information 

for this purpose. (Miller, No. 50 at p. 9) 

As stated in DOE’s Final Plan for the 

Retrospective Review of Existing Rules, 

dated August 23, 2011,80 DOE is 

committed to maintaining a consistent 

culture of retrospective review and 

analysis. In the plan, DOE sets forth a 

process for identifying significant rules 

that are obsolete, unnecessary, 

unjustified, excessively burdensome, or 

counterproductive. Once such rules 

have been identified, DOE will, after 

considering public input on any 

proposed change, determine what action 

is necessary or appropriate. DOE will 

continually engage in review of its rules 

to determine whether there are burdens 

on the public that can be avoided by 

amending or rescinding existing 

requirements. DOE’s consideration of 

appliance standards within the context 

of retrospective review is discussed at 

pages 9–10 of the final plan. Since the 

release of its final plan, DOE has issued 

a number of reports documenting its 

progress in the retrospective review of 

its regulations.81 DOE has also issued a 

number of Requests for Information 

seeking input from the public on its 

retrospective review efforts, most 

recently on July 3, 2014. 79 FR at 37963 

(April 29, 2014). DOE encourages all 

interested parties to provide input in 

DOE’s retrospective review process. 

CA IOUs and ASAP endorsed the 

NOPR analyses and stated they would 

support a final rule similar to the rule 

proposed in the NOPR. (CA IOUs, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 

245; ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4103 

No. 49 at pp. 16, 244) EEOs stated the 

proposed standards would build on the 

achievements of the 2009 Lamps Rule, 

which had increased minimum efficacy 

by 19 percent for GSFLs and 62 percent 

for IRLs, by further increasing efficacy 

by 4 percent for GSFLs and 8 percent for 

IRLs. Specifically, EEOs highlighted the 

potential savings from the proposed 

standards for GSFLs, but noted that 

potential savings from proposed IRL 

standards are also significant. EEOs also 

pointed out that the proposed standards 

were cost-effective for both commercial 

and residential consumers. (EEOs, No. 

55 at p. 2) GE, however, found the 

standard levels proposed in the NOPR 

problematically high, especially with 

regards to the increased burden on the 

industry. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 49 at p. 243) 

When considering establishing new or 

amending existing standards, DOE 

weighs the benefits and burdens of such 

standards. In the NOPR, for GSFL TSL 

5 and IRL TSL 1, DOE determined that 

the benefits of energy savings, positive 

NPV of total consumer benefits, positive 

impacts on consumers, emission 

reductions and the estimated monetary 

value of the emissions reductions would 

outweigh the potential reduction in 

industry value. In the following sections 

DOE discusses comments received 

specifically on the proposed standards 

for GSFLs and IRLs. 

1. GSFLs Proposed Standards 

DOE also received several comments 

specific to the GSFL standards proposed 

in the NOPR. ASAP noted that the 

proposed GSFL standards, in 

combination with the GSFL standards 

from the 2009 Lamps Rule and the 

ballast standards from the 2011 Ballast 

Rule, would result in substantial energy 

savings, in particular due to their 

impact on the commercial sector. ASAP 

stated and CA IOUs agreed that this is 

an example of how standards can 

couple with utility-based and voluntary 

programs to shift lighting efficiency. 

(ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

49 at pp. 13–15; CA IOUs, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 20) CA 

IOUs further commented that the 

proposed GSFL standards are designed 

to push the fluorescent lamp market to 

‘‘best-in-class’’ and the resulting energy 

savings estimate of 3.5 quads is 

significant. (CA IOUs, No. 56 at pp. 1– 

2) NEEP noted that the proposed maxtech efficacy levels for GSFL would 

bring over 2 TWhs of annual electricity 

reduction to the NEEP region in 2020 

and more than 100 MWs of capacity 

reductions (9.8TWhs and 573 MW 

nationally). NEEP continued that the 

very aggressive energy efficiency 

programs administered in the region 

have made the proposed standards 

practical. (NEEP, No. 57 at p. 1) 

NEMA, however, disagreed, stating 

that the proposed higher performance 

levels would result in the unavailability 

of extended life lamps, inability for 

manufacturers to repeatedly and 

consistently produce products for 

testing and enforcement problems, price 

increases, minimal efficiency gains, 

consumer diversion to full-wattage 

lamps with reduced energy savings, and 

a significant financial impact to U.S. 

industry without sufficient payback. 

(NEMA, No. 54 at p. 16) 

As previously noted, in the NOPR 

analysis, DOE proposed TSL 5 for 

GSFLs, which required adopting the 

proposed EL 2 for the 4-foot MBP lamps, 

8-foot slimline lamps, 8-foot RDC HO, 4- 

foot T5 MiniBP SO, and EL 1 for 4-foot 

T5 MiniBP HO. 79 FR 24068, 24174 

Based on an assessment of catalog and 

certification data, DOE found that these 

levels are technologically feasible (see 

chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for the 

further details on the engineering 

analysis) and maintained the GSFLs 

with typical lifetimes (see section 

VI.D.2.g for further discussion). 

Although DOE proposed TSL 5 in the 

NOPR, as discussed in section VII.C.1, 

in this final rule DOE found that the 

burdens of TSL 5 outweigh the benefits 

and is therefore adopting a lower 

standard level. 

NEMA recommended alternative 

standards for the GSFL product classes 

than those proposed in the NOPR. For 

lamps with CCT ≤ 4,500 K, NEMA 

recommended that the current standards 

be maintained for the 4-foot MBP (89.0 

lm/W) and 2-foot U-shaped (84.0 lm/W) 

product classes and standards be 

amended to 98.0 lm/W for the 8-foot SP 

slimline product class; 94.0 lm/W for 

the 8-foot RDC HO product class; 90.0 

lm/W for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO 

product class; and 80.0 lm/W for the 4- 

foot T5 MiniBP HO product class. 

(NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 27–28) For lamps 

with CCT > 4,500 K, NEMA 

recommended that the current standards 

be maintained for 4-foot MBP lamps (88 

lm/W); 2-foot U-shaped lamps (81 lm/

W); and 8-foot SP slimline lamps (93.0 

lm/W) and standards be amended to 90 

lm/W for the 8-foot RDC HO product 

class; 84 lm/W for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP 

SO; and 76 lm/W for the 4-foot T5 

MiniBP HO product class. (NEMA, No. 

54 at p. 28) 

CA IOUs noted that DOE has 

proposed a standard for the 4-foot MBP 

lamps that can be achieved by an 800 

series, full-wattage, and high-lumen T8 

lamp. CA IOUs mentioned that their 

rebate and incentive programs have 

encouraged the adoption of these third 

generation T8 lamps and have utilized 

them in cost-effective installations to 

achieve large energy savings, and also 

mentioned that the standards would 

further encourage this market 

transformation without adversely 

impacting product performance. (CA 

IOUs, No. 56 at pp. 1–2) NEEP 

commented that about two-thirds of the 

savings would be lost if the levels of the 

4-foot MBP lamps were weakened, 

therefore DOE should maintain these 

levels as the higher performing lamps 

are available and cost-effective. (NEEP, 

No. 57 at p. 1) 

Based on catalog and certification 

data, for the 4-foot MBP product class 

DOE determined that there were two 

higher efficacy levels than the existing 

standard: EL 1 representing a standard 

800 series full wattage lamp and EL 2 

representing an improved 800 series full 

wattage lamp in which the phosphor 

mix and/or coating is enhanced to 

increase efficacy. DOE developed 

standards for the 2-foot U-shaped 

product class by scaling from standards 

for the 4-foot MBP product class. DOE 

developed a scaling factor based on the 

efficacy difference of comparable 4-foot 

MBP and 2-foot U-shaped product lines, 

and in this final rule confirmed this 

scaling factor using updated 

certification data. For this final rule, 

DOE used updated catalog and 

certification data for all products and 

confirmed the higher efficacy levels 

above the existing standard for the 4- 

foot MBP and 2-foot U-shaped lamps. 

Therefore, DOE found that higher 

efficacy levels than the current 

standards for the 4-foot MBP, 2-foot Ushaped, and 8-foot SP slimline lamps 

are feasible and reflect the performance 

of products currently on the market. See 

section VI.D.2.g for the detailed 

engineering analysis of these lamp 

types. 

In the NOPR for lamps with CCT ≤ 

4,500 K, the proposed TSL 5 required 

EL 2 at 92.4 lm/W for 4-foot MBP lamps; 

EL 2 at 99.0 lm/W for the 8-foot SP 

slimline lamps; EL 2 at 97.6 lm/W for 

the 8-foot RDC HO lamps; EL 2 at 97.1 

lm/W for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO 

lamps; and EL 1 at 82.7 lm/W for the 4- 

foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps. DOE 

determined the efficacies at these levels 

based on commercially available lamps 

using both catalog and certification data, 

and therefore found that these efficacies 

are accurate representation of higher 

performing products on the market. For 

this final rule, DOE analyzed updated 

catalog and certification data and 

confirmed these efficacy levels with the 

exception of T5 MiniBP SO lamps 

which was adjusted to be 95 lm/W 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4104 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

based on certification data. See section 

VI.D.2.g for the detailed engineering 

analysis of these lamps. 

In the NOPR, for lamps with CCT > 

4,500 K, the proposed TSL 5 required 

EL 2 at 90.6 lm/W for 4-foot MBP lamps; 

EL 2 at 94.1 lm/W for the 8-foot SP 

slimline lamps; EL 2 at 95.6 lm/W for 

the 8-foot RDC HO lamps; EL 2 at 91.3 

lm/W for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO 

lamps; and EL 1 at 78.6 lm/W for the T5 

MiniBP HO lamps. Standards for GSFLs 

with CCT > 4,500 K were scaled from 

corresponding GSFLs with CCT ≤ 4,500 

K. In the NOPR, DOE developed scaling 

factors based on the differences in 

efficacies between less than 4,500 K and 

greater than 4,500 K comparable 

products on the market. DOE verified 

the developed scaling factors using 

certification data. For this final rule, 

DOE adjusted certain scaling factors 

based on updated certification data, 

which resulted in the following changes 

for lamps with CCT > 4,500 K: EL 2 for 

the 4-foot MBP was adjusted to 89.3 lm/ 

W; EL 2 for the 8-foot SP slimline was 

adjusted to 96.0 lm/W; EL 2 for the 8- 

foot RDC HO lamps was adjusted to 93.7 

lm/W; EL 2 for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO 

was adjusted to 89.3 lm/W; and EL 1 for 

the T5 MiniBP HO was adjusted to 76.9 

lm/W. See chapter 5 of this final rule 

TSD for the detailed engineering 

analysis of GSFL scaling. 

DOE conducted a comprehensive 

analysis of all GSFL products available 

on the market and utilized both catalog 

and certification data to determine the 

efficacy levels for each product class. 

After weighing the benefits and burdens 

in this final rule analysis, DOE is 

adopting TSL 4 which will require EL 

2 for the 4-foot MBP lamps and the 4- 

foot T5 MiniBP SO lamps; EL 1 for the 

4-foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps; and 

maintain existing standards for the 8- 

foot SP slimline and 8-foot RDC HO 

lamps. See section VII.C.1 for a 

discussion on the benefits and burdens 

of GSFL standards. 

People’s Republic of China (P.R. 

China) commented that for the 8-foot SP 

slimline lamps with a CCT > 4,500 K the 

standard proposed in the NOPR 

increases existing standards by 1.2 

percent, while for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP 

SO lamps with a CCT ≤ 4,500 K the 

existing standard is increased by 12.9 

percent. P.R. China questioned the range 

of increase in efficacy in the proposed 

standards for these two lamp types. 

(P.R. China, No. 58, p. 3) 

As mentioned previously, DOE 

considers the 8-foot SP slimline with 

CCT > 4,500 K and the 4-foot T5 MiniBP 

SO with CCT ≤ 4,500 K as two separate 

product classes due to their difference 

in utility and efficacy. See section 

VI.C.1 for more details on GSFL product 

classes. Based on its review of catalog 

and certification data, DOE determined 

that there were 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO 

lamps available on the market with 

efficacies much higher than their 

existing standard compared to the 

commercially available 8-foot SP 

slimline lamps. 

NEMA commented that rare earth 

availability remains volatile; 

particularly the phosphor mix used in 

argon-based 92+ lm/W lamps. NEMA 

remarked that forcing all products to use 

specialized rare earth phosphor mixes is 

extremely risky for argon-based lamps 

as the proposed standard is at the high 

end of the technology limits, and DOE 

cannot risk having only krypton based 

lamps available due to their lack of 

dimmability. Thus, EL 2 cannot be used 

for 4-foot MBP lamps. (NEMA, No. 54 at 

p. 14) 

EL 2 for the 4-foot MBP lamps was 

based on the performance of full 

wattage, argon-based lamps that are 

currently on the market. DOE 

acknowledges that supply and demand 

of rare earth phosphors should be 

considered when evaluating amended 

standards for GSFLs. DOE conducted 

LCC and NIA sensitivities for a scenario 

with increased rare earth phosphor 

prices in the NOPR. With regards to 

impacts on consumers, DOE found that 

proposed efficacy levels remained 

achievable even with increased 

phosphor prices. In the NIA, DOE found 

that the ranking of TSLs by NPV 

remained unchanged in the high rare 

earth phosphor price scenario. For this 

final rule, DOE conducted these 

sensitivities with an updated phosphor 

price and reached the same conclusions. 

See chapter 12 and appendix 7B of the 

final rule TSD for more detail on DOE’s 

assessment of impact of rare earth 

phosphors. 

DOE also received a comment 

regarding the LCC results for GSFLs and 

the impact on the proposed standard. 

For 8-foot RDC HO lamps, 

Westinghouse questioned the economic 

justification behind consumers losing 

16–17 percent of the value of the 

product over its average lifetime. 

(Westinghouse, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 49 at p. 152) 

The LCC analysis is one of the factors 

that DOE considers when weighing the 

benefits and burdens of TSLs. In the 

NOPR the 8-foot RDC HO product class 

showed negative LCC savings at the 

proposed TSL 5. In the final rule, DOE 

is adopting TSL 4 which does not 

amend the standard level for 8-foot HO 

lamps. As discussed below, TSL 4 

includes a combination of ELs that 

maximizes NPV; in addition to 8-foot 

HO lamps, TSL 4 also does not amend 

the standard level for 8-foot slimline 

lamps. 

Additionally, DOE received a 

comment on choosing between TSL 4 

and TSL 5, as presented in the NOPR. 

NEMA commented that TSL 5 is very 

similar to TSL 4 in national energy use, 

but has a significantly higher conversion 

cost for manufacturers and the most 

negative INPV. NEMA commented that 

the NOPR shows a modest national 

energy savings difference between TSL 

4 and TSL 5 in the proposed GSFL rule, 

as computed by the DOE for the NOPR 

(3.0 v. 3.5 quads over 30 years). NEMA 

claimed that the reason for this is 

because, considering all the 

assumptions and estimates used to 

calculate the savings, the energy savings 

estimate of both levels is within +/¥ 5 

percent or well within the uncertainty 

of both projections. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 

27) NEMA further claimed that there is 

more manufacturing investment 

required to go from TSL 4 ($13M) to 

TSL 5 ($38.6M) (79 FR at 24160, Table 

VII.30 [April 29, 2014]), and DOE has a 

legislative and executive mandated 

obligation to reduce or eliminate the 

regulatory burden of TSL 5. NEMA 

claimed that TSL 5 would require an 

additional investment in production 

lines that are projected to decline in 

future years without generating 

meaningful incremental national energy 

savings and that this is not an 

acceptable or reasonable decision for the 

U.S. government to make. NEMA 

commented that the money would be 

better invested into research in new 

technologies with a larger energy 

savings impact. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 27) 

NEMA noted that that primary 

difference between TSL 4 and TSL 5 is 

that the 8-foot slimline and 8-foot RDC 

HO categories jump from EL 0 to EL 2, 

but NEMA added that they should not 

be moved any higher than EL 1, as they 

would not increase national energy 

savings and will be costly to the 

manufacturer. NEMA further 

commented that it is unreasonable to 

assume that manufacturers or 

consumers would make the investment 

to switch from a T8 to T5 system, nor 

from 8-foot fluorescent systems to T5 

systems, due to the cost involved with 

their lack of interchangeability. NEMA 

stated that DOE must remove these false 

assumptions and restructure the energy 

savings projections. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 

15) 

In the NOPR, TSL 4 represented the 

maximum NPV that was achievable in 

the analysis from any combination of 

ELs. DOE determined that the increase 

in energy savings at TSL 5 compared to 

TSL 4, as well as generally positive 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4105 

impact on consumers, emission 

reductions and the estimated monetary 

value would outweigh the potential 

reduction in industry value experienced 

at TSL 5 compared to TSL 4. Therefore, 

DOE proposed TSL 5 as it represented 

maximum national energy savings. 

Further, the uncertainty in key 

variables, such as energy price forecast 

or product price trends would generally 

affect TSL 4 and TSL 5 in the same way, 

so DOE would expect the relative 

ranking to remain. 

The switching from 4-foot MBP or 8- 

foot SP slimline systems was allowed 

only in new construction and 

renovation and based on DOE research 

that indicated there are comparable 

luminaires. DOE is aware that there are 

physical and optical differences 

between T8 and T5 lamps and the 

potential for substitution of 4-foot MBP 

T8 or 8-foot SP slimline T8 with T5 

MiniBP SO lamps is only assumed at 

the time of new construction and 

renovation, when a new luminaire 

would be specified. DOE’s analysis 

indicates that there exist T5 luminaires 

that compete directly with 4-foot MBP 

T8 luminaires in most applications in 

the largest luminaire markets (e.g., 

commercial offices, education, 

industrial) and in some cases, luminaire 

manufacturers offer essentially identical 

luminaires in 4-foot MBP T8 and T5 

MiniBP versions. For these same 

reasons, DOE also assumed switching 

between 8-foot SP slimline with T5 

MiniBP SO is possible. See appendix 

11C of the final rule TSD for examples 

of these luminaires and a discussion of 

DOE’s analysis of the substitution 

potential for 4-foot MBP and T5 MiniBP 

SO Lamps. 

Further, in this final rule, DOE 

modified TSL 4 slightly so that 

maximum NPV is achieved from a 

combination of ELs that minimizes the 

net burden on a consumer for a product 

class that may have negative NPV in the 

absence of product class switching (e.g., 

consumers substituting a T8 system 

with T5 system). This modification 

resulted in only one EL change between 

the TSL 4 proposed in the NOPR and 

the TSL 4 presented in this rule: For the 

8-foot RDC HO product class the 

efficacy level in the TSL 4 presented for 

this final rule is at the baseline rather 

than EL 1. DOE is adopting TSL 4 in this 

final rule for GSFLs. See section VII.C.1 

for a discussion on the benefits and 

burdens of GSFL standards. 

2. IRL Proposed Standards 

DOE received several comments 

regarding the proposed TSL 1 for IRLs 

in the NOPR. NEMA commented that 

130 V lamps are no longer available, so 

there is no reason to establish a new 

standard for them since there will be no 

energy savings. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 37–38) Philips 

added that 130 V lamps cannot be 

produced. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 49 at p. 37) GE stated 

that the proposed 130 V lamp standard 

exceeds the capability of making a 

practical lamp as the proposed efficacy 

level of the 130 V lamps is 15 percent 

higher than that for the 120 V lamps. GE 

added that the only way to reach this 

efficacy is to decrease lifetime by two 

thirds if operated at 120 V and even 

lower if operated at 130 V, making it 

impractical to sell. GE stated that the 

proposed regulations raise the efficacy 

level 5 percent higher and that this is 

just as impossible as the last standard. 

(GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 

at pp. 40–42) 

CA IOUs disagreed, stating that not 

setting a standard for 130 V lamps 

leaves the door open to potential 

loopholes. CA IOUs cited the example 

that DOE exempted certain BR and ER 

lamps and these lamps have grown in 

market share. Therefore, the CA IOUs 

stated that products that are not on the 

market now but might be in the future 

should be regulated. (CA IOUs, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at p. 39) 

DOE is aware that at the time of this 

final rule there are no 130 V IRLs 

covered by this rulemaking on the 

market. However, DOE did not find any 

evidence that permanently precludes 

these lamps from becoming 

commercially available. DOE’s research 

also does not indicate that the lamps are 

not being manufactured solely due to 

technological barriers. DOE remains 

concerned that if 130 V lamps do 

become available and standards for 120 

V lamps are raised and not for the 130 

V lamps, there may be a potential 

migration to the 130 V lamps that would 

result in increased energy consumption. 

See section VI.C.2 and VI.D.3.f for 

further discussion. Therefore, when 

considering higher efficacy standards 

for the less than 125 V product class in 

TSL 1, DOE also considered higher 

efficacy standards for the greater than or 

equal to 125 V product class. 

DOE also received overall comments 

on the merit of proposing TSL 1, which 

represented max tech (EL 1) for IRLs. 

CA IOUs and NEEP commented that 

they support the DOE’s proposal to 

increase the stringency of IRL standards, 

but stated that the standards proposed 

in the NOPR could be higher. (NEEP, 

No. 57 at p. 3; CA IOU, No. 56 at p. 4) 

NEEP stated that additional ELs should 

be established that represent the 

maximum technologically feasible level 

and typically evaluates the maximum 

commercially available level. NEEP 

noted that there were products in DOE’s 

certification database with higher 

efficacies than the proposed standard, 

which should have been considered in 

the analysis. (NEEP, No. 57 at p. 3) CA 

IOUs agreed with DOE’s proposal to 

adopt a standard that can be met with 

HIR design strategy. CA IOUs continued 

that they have incentive programs that 

promote a shift towards higher 

efficiency technology, such as LEDs, but 

are not able to promote and incentivize 

the highest efficacy incandescent 

products. CA IOUs mentioned that DOE 

would be the biggest driver in 

promoting this shift to high-efficacy 

IRLs, and noted that the HIR technology 

is a proven and cost-effective design. 

(CA IOUs, No. 56 at p. 4) ASAP stated 

that the proposed IRL standard will help 

ensure that buyers have a choice of 

efficient options in that market place, 

including LEDs or very efficacious 

incandescent lamps. (ASAP, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 49 at pp. 15–16) 

NEMA, however, disagreed, stating 

that the limited benefits to the nation 

from amended standards for IRLs do not 

justify the burden on the manufacturers 

and consumers of IRLs. With regards to 

negative impacts on manufacturers, 

NEMA presented a graph that plotted 

the percentage INPV and the estimated 

energy savings from DOE’s appliance 

efficiency rulemakings since 2008. 

NEMA also calculated and plotted the 

midpoint average percentage INPV as 

¥10.95 percent and average projected 

energy savings at 2.156 of these 

rulemakings. NEMA noted on this graph 

that with the exception of the proposed 

GSFL standards, all lighting 

rulemakings have resulted in INPV more 

negative than the midpoint INPV, and 

the proposed IRL standards are the 

second most severe in negative impacts 

to manufacturers. Further, on NEMA’s 

graph, the proposed IRLs standards 

result in the lowest energy savings 

compared to the average projected 

energy savings of 2.156 quads. NEMA 

stated that on this basis alone, the 

proposed IRL standards deviate from the 

norms and should not be deemed 

economically justified. NEMA also 

provided a summary of the negative 

INPV from various product rulemakings 

that result in a cumulative regulatory 

burden on IRL manufacturers. NEMA 

noted that the imposition of the burden 

of the proposed IRL standards in 

addition to this cumulative regulatory 

burden called for ‘‘alternatives to direct 

regulation’’ per Executive Order 12866, 

which in this case would be to not 

amend the existing IRL standards as 

only one TSL is proposed. NEMA also 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4106 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

stated that the IRL standards proposed 

in the NOPR would result in an increase 

in prices that would drive consumers to 

alternate technologies and 

manufacturers to exit the IRL market 

and result in the loss of all or most 

domestic employment in IRL 

manufacturing. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 2– 

4) 

With regards to impact on consumers, 

NEMA emphasized that the proposed 

IRL standards would require IRL 

consumers to accept a 30–50 percent 

increase in price. Further, NEMA 

predicted that due to initial costs, 

consumers would choose to purchase 

the less efficacious, unregulated higher 

wattage IRLs. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 2, 

10) NEMA suggested that regulations 

allowing lower priced lamps at 60 W or 

below as substitutes for 90 W IRLs 

would move consumers to more energy 

efficient options. In contrast, the 

proposed IRL standards would limit 

consumer options to higher-end 

commercial products that utilize HIR. 

NEMA explained that halogen PAR 

lamps would not meet the proposed 

standards unless life was reduced by at 

least 20 percent, which would be a loss 

to consumer utility. Therefore, NEMA 

concluded that for these reasons the IRL 

standards proposed in the NOPR would 

increase rather than decrease national 

energy use. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 2, 10) 

GE noted the positive LCC saving results 

for IRLs were likely based mainly on 

commercial customers that use PAR38 

lamps and would be very different for 

the residential consumers. GE 

questioned how a standard that has no 

economic benefits could be adopted. 

(GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 49 

at p. 152) 

DOE is aware that TSL 1 for IRLs 

resulted in negative impacts on industry 

and would increase end-user prices. 

Regarding the LCC assessment, DOE 

analyzed both the IRL commercial and 

residential sectors at TSL 1 and found 

them to be positive for both 

representative lamp units. As noted 

previously, in addition to the impact on 

manufacturers and consumers, DOE 

weighed other factors when determining 

whether or not TSL 1 was economically 

justified. In the NOPR, DOE found that 

at TSL 1 for IRLs, the benefits of energy 

savings, positive NPV of consumer 

benefits, positive impacts on consumers 

(as indicated by positive average LCC 

savings and the large percentage of 

consumers who would experience LCC 

benefits), emission reductions and the 

estimated monetary value of the 

emissions reductions would outweigh 

the potential reduction in industry 

value. In this final rule analysis, after 

reevaluating the factors considered in 

weighing the benefits and burdens of a 

potential standard, DOE is not 

amending standards for IRLs in this 

rule. See section VII.C.3 for a discussion 

on the benefits and burdens of IRL 

standards. 

VII. Analytical Results 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

For the final rule, DOE develops TSLs 

for consideration. The GSFL and IRL 

TSLs are formed by grouping different 

efficacy levels, which are potential 

standard levels for each product class. 

TSL 5 is composed of the max tech 

efficacy levels. TSL 4 is composed of the 

combination of efficacy levels that yield 

the maximum NPV. TSL 3 is composed 

of efficacy levels that yield the 

maximum energy savings without using 

any of the EL 2 levels. For both TSL 4 

and TSL 3 efficacy level combinations, 

to ensure that max NES and NPV were 

based on consumer options to save 

energy for each lamp type, DOE did not 

consider an efficacy level for a product 

class that did not result in energy 

savings from options within the product 

class. TSL 2 is composed of the efficacy 

levels that would bring all product 

classes to approximately the same level 

of rare earth phosphor. TSL 1 is 

composed of the levels that represent 

the least efficacious commercially 

available lamps. For IRLs, DOE 

considered one TSL, because only one 

efficacy level was analyzed (Table 

VII.2). 

DOE used data on the representative 

product classes from the engineering 

and pricing analyses described in 

section VI.D.2.b for GSFLs and section 

VI.D.3.a for IRLs to evaluate the benefits 

and burdens of each of the GSFL and 

IRL TSLs. DOE analyzed the benefits 

and burdens by conducting the analyses 

described in section VII.C for each TSL. 

Table VII.1 presents the GSFL TSLs 

analyzed and the corresponding efficacy 

level for each GSFL representative 

product class. Table VII.2 presents the 

IRL TSL analyzed and the 

corresponding efficacy level for the 

representative IRL product class. 

TABLE VII.1—COMPOSITION OF TSLS FOR GSFLS BY EFFICACY LEVEL

Representative product class 

TSL 1 

Current market 

min 

TSL 2 

Same 

phosphor 

level 

TSL 3 

Best non-EL 2 

TSL 4 

Max NPV 

TSL 5 

Max tech 

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

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

3. 8-foot RDC high output, CCT ≤4,500 K .......................... 1 2 0 0 2 

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

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

TABLE VII.2—COMPOSITION OF TSLS

FOR IRLS BY EFFICACY LEVEL

Representative product class TSL 1 

Standard spectrum; >2.5 

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

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

DOE analyzed the economic impacts 

on GSFL and IRL consumers by looking 

at the effects standards would have on 

the LCC and PBP. DOE also examined 

the impacts of potential standards on 

consumer subgroups. These analyses are 

discussed in the following subsections. 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Consumers affected by new or 

amended standards usually experience 

higher purchase prices and lower 

operating costs. Generally, these 

impacts on individual consumers are 

best captured by changes in LCCs and 

by the payback period. DOE’s LCC and 

PBP analyses provide key outputs for 

each TSL, which are reported by 

product class in Table VII.3 through 

Table VII.15. DOE designed the LCC 

analysis around lamp purchasing events 

and calculated the LCC savings relative 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4107 

to the baseline for each lamp 

replacement event separately in each 

lamp product class. Each table includes 

the average total LCC and the average 

LCC savings, as well as the fraction of 

product consumers for which the LCC 

will either decrease (net benefit), or 

increase (net cost) relative to the basecase forecast. When an EL results in 

‘‘positive LCC savings,’’ the LCC of the 

lamp or lamp-and-ballast system is less 

than the LCC of the baseline lamp or 

lamp-and-ballast system, and the 

consumer economically benefits. When 

an EL results in ‘‘negative LCC savings,’’ 

the LCC of the lamp or lamp-and-ballast 

system is higher than the LCC of the 

baseline lamp or lamp-and-ballast 

system, and the consumer is adversely 

affected economically. The last outputs 

in the tables are the mean PBPs for the 

consumer that is purchasing a design 

compliant with the TSL. Entries of 

‘‘NER’’ indicate standard levels that do 

not reduce operating costs, which 

prevents the consumer from recovering 

the increased purchase cost. The PBP 

cannot be calculated in those instances 

because the denominator of the PBP 

equation is 0. Because LCC savings and 

PBP are not relevant at the baseline 

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

for the baselines. Chapter 8 of the final 

rule TSD provides a detailed description 

of the LCC and PBP analysis and the 

results. Appendix 8B of the NOPR TSD 

presents Monte Carlo simulation results 

performed by DOE as part of the LCC 

analysis and the appendix also presents 

sensitivity results, such as LCC savings 

under the AEO 2014 high-economicgrowth and low-economic-growth cases. 

The results for each TSL are relative 

to the energy-use distribution in the 

base case (no amended standards), 

based on energy consumption under 

conditions of actual product use. The 

rebuttable-presumption PBP is based on 

test values under conditions prescribed 

by the DOE test procedure, as required 

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

General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

Table VII.3 through Table VII.11 

present the results for each of the five 

GSFL representative product classes 

that DOE analyzed. Specifically, these 

were the 4-foot MBP product class, 4- 

foot MiniBP SO product class, 4-foot 

MiniBP HO product class, 8-foot SP 

slimline product class, and 8-foot RDC 

HO product class. For GSFLs, results for 

the most common sector for each 

product class are presented. Chapter 8 

of the final rule TSD provides the LCC 

and PBP results for each product class 

in all relevant sectors. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4108 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.3—LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR A 2-LAMP 4-FOOT 32 W T8 MEDIUM

BIPIN INSTANT

START

SYSTEM

OPERATING IN THE

COMMERCIAL

SECTOR

Event Response Efficacy level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 82

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2013$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2013$ 

LCC 

2013$ 

LLC 

savings 

2013$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Lamp Failure .. Baseline ...................

Lamp Replacement ..

Baseline EL 1 .......EL 2 .......EL 2 .......EL 2 .......

89.2 

90.0 

93.0 

95.4 96.0 

32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst ...32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst ...26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst ...32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst ...28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst ...

17.38 34.60 30.12 27.03 

24.25 

126.22 

126.22 105.71 126.22 113.41 

143.80 

147.97 136.03 153.45 137.86 

N/A 

¥4.17 

7.77 

¥9.65 

5.94 

N/A 

100.0 

0.0 

100.0 

0.0 

N/A 

0 

100.0 

0.0 

100.0 

N/A 

NER 

3.1 

NER 

2.6 

Event II: Ballast Failure Baseline ...................

Lamp & Ballast Replacement.

Baseline EL 1 .......EL 2 .......EL 2 .......EL 2 .......

89.2 90.0 

93.0 

95.4 

96.0 

32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst ...32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF Inst ...26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst ...32.5 W T8 & 0.77 BF Inst ...28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ...

60.77 

77.99 73.51 70.42 67.64 

126.00 112.69 105.51 109.77 

108.63 

167.94 158.80 160.20 161.36 

157.45 

N/A 

9.14 

7.74 

6.58 

10.49 

N/A 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

N/A 

100.0 100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

N/A 

0.4 3.1 2.9 1.9 

Event III: New Construction and Renovation. Baseline ................... New Lamp & Ballast Purchase. Baseline EL 1 ....... EL 2 .......

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

89.2 

90.0 

93.0 

95.4 

96.0 

32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst ...32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF Inst ...26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst ...32.5 W T8 & 0.77 BF Inst ...28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ...

63.61 80.84 

76.35 

73.26 70.49 

126.00 112.69 

105.51 

109.77 108.63 

169.54 160.40 

161.79 

162.96 159.04 

N/A 

9.14 

7.74 

6.58 

10.49 

N/A 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

N/A 

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

N/A 

0.4 3.1 2.9 1.9 

82The lifetimes of the representative lamps units range from 4.8 to 5.5 years. 

TABLE VII.4—LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR A 2-LAMP 4-FOOT 32 W T8 MEDIUM

BIPIN

PROGRAMMED

START

SYSTEM

OPERATING IN THE

COMMERCIAL

SECTOR

Event Response Efficacy level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 83

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2013$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2013$ 

LCC 

2013$ 

LLC 

savings 

2013$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Lamp Failure .. Baseline ...................

Lamp Replacement ..

Baseline EL 1 .......EL 2 .......EL 2 .......EL 2 .......

89.2 

90.0 

93.0 

95.4 96.0 

32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst ...32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst ...26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst ...32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst ...28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst ...

17.38 33.47 30.12 27.03 

24.25 

200.67 

200.67 168.52 200.67 180.59 

218.22 

225.18 198.82 227.87 205.02 

N/A 

¥6.96 

19.41 

¥9.65 

13.20 

N/A 

100.0 

0 

100.0 

0.0 

N/A 

0.0 

100.0 

0.0 

100.0 

N/A 

NER 

3.1 

NER 

2.6 

Event II: Ballast Failure Baseline ...................

Lamp & Ballast Replacement.

Baseline EL 1 .......EL 1 .......EL 2 .......EL 2 .......EL 2 .......

89.2 

90.0 

90.0 

93.0 95.4 

95.4 

32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst ...32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst ...32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF Inst ...26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst ...32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst ...32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF Inst ...

61.98 78.07 

78.07 

74.72 71.63 71.63 

200.67 200.67 168.05 

168.52 

200.67 168.05 

255.15 262.11 

229.49 

235.74 264.80 232.18 

N/A 

¥6.96 

25.66 19.41 

¥9.65 

22.97 

N/A 

100.0 

0.0 0.0 

100.0 

0.0 

N/A 

0.0 

100.0 100.0 

0.0 

100.0 

N/A 

NER 

0.3 3.1 

NER 

2.3 

EL 2 ....... 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.72 BF Inst ... 68.85 180.59 241.95 13.20 0.0 100.0 2.6 

Event III: New Construction and Renovation. Baseline ................... New Lamp & Ballast Purchase. Baseline EL 1 ....... EL 1 .......

EL 2 .......

89.2 

90.0 90.0 

93.0 

32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF Prog26.6 W T8 & 0.72 BF Prog

64.82 

80.91 80.91 77.56 

200.67 200.67 168.05 

168.52 

257.51 264.46 231.84 238.10 

N/A 

¥6.96 

25.66 

19.41 

N/A 

100.0 

0.0 0.0 

N/A 

0.0 

100.0 

100.0 

N/A 

NER 

0.3 3.1 

EL 2 ....... 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 74.47 200.67 267.15 

¥9.65 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ....... 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF Prog 74.47 168.05 234.53 22.97 0.0 100.0 2.3 EL 2 ....... 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 71.70 180.59 244.30 13.20 0.0 100.0 2.6 

83The lifetimes of the representative lamps units range from 6.9 to 9.2 years. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4109 

TABLE VII.5—LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR A 4-LAMP 4-FOOT 32 W T8 MEDIUM

BIPIN INSTANT

START

SYSTEM

OPERATING IN THE

COMMERCIAL

SECTOR

Event Response Efficacy level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 84

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2013$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2013$ 

LCC 

2013$ 

LLC 

savings 

2013$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Lamp Failure .. Baseline ...................

Lamp Replacement ..

Baseline EL 1 .......EL 2 .......EL 2 .......EL 2 .......

89.2 

90.0 

93.0 

95.4 96.0 

32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ...32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ...26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ...32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ...28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ...

28.26 57.07 53.75 47.56 

42.01 

248.52 

248.52 208.09 248.52 265.66 

277.17 

284.37 262.22 296.46 265.66 

N/A 

¥7.21 

14.94 

¥19.30 

11.51 

N/A 

100.0 

0.0 

100.0 

0.0 

N/A 

0.0 

100.0 

0.0 

100.0 

N/A 

NER 

3.1 

NER 

2.7 

Event II: Ballast Failure Baseline ...................

Lamp & Ballast Replacement.

Baseline EL 1 .......EL 2 .......EL 2 .......EL 2 .......

89.2 90.0 

93.0 

95.4 

96.0 

32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ...32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF Inst ...26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ...32.5 W T8 & 0.74 BF Inst ...28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ...

87.41 

116.22 

112.90 106.71 101.16 

242.00 

220.90 

202.40 213.66 217.26 

303.87 

289.98 

289.76 294.83 292.88 

N/A 

13.89 14.12 

9.05 

10.99 

N/A 

0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 

N/A 

100.0 100.0 

99.6 

100.0 

N/A 

0.5 3.2 3.4 2.7 

Event III: New Construction and Renovation. Baseline ................... New Lamp & Ballast Purchase. Baseline EL 1 ....... EL 2 ....... 89.2 90.0 93.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF Inst ... 26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 90.25 119.06 115.74 242.00 220.90 202.40 305.47 305.47 291.58 

291.35 

N/A 

13.89 

14.12 

N/A 

0.0 0.0 

N/A 

100.0 

100.0 

N/A 

0.5 3.2 

EL 2 ....... 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.74 BF Inst ... 109.55 213.66 296.42 9.05 0.4 99.6 3.4 EL 2 ....... 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 104.00 217.26 294.47 10.99 0.0 100.0 2.7 

84The lifetimes of the representative lamps units range from 4.8 to 5.5 years. 

TABLE VII.6—LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR A 4-LAMP 4-FOOT 32 W T8 MEDIUM

BIPIN

PROGRAMMED

START

SYSTEM

OPERATING IN THE

COMMERCIAL

SECTOR

Event Response Efficacy level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 85

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2013$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2013$ 

LCC 

2013$ 

LLC 

savings 

2013$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Lamp Failure .. Baseline ...................

Lamp Replacement ..

Baseline EL 1 .......EL 2 .......EL 2 .......EL 2 .......

89.2 

90.0 

93.0 

95.4 96.0 

32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF Prog32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF Prog26.6 W T8 & 0.89 BF Prog32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF Prog28.4 W T8 & 0.89 BF Prog

28.26 55.17 53.75 47.56 

42.01 

396.53 

396.53 332.51 396.53 356.54 

425.14 

436.96 386.60 444.44 398.90 

N/A 

¥11.82 

38.54 

¥19.30 

26.24 

N/A 

100.0 

0.0 

100.0 

0.0 

N/A 

0.0 

100.0 

0.0 

100.0 

N/A 

NER 

3.1 

NER 

2.7 

Event II: Ballast Failure Baseline ...................

Lamp & Ballast Replacement.

Baseline EL 1 .......EL 2 .......EL 2 .......EL 2 .......

89.2 90.0 

93.0 

95.4 

96.0 

32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF Prog32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Prog32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF Prog32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Prog28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF Prog

89.27 

116.18 

114.75 108.57 103.02 

396.53 

378.87 

332.51 378.87 340.36 

475.65 

469.82 

437.11 477.30 433.24 

N/A 

5.83 

38.54 

¥1.64 

42.42 

N/A 

0.3 0.0 

74.2 

0.0 

N/A 

99.7 

100.0 

25.8 

100.0 

N/A 

1.0 3.1 8.4 1.9 

Event III: New Construction and Renovation. Baseline ................... New Lamp & Ballast Purchase. Baseline EL 1 ....... EL 2 .......

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

89.2 

90.0 

93.0 

95.4 

96.0 

32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF Prog32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Prog32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF Prog32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Prog28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF Prog

92.11 

119.02 117.59 111.41 

105.86 

396.53 378.87 332.51 378.87 

340.36 

478.01 472.17 439.47 479.65 

435.59 

N/A 

5.83 

38.54 

¥1.64 

42.42 

N/A 

0.3 0.0 

74.2 

0.0 

N/A 

99.7 

100.0 

25.8 

100.0 

N/A 

1.0 3.1 8.4 1.9 

85The lifetimes of the representative lamps units range from 6.9 to 9.2 years. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4110 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.7—LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR A 2-LAMP 4-FOOT 32 W T8 MEDIUM

BIPIN INSTANT

START

SYSTEM

OPERATING IN THE

RESIDENTIAL

SECTOR

Event Response Efficacy level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 86

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2013$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2013$ 

LCC 

2013$ 

LCC 

savings 

2013$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Lamp Failure .. Baseline ...................

Lamp Replacement ..

Baseline EL 1 .......EL 2 .......EL 2 .......EL 2 .......

89.2 

90.0 

93.0 

95.4 96.0 

32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ...32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ...26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ...32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ...28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ...

10.59 11.70 23.33 20.24 

17.47 

49.49 49.49 41.51 49.49 

44.51 

60.09 61.19 64.84 69.74 

61.97 

N/A 

¥1.10 

¥4.75 ¥9.65 

¥1.88 

N/A 

100.0 

94.0 

100.0 

86.3 

N/A 

0.0 6.0 0.0 

13.7 

N/A 

NER 

16.9 

NER 

14.6 

Event II: Ballast Failure Baseline ...................

Lamp & Ballast Replacement.

Baseline EL 1 .......EL 2 .......EL 2 .......EL 2 .......

89.2 90.0 

93.0 

95.4 

96.0 

32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ...32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst ...26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ...32.5 W T8 & 0.83 BF Inst ...28.4 W T8 & 0.83 BF Inst ...

53.44 

54.54 66.18 63.09 60.31 

49.49 

46.98 41.51 46.98 42.24 

102.93 101.53 107.69 110.07 

102.56 

N/A 

1.41 

¥4.75 

¥7.14 

0.38 

N/A 

0.8 

94.0 

100.0 

43.8 

N/A 

99.2 

6.0 0.0 

56.2 

N/A 

4.7 

16.9 

40.8 

10.1 

Event III: New Construction and Renovation. Baseline ................... New Lamp & Ballast Purchase. Baseline EL 1 ....... EL 2 .......

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

89.2 

90.0 

93.0 

95.4 

96.0 

32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ...32.5 W T8 & 0.838 BF Inst26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ...32.5 W T8 & 0.83 BF Inst ...28.4 W T8 & 0.83 BF Inst ...

56.28 57.38 69.02 65.93 

63.15 

49.49 46.98 41.51 46.98 

42.24 

105.77 

104.37 110.53 112.91 105.40 

N/A 

1.41 

¥4.75 ¥7.14 

0.38 

N/A 

0.8 

94.0 

100.0 

43.8 

N/A 

99.2 

6.0 0.0 

56.2 

N/A 

4.7 

16.9 40.8 

10.1 

86The lifetimes of the representative lamps units are 15 years. 

TABLE VII.8—LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR A

TWO-LAMP 4-FOOT 54 W T5 MINIATURE

BIPIN

HIGH

OUTPUT

SYSTEM

OPERATING IN THE INDUSTRIAL

SECTOR

Event Response Efficacy level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 87

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2013$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2013$ 

LCC 

2013$ 

LLC 

savings 

2013$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Lamp Failure .. Baseline ................... Baseline 83.6 53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ...... 18.79 198.89 217.86 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement .. EL 1 ....... 92.9 53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ...... 26.89 198.89 225.96 

¥8.11 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 1 ....... 102.0 49 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ......... 32.88 181.63 207.42 10.44 0.0 100.0 3.6 EL 1 ....... 102.1 47 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ......... 35.82 174.43 205.82 12.04 0.0 100.0 3.0 

Event II: Ballast Failure Baseline ................... Baseline 83.6 53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ...... 73.59 198.89 250.82 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp & Ballast ........ EL 1 ....... 92.9 53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ...... 81.69 198.89 258.93 

¥8.11 100.0 0.0 NER 

Replacement. EL 1 ....... 102.0 49 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ......... 87.68 181.63 240.38 10.44 0.0 100.0 3.6 

EL 1 ....... 102.1 47 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ......... 90.62 174.43 238.78 12.04 0.0 100.0 3.0 

Event III: New Construction and Renovation. Baseline ................... New Lamp & Ballast Purchase. Baseline EL 1 ....... EL 1 ....... 83.6 92.9 102.0 53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ...... 53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ...... 49 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ......... 76.43 84.54 90.52 198.89 198.89 181.63 252.53 260.63 242.09 N/A 

¥8.11 

10.44 

N/A 

100.0 

0.0 

N/A 

0.0 

100.0 

N/A 

NER 

3.6 

EL 1 ....... 102.1 47 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ......... 93.46 174.43 240.49 12.04 0.0 100.0 3.0 

87The lifetimes of the representative lamps units range from 5.1 to 7.2 years. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4111 

TABLE VII.9—LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR A

TWO-LAMP 4-FOOT 28 W T5 MINIATURE

BIPIN

STANDARD

OUTPUT

SYSTEM

OPERATING IN THE

COMMERCIAL

SECTOR

Event Response Efficacy level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 88

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2013$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2013$ 

LCC 

2013$ 

LLC 

savings 

2013$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Lamp Failure .. Baseline ................... Baseline 94.6 27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ...... 15.48 168.05 183.71 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement .. EL 1 ....... 104.3 27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ...... 19.38 168.05 187.62 

¥3.91 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ....... 109.7 27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ...... 21.76 168.05 190.00 

¥6.29 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ....... 111.5 26 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ......... 24.94 157.48 182.61 1.10 35.6 64.4 5.4 EL 2 ....... 116.0 25 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ......... 27.72 151.60 176.35 7.36 0.0 100.0 4.5 

Event II: Ballast Failure Baseline ................... Baseline 94.6 27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ...... 69.04 168.05 219.39 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp & Ballast ........ EL 1 ....... 104.3 27.8 W T5 & 0.85 BF Prog 72.94 147.48 202.73 16.66 0.0 100.0 1.1 Replacement. EL 2 ....... 109.7 27.8 W T5 & 0.85 BF Prog 75.32 147.48 205.11 14.28 0.0 100.0 1.8 

EL 2 ....... 111.5 26 W T5 & 0.85 BF Prog .... 78.50 138.30 199.12 20.28 0.0 100.0 1.9 EL 2 ....... 116.0 25 W T5 & 0.85 BF Prog .... 81.28 133.20 193.64 25.76 0.0 100.0 2.1 

Event III: New Construction and Renovation. Baseline ................... Baseline 94.6 27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ...... 71.88 168.05 221.29 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

New Lamp & Ballast 

Purchase.

EL 1 ....... 104.3 27.8 W T5 & 0.85 BF Prog 75.79 147.48 204.63 16.66 0.0 100.0 1.1 

EL 2 ....... 109.7 27.8 W T5 & 0.85 BF Prog 78.17 147.48 207.01 14.28 0.0 100.0 1.8 EL 2 ....... 111.5 26 W T5 & 0.85 BF Prog .... 81.34 138.30 201.01 20.28 0.0 100.0 1.9 EL 2 ....... 116.0 25 W T5 & 0.85 BF Prog .... 84.12 133.20 195.53 25.76 0.0 100.0 2.1 

88The lifetimes of the representative lamps units range from 6.9 to 8.1 years. 

TABLE VII.10—LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR A

TWO-LAMP 8-FOOT 59 W T8 SINGLE

PIN

SLIMLINE

SYSTEM

OPERATING IN THE

COMMERCIAL

SECTOR

Event Response Efficacy level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 89

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2013$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2013$ 

LCC 

2013$ 

LLC 

savings 

2013$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Lamp Failure .. Baseline ................... Baseline 96.5 60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 27.02 235.88 263.29 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement .. EL 1 ....... 98.2 60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 29.72 235.88 266.00 

¥2.70 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ....... 99.0 60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 34.89 235.88 271.17 

¥7.88 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ....... 105.6 54 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ...... 43.98 223.67 268.05 

¥4.75 93.5 6.5 6.6 

EL 2 ....... 108.0 50 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ...... 51.41 207.38 259.19 4.10 18.4 81.6 4.1 

Event II: Ballast Failure Baseline ................... Baseline 96.5 60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 103.85 232.93 301.36 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp & Ballast ........ EL 1 ....... 98.2 60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF Inst ... 106.55 207.99 279.13 22.23 0.0 100.0 0.5 

Replacement. EL 2 ....... 99.0 60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF Inst ... 111.72 207.99 284.31 17.06 0.0 100.0 1.5 

EL 2 ....... 105.6 54 W T8 & 0.77 BF Inst ...... 120.81 197.22 282.62 18.75 0.0 100.0 2.3 EL 2 ....... 108.0 50 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ...... 128.24 204.71 297.54 3.83 21.5 78.5 4.1 

Event III: New .............. Baseline ................... Baseline 96.5 60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 106.69 232.93 302.88 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Construction and New Lamp & Ballast EL 1 ....... 98.2 60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF Inst ... 109.39 207.99 280.65 22.23 0.0 100.0 0.5 Renovation Purchase. EL 2 ....... 99.0 60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF Inst ... 114.57 207.99 285.82 17.06 0.0 100.0 1.5 

EL 2 ....... 105.6 54 W T8 & 0.77 BF Inst ...... 123.65 197.22 284.13 18.75 0.0 100.0 2.3 EL 2 ....... 108.0 50 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ...... 131.08 204.71 299.06 3.83 21.5 78.5 4.1 

89The lifetimes of the representative lamps units are 5.4 years. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4112 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.11—LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR A

TWO-LAMP 8-FOOT 86 W T8 RECESSED

DOUBLE

CONTACT HO SYSTEM

OPERATING IN THE INDUSTRIAL

SECTOR

Event Response Efficacy level 

Rated 

lamp efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 90

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2013$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2013$ 

LCC 

2013$ 

LLC 

savings 

2013$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Lamp Failure .. Baseline ................... Baseline 92.0 84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog .... 24.73 225.36 250.47 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement .. EL 1 ....... 95.2 84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog .... 34.39 225.36 260.13 

¥9.67 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ....... 97.6 84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog .... 41.67 225.36 267.42 

¥16.95 100.0 0.0 NER 

Event II: Ballast Failure Baseline ................... Baseline 92.0 84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog .... 103.98 225.36 287.49 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp & Ballast ........ EL 1 ....... 95.2 84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog .... 113.65 225.36 297.16 

¥9.67 100.0 0.0 NER 

Replacement. EL 2 ....... 97.6 84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog .... 120.93 225.36 304.44 

¥16.95 100.0 0.0 NER 

Event III: New .............. Baseline ................... Baseline 92.0 84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog .... 106.82 225.36 288.82 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Construction and New Lamp & Ballast EL 1 ....... 95.2 84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog .... 116.49 225.36 298.49 

¥9.67 100.0 0.0 NER 

Renovation. Purchase. EL 2 ....... 97.6 84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog .... 123.77 225.36 305.77 

¥16.95 100.0 0.0 NER 

90The lifetimes of the representative lamp units are 3.6 years. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4113 

Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

Table VII.12 through Table VII.15 

present the commercial and residential 

sector LCC results for the IRL 

representative product class, the 

standard spectrum IRLs with diameters 

greater than 2.5 inches, input voltages 

less than 125 V. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4114 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.12—LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR A 55 W PAR38 2,500 HOUR HIR EL 1 REPRESENTATIVE

LAMP

OPERATING IN THE

COMMERCIAL

SECTOR

Event Response Efficacy level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Lamp option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2013$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2013$ 

LCC 

2013$ 

LLC 

savings 

2013$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Lamp Failure; Baseline ................... Baseline 17.8 60W, 1500hrs, Improved 

Halogen.

10.67 9.88 20.54 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

or Event III: New Construction and Renovation 

Lamp Replacement 

or New Lamp Purchase.

EL 1 ....... 17.8 55W, 2500hrs, HIR .............. 13.25 9.05 17.00 3.54 0.0 100.0 3.0 

TABLE VII.13—LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR A 55 W PAR38 2,500 HOUR HIR EL 1 REPRESENTATIVE

LAMP

OPERATING IN THE

RESIDENTIAL

SECTOR

Event Response Efficacy level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Lamp option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2013$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2013$ 

LCC 

2013$ 

LLC 

savings 

2013$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net ben- efit 

Event I: Lamp Failure; Baseline ................... Baseline 17.8 60W, 1500hrs, Improved 

Halogen.

9.52 10.92 20.45 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

or Event III: New Construction and Renovation 

Lamp Replacement 

or New Lamp Purchase.

EL 1 ....... 17.8 55W, 2500hrs, HIR .............. 12.10 10.01 17.74 2.71 0.0 100.0 5.2 

TABLE VII.14—LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR A 55 W PAR38 4,200 HOUR IMPROVED HIR EL 1 REPRESENTATIVE

LAMP

OPERATING IN THE

COMMERCIAL

SECTOR

Event Response Efficacy level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Lamp option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2013$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2013$ 

LCC 

2013$ 

LLC 

savings 

2013$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Lamp Failure; Baseline ................... Baseline 17.8 60W, 1500hrs, Improved 

Halogen.

10.67 9.88 20.54 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

or Event III: New Construction and Renovation 

Lamp Replacement 

or New Lamp Purchase.

EL 1 ....... 20.4 55W, 4200hrs, Improved 

HIR.

15.15 9.05 14.46 6.08 0.0 100.0 5.2 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4115 

TABLE VII.15—LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR A 55 W PAR38 4,200 HOUR IMPROVED HIR EL 1 REPRESENTATIVE

LAMP

OPERATING IN THE

RESIDENTIAL

SECTOR

Event Response Efficacy level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Lamp option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2013$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2013$ 

LCC 

2013$ 

LLC 

savings 

2013$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Lamp Failure; 

or Event III: New Construction and Renovation.

Baseline ................... Baseline 17.8 60W, 1500hrs, Improved 

Halogen.

9.52 10.92 20.45 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement 

or New Lamp Purchase.

EL 1 ....... 20.4 55W, 4200hrs, Improved 

HIR.

14.00 10.01 15.87 4.58 0.0 100.0 9.0 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4116 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

Certain consumer subgroups may be 

disproportionately affected by 

standards. Using the LCC spreadsheet 

model, DOE determined the impact of 

the TSLs on the following consumer 

subgroups: low-income consumers and 

institutions that serve low-income 

populations. 

To reflect conditions faced by the 

identified subgroups, DOE adjusted 

particular inputs to the LCC model. For 

low-income consumers, DOE only used 

RECS data for consumers living below 

the poverty line. For institutions serving 

low-income populations, DOE assumed 

that the majority of these institutions are 

small nonprofits, and used a higher 

discount rate of 8.2 percent (versus 3.6 

percent for the main commercial sector 

analysis). DOE found the differences 

between the LCC and PBP results for the 

subgroups analyzed and the primary 

LCC and PBP analysis to be minimal. 

See chapter 9 of the final rule TSD 

further details of the consumer 

subgroup analysis. 

General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

Table VII.16 through Table VII.24 

show the LCC impacts and payback 

periods for the identified subgroups for 

GSFLs. Entries of ‘‘NER’’ indicate 

standard levels that do not reduce 

operating costs. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4117 

TABLE VII.16—LCC AND PBP SUBGROUP

RESULTS FOR INSTITUTIONS

SERVING

LOW-INCOME

POPULATIONS FOR A 2-LAMP 4-FOOT 32 W T8 MEDIUM

BIPIN

INSTANT

START

SYSTEM

OPERATING IN THE

COMMERCIAL

SECTOR

Event Response Efficacy level 

Rated 

lamp efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2013$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2013$ 

LCC 

2013$ 

LLC 

savings 

2013$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Lamp Failure Baseline ................... Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst ... 17.38 110.26 127.79 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement .. EL 1 ....... 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst ... 32.05 110.26 132.38 

¥4.59 100 0 NER 

EL 2 ....... 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst ... 30.12 92.34 122.61 5.18 1.3 98.7 3.1 EL 2 ....... 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst ... 27.03 110.26 137.44 

¥9.65 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ....... 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst ... 24.25 99.07 123.47 4.32 0.0 100.0 2.6 

Event II: Ballast Failure Baseline ................... Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst ... 60.77 110.06 156.30 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp & Ballast ........ EL 1 ....... 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF Inst ... 75.44 98.44 149.27 7.03 0.0 100.0 0.4 

Replacement. EL 2 ....... 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst ... 73.51 92.17 151.15 5.15 1.4 98.6 3.1 

EL 2 ....... 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.77 BF Inst ... 70.42 95.89 151.78 4.53 0.3 99.7 2.9 EL 2 ....... 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 67.64 94.89 148.01 8.30 0.0 100.0 1.9 

Event III: New .............. Baseline ................... Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst ... 63.61 110.06 158.18 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Construction and New Lamp & Ballast EL 1 ....... 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF Inst ... 78.28 98.44 151.15 7.03 0.0 100.0 0.4 Renovation. Purchase. EL 2 ....... 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst ... 76.35 92.17 153.03 5.15 1.4 98.6 3.1 

EL 2 ....... 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.77 BF Inst ... 73.26 95.89 153.66 4.53 0.3 99.7 2.9 EL 2 ....... 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 70.49 94.89 149.89 8.30 0.0 100.0 1.9 

TABLE VII.17—LCC AND PBP SUBGROUP

RESULTS FOR INSTITUTIONS

SERVING

LOW-INCOME

POPULATIONS FOR A 2-LAMP 4-FOOT 32 W T8 MEDIUM

BIPIN

PROGRAMMED

START

SYSTEM

OPERATING IN THE

COMMERCIAL

SECTOR

Event Response Efficacy level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2013$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2013$ 

LCC 

2013$ 

LLC 

savings 

2013$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Lamp Failure .. Baseline ................... Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 17.38 163.71 181.21 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement .. EL 1 ....... 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 30.05 163.71 187.69 

¥6.48 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ....... 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 30.12 137.48 167.73 13.49 0.0 100.0 3.1 EL 2 ....... 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 27.03 163.71 190.86 

¥9.65 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ....... 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 24.25 147.33 171.71 9.51 0.0 100.0 2.6 

Event II: Ballast Failure Baseline ................... Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 61.98 163.71 220.61 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp & Ballast ........ EL 1 ....... 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 74.65 163.71 227.09 

¥6.48 100.0 0.0 NER 

Replacement. EL 1 ....... 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF Prog 74.65 137.10 200.48 20.13 0.0 100.0 0.3 

EL 2 ....... 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 74.72 137.48 207.12 13.49 0.0 100.0 3.1 EL 2 ....... 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 71.63 163.71 230.26 

¥9.65 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ....... 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF Prog 71.63 137.10 203.65 16.97 0.0 100.0 2.3 EL 2 ....... 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 68.85 147.33 211.11 9.51 0.0 100.0 2.6 

Event III: New .............. Baseline ................... Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 64.82 163.71 223.12 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Construction and New Lamp & Ballast EL 1 ....... 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 77.49 163.71 229.60 

¥6.48 100.0 0.0 NER 

Renovation. Purchase. EL 1 ....... 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF Prog 77.49 137.10 202.99 20.13 0.0 100.0 0.3 

EL 2 ....... 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 77.56 137.48 209.64 13.49 0.0 100.0 3.1 EL 2 ....... 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 74.47 163.71 232.77 

¥9.65 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ....... 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.72 BF Prog 74.47 137.10 206.16 16.97 0.0 100.0 2.3 EL 2 ....... 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 71.70 147.33 213.62 9.51 0.0 100.0 2.6 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4118 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.18—LCC AND PBP SUBGROUP

RESULTS FOR INSTITUTIONS

SERVING

LOW-INCOME

POPULATIONS FOR A 4-LAMP 4-FOOT 32 W T8 MEDIUM

BIPIN

INSTANT

START

SYSTEM

OPERATING IN THE

COMMERCIAL

SECTOR

Event Response Efficacy level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2013$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2013$ 

LCC 

2013$ 

LLC 

savings 

2013$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Lamp Failure .. Baseline ................... Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 28.26 217.09 245.65 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement .. EL 1 ....... 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 52.85 217.09 253.57 

¥7.92 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ....... 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 53.75 181.77 235.82 9.83 1.9 98.1 3.1 EL 2 ....... 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 47.56 217.09 264.95 

¥19.30 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ....... 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 42.01 195.03 237.33 8.31 0.0 100.0 2.7 

Event II: Ballast Failure Baseline ................... Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 87.41 211.39 279.10 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp & Ballast ........ EL 1 ....... 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF Inst ... 112.00 192.97 268.59 10.51 0.0 100.0 0.5 

Replacement. EL 2 ....... 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 112.90 176.80 269.99 9.11 2.2 97.8 3.2 

EL 2 ....... 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.74 BF Inst ... 106.71 186.63 273.63 5.46 5.1 94.9 3.4 EL 2 ....... 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 101.16 189.78 271.23 7.86 0.0 100.0 2.7 

Event III: New .............. Baseline ................... Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 90.25 211.39 280.98 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Construction and New Lamp & Ballast EL 1 ....... 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF Inst ... 114.84 192.97 270.47 10.51 0.0 100.0 0.5 Renovation. Purchase. EL 2 ....... 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 115.74 176.80 271.87 9.11 2.2 97.8 3.2 

EL 2 ....... 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.74 BF Inst ... 109.55 186.63 275.51 5.46 5.1 94.9 3.4 EL 2 ....... 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 104.00 189.78 273.11 7.86 0.0 100.0 2.7 

TABLE VII.19—LCC AND PBP SUBGROUP

RESULTS FOR INSTITUTIONS

SERVING

LOW-INCOME

POPULATIONS FOR A 4-LAMP 4-FOOT 32 W T8 MEDIUM

BIPIN

PROGRAMMED

START

SYSTEM

OPERATING IN THE

COMMERCIAL

SECTOR

Event Response Efficacy level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2013$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2013$ 

LCC 

2013$ 

LLC 

savings 

2013$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Lamp Failure .. Baseline ................... Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF Prog 28.26 323.51 352.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement .. EL 1 ....... 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF Prog 49.53 323.51 363.05 

¥11.04 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ....... 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.89 BF Prog 53.75 271.27 325.26 26.75 0.0 100.0 3.1 EL 2 ....... 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF Prog 47.56 323.51 371.30 

¥19.30 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ....... 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.89 BF Prog 42.01 290.88 333.13 18.88 0.0 100.0 2.7 

Event II: Ballast Failure Baseline ................... Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF Prog 89.27 323.51 405.90 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp & Ballast Replacement EL 1 ....... 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Prog 110.54 309.10 402.54 3.36 4.0 96.0 1.0 

EL 2 ....... 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.89 BF Prog 114.75 271.27 379.15 26.75 0.0 100.0 3.1 EL 2 ....... 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Prog 108.57 309.10 410.79 

¥4.89 88.8 11.2 8.4 

EL 2 ....... 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF Prog 103.02 277.68 373.82 32.07 0.0 100.0 1.9 

Event III: New Construction and Renovation. Baseline ................... Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF Prog 92.11 323.51 408.41 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

New Lamp & Ballast 

Purchase.

EL 1 ....... 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Prog 113.38 309.10 405.05 3.36 4.0 96.0 1.0 

EL 2 ....... 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.89 BF Prog 117.59 271.27 381.66 26.75 0.0 100.0 3.1 EL 2 ....... 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Prog 111.41 309.10 413.30 

¥4.89 88.8 11.2 8.4 

EL 2 ....... 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF Prog 105.86 277.68 376.33 32.07 0.0 100.0 1.9 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4119 

TABLE VII.20—LCC AND PBP SUBGROUP

RESULTS FOR

LOW-INCOME

CONSUMERS FOR A 2-LAMP 4-FOOT 32 W T8 MEDIUM

BIPIN INSTANT

START

SYSTEM

OPERATING IN THE

RESIDENTIAL

SECTOR

Event Response Efficacy level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2013$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2013$ 

LCC 

2013$ 

LLC 

savings 

2013$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Lamp Failure .. Baseline ................... Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 10.60 49.49 60.09 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement .. EL 1 ....... 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 11.71 49.49 61.20 

¥1.10 100 0 NER 

EL 2 ....... 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 23.36 41.50 64.86 

¥4.77 93.3 6.7 16.9 

EL 2 ....... 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 20.26 49.49 69.75 

¥9.66 100 0 NER 

EL 2 ....... 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 17.48 44.50 61.98 

¥1.89 86.4 13.6 14.6 

Event II: Ballast Failure Baseline ................... Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 53.46 49.49 102.94 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp & Ballast EL 1 ....... 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.83 BF Inst ... 54.56 46.98 101.54 1.40 0.8 99.2 4.7 

Replacement. EL 2 ....... 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 66.21 41.50 107.71 

¥4.77 93.3 6.7 16.9 

EL 2 ....... 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.83 BF Inst ... 63.11 46.98 110.09 

¥7.15 100.0 0.0 40.8 

EL 2 ....... 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.83 BF Inst ... 60.34 42.24 102.57 0.37 43.8 56.2 10.1 

Event III: New Construction and Renovation. Baseline ................... Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 56.30 49.49 105.79 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

New Lamp & Ballast 

Purchase.

EL 1 ....... 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.83 BF Inst ... 57.40 46.98 104.38 1.40 0.8 99.2 4.7 

EL 2 ....... 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 69.05 41.50 110.55 

¥4.77 93.3 6.7 16.9 

EL 2 ....... 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.83 BF Inst ... 65.96 46.98 112.93 

¥7.15 100.0 0.0 40.8 

EL 2 ....... 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.83 BF Inst ... 63.18 42.24 105.42 0.37 43.8 56.2 10.1 

TABLE VII.21—LCC AND PBP SUBGROUP

RESULTS FOR INSTITUTIONS

SERVING

LOW-INCOME

POPULATIONS FOR A

TWO-LAMP 4-FOOT 54 W T5 MINIATURE

BIPIN

HIGH

OUTPUT

SYSTEM

OPERATING IN THE

COMMERCIAL

SECTOR

Event Response Efficacy level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2013$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2013$ 

LCC 

2013$ 

LLC 

savings 

2013$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Lamp Failure .. Baseline ................... Baseline 83.6 53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ...... 18.78 239.73 258.66 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement .. EL 1 ....... 92.9 53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ...... 26.88 239.73 266.76 

¥8.10 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 1 ....... 102.0 49 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ......... 32.86 218.93 245.99 12.67 0.0 100.0 3.0 EL 1 ....... 102.1 47 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ......... 35.81 210.25 242.43 16.23 0.0 100.0 2.6 

Event II: Ballast Failure Baseline ................... Baseline 83.6 53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ...... 73.57 239.73 295.57 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp & Ballast EL 1 ....... 92.9 53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ...... 81.67 239.73 303.67 

¥8.10 100.0 0.0 NER 

Replacement. EL 1 ....... 102.0 49 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ......... 87.65 218.93 282.90 12.67 0.0 100.0 3.0 

EL 1 ....... 102.1 47 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ......... 90.60 210.25 279.34 16.23 0.0 100.0 2.6 

Event III: New Construction and Renovation. Baseline ................... Baseline 83.6 53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ...... 76.41 239.73 297.48 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

New Lamp & Ballast 

Purchase.

EL 1 ....... 92.9 53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ...... 84.51 239.73 305.59 

¥8.10 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 1 ....... 102.0 49 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ......... 90.49 218.93 284.81 12.67 0.0 100.0 3.0 EL 1 ....... 102.1 47 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ......... 93.44 210.25 281.25 16.23 0.0 100.0 2.6 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4120 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.22—LCC AND PBP SUBGROUP

RESULTS FOR INSTITUTIONS

SERVING

LOW-INCOME

POPULATIONS FOR A

TWO-LAMP 4-FOOT 28 W T5 MINIATURE

BIPIN

STANDARD

OUTPUT

SYSTEM

OPERATING IN THE

COMMERCIAL

SECTOR

Event Response Efficacy level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2013$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2013$ 

LCC 

2013$ 

LLC 

savings 

2013$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Lamp Failure .. Baseline ................... Baseline 94.6 27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ...... 15.48 143.06 158.67 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement .. EL 1 ....... 104.3 27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ...... 19.38 143.06 162.58 

¥3.91 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ....... 109.7 27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ...... 21.76 143.06 164.96 

¥6.29 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ....... 111.5 26 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ......... 24.94 134.06 159.14 

¥0.47 71.2 28.8 5.4 

EL 2 ....... 116.0 25 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ......... 27.72 129.06 154.58 4.09 2.5 97.5 4.5 

Event II: Ballast Failure Baseline ................... Baseline 94.6 27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ...... 69.04 143.06 199.02 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp & Ballast ........ EL 1 ....... 104.3 27.8 W T5 & 0.85 BF Prog 72.94 125.55 185.42 13.60 0.0 100.0 1.1 

Replacement. EL 2 ....... 109.7 27.8 W T5 & 0.85 BF Prog 75.32 125.55 187.80 11.22 0.0 100.0 1.8 

EL 2 ....... 111.5 26 W T5 & 0.85 BF Prog .... 78.50 117.74 183.17 15.86 0.0 100.0 1.9 EL 2 ....... 116.0 25 W T5 & 0.85 BF Prog .... 81.28 113.39 179.27 19.75 0.0 100.0 2.1 

Event III: New .............. Baseline ................... Baseline 94.6 27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog ...... 71.88 143.06 201.16 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Construction and New Lamp & Ballast EL 1 ....... 104.3 27.8 W T5 & 0.85 BF Prog 75.79 125.55 187.56 13.60 0.0 100.0 1.1 Renovation. Purchase. EL 2 ....... 109.7 27.8 W T5 & 0.85 BF Prog 78.17 125.55 189.94 11.22 0.0 100.0 1.8 

EL 2 ....... 111.5 26 W T5 & 0.85 BF Prog .... 81.34 117.74 185.31 15.86 0.0 100.0 1.9 EL 2 ....... 116.0 25 W T5 & 0.85 BF Prog .... 84.12 113.39 181.41 19.75 0.0 100.0 2.1 

TABLE VII.23—LCC AND PBP SUBGROUP

RESULTS FOR INSTITUTIONS

SERVING

LOW-INCOME

POPULATIONS FOR A

TWO-LAMP 8-FOOT 59 W T8 SINGLE

PIN

SLIMLINE

SYSTEM

OPERATING IN THE

COMMERCIAL

SECTOR

Event Response Efficacy level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2013$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2013$ 

LCC 

2013$ 

LLC 

savings 

2013$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Lamp Failure .. Baseline ................... Baseline 96.5 60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 27.02 206.75 234.09 N/A N/A N/A N/A Lamp Replacement EL 1 ....... 98.2 60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 29.72 206.75 236.79 

¥2.70 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ....... 99.0 60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 34.89 206.75 241.97 

¥7.88 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ....... 105.6 54 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ...... 43.98 196.05 240.35 

¥6.26 99.8 0.2 6.6 

EL 2 ....... 108.0 50 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ...... 51.41 181.77 233.51 0.58 59.9 40.1 4.1 

Event II: Ballast Failure Baseline ................... Baseline 96.5 60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 103.85 204.17 279.48 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp & Ballast ........ EL 1 ....... 98.2 60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF Inst ... 106.55 182.31 260.33 19.15 0.0 100.0 0.5 

Replacement. EL 2 ....... 99.0 60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF Inst ... 111.72 182.31 265.50 13.98 0.0 100.0 1.5 

EL 2 ....... 105.6 54 W T8 & 0.77 BF Inst ...... 120.81 172.87 265.14 14.34 0.0 100.0 2.3 EL 2 ....... 108.0 50 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ...... 128.24 179.43 279.14 0.34 63.2 36.8 4.1 

Event III: New Construction and Renovation. Baseline ................... Baseline 96.5 60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ... 106.69 204.17 281.25 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

New Lamp & Ballast 

Purchase.

EL 1 ....... 98.2 60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF Inst ... 109.39 182.31 262.10 19.15 0.0 100.0 0.5 

EL 2 ....... 99.0 60.1 W T8 & 0.77 BF Inst ... 114.57 182.31 267.27 13.98 0.0 100.0 1.5 EL 2 ....... 105.6 54 W T8 & 0.77 BF Inst ...... 123.65 172.87 266.91 14.34 0.0 100.0 2.3 EL 2 ....... 108.0 50 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst ...... 131.08 179.43 280.91 0.34 63.2 36.8 4.1 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4121 

TABLE VII.24—LCC AND PBP SUBGROUP

RESULTS FOR INSTITUTIONS

SERVING

LOW-INCOME

POPULATIONS FOR A

TWO-LAMP 8-FOOT 86 W T8 RECESSED

DOUBLE

CONTACT HO SYSTEM

OPERATING IN THE

COMMERCIAL

SECTOR

Event Response Efficacy level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2013$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2013$ 

LCC 

2013$ 

LLC 

savings 

2013$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Lamp Failure .. Baseline ................... Baseline 92.0 84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog .... 24.72 279.36 304.43 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp Replacement .. EL 1 ....... 95.2 84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog .... 34.38 279.36 314.09 

¥9.66 100.0 0.0 NER 

EL 2 ....... 97.6 84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog .... 41.66 279.36 321.37 

¥16.94 100.0 0.0 NER 

Event II: Ballast Failure Baseline ................... Baseline 92.0 84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog .... 103.96 279.36 345.38 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Lamp & Ballast ........ EL 1 ....... 95.2 84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog .... 113.62 279.36 355.04 

¥9.66 100.0 0.0 NER 

Replacement. EL 2 ....... 97.6 84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog .... 120.90 279.36 362.32 

¥16.94 100.0 0.0 NER 

Event III: New .............. Baseline ................... Baseline 92.0 84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog .... 106.80 279.36 346.85 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Construction and New Lamp & Ballast EL 1 ....... 95.2 84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog .... 116.47 279.36 356.51 

¥9.66 100.0 0.0 NER 

Renovation. Purchase. EL 2 ....... 97.6 84 W T8 & 0.95 BF Prog .... 123.74 279.36 363.79 

¥16.94 100.0 0.0 NER 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4122 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

Table VII.25 through Table VII.28 

show the LCC impacts and payback 

periods for the identified subgroups for 

IRLs. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4123 

TABLE VII.25—LCC AND PBP SUBGROUP

RESULTS FOR INSTITUTIONS

SERVING

LOW-INCOME

POPULATIONS FOR A 55 W PAR38 2,500 HOUR HIR EL 1 

REPRESENTATIVE

LAMP

OPERATING IN THE

COMMERCIAL

SECTOR

Event Response Efficacy level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Lamp option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2013$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2013$ 

LCC 

2013$ 

LLC 

savings 

2013$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Lamp Failure; 

or Event III: New Construction and Renovation.

Baseline ...................Lamp Replacement 

or New Lamp Purchase.

Baseline EL 1 .......

17.8 

17.8 

60W, 1500hrs, Improved 

Halogen.

55W, 2500hrs, HIR ..............

10.67 13.25 

9.46 

8.67 

20.13 

16.62 

N/A 

3.51 

N/A 

0.0 

N/A 

100.0 

N/A 

3.0 

TABLE VII.26—LCC AND PBP SUBGROUP

RESULTS FOR

LOW-INCOME

CONSUMERS FOR A 55 W PAR38 2,500 HOUR HIR EL 1 REPRESENTATIVE

LAMP

OPERATING IN THE

RESIDENTIAL

SECTOR

Event Response Efficacy level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Lamp option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2013$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2013$ 

LCC 

2013$ 

LCC 

savings 

2013$ 

Percentage of consumers that experience 

Net cost Net ben- efit 

Event I: Lamp Failure; 

or Event III: New Construction and Renovation.

Baseline ...................Lamp Replacement 

or New Lamp Purchase.

Baseline EL 1 .......

17.8 

17.8 

60W, 1500hrs, Improved 

Halogen.

55W, 2500hrs, HIR ..............

9.53 

12.11 

10.77 

9.88 

20.31 

17.61 

N/A 

2.70 

N/A 

0.0 

N/A 

100.0 

N/A 

5.3 

TABLE VII.27—LCC AND PBP SUBGROUP

RESULTS FOR INSTITUTIONS

SERVING

LOW-INCOME

POPULATIONS FOR A 55 W PAR38 4,200 HOUR IMPROVED HIR 

EL 1 REPRESENTATIVE

LAMP

OPERATING IN THE

COMMERCIAL

SECTOR

Event Response Efficacy level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Lamp option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2013$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2013$ 

LCC 

2013$ 

LLC 

savings 

2013$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Lamp Failure; 

or Event III: New Construction and Renovation.

Baseline ...................Lamp Replacement 

or New Lamp Purchase.

Baseline EL 1 .......

17.8 

20.4 

60W, 1500hrs, Improved 

Halogen.

55W, 4200hrs, Improved 

HIR.

10.67 

15.15 

9.46 

8.67 

20.13 14.08 

N/A 

6.05 

N/A 

0.0 

N/A 

100.0 

N/A 

5.2 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4124 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.28—LCC AND PBP SUBGROUP

RESULTS FOR

LOW-INCOME

CONSUMERS FOR A 55 W PAR38 4,200 HOUR IMPROVED HIR EL 1 REPRESENTATIVE

LAMP

OPERATING IN THE

RESIDENTIAL

SECTOR

Event Response Efficacy level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Lamp option 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

2013$ 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

2013$ 

LCC 

2013$ 

LLC 

savings 

2013$ 

Percentage of 

consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Lamp Failure; 

or Event III: New Construction and Renovation.

Baseline ...................Lamp Replacement 

or New Lamp Purchase.

Baseline EL 1 .......

17.8 

20.4 

60W, 1500hrs, Improved 

Halogen.

55W, 4200hrs, Improved 

HIR.

9.53 

14.01 

10.77 

9.88 

20.31 15.74 

N/A 

4.57 

N/A 

0.0 

N/A 

100.0 

N/A 

9.2 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4125 

c. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback 

EPCA establishes a rebuttable 

presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified if the increased purchase cost 

for a product that meets the standard is 

less than three times the value of the 

first-year energy savings resulting from 

the standard. DOE’s LCC and PBP 

analyses generate values that calculate 

the payback period for consumers of 

potential energy conservation standards, 

which include, but are not limited to, 

the 3-year payback period contemplated 

under the rebuttable-presumption test. 

However, DOE routinely conducts a full 

economic analysis that considers the 

full range of impacts—including those 

on consumers, manufacturers, the 

nation, and the environment—as 

required under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this 

analysis serve as the basis for DOE to 

evaluate the economic justification for a 

potential standard level (thereby 

supporting or rebutting the results of 

any preliminary determination of 

economic justification). 

Table VII.29 shows the GSFL payback 

periods that are less than 3 years for the 

most common sector for each product 

class. There are no IRL payback periods 

less than 3 years. 

TABLE VII.29—GSFL EFFICACY LEVELS WITH REBUTTABLE PAYBACK PERIOD LESS THAN THREE YEARS

Lamp 

description Sector Event Response Efficacy level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

2-Lamp 4-foot Medium Bipin Instant Start.Commercial ....... Event I: Lamp Failure ... Lamp Replacement EL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.88 BF Inst.

2.6 

Event II: Ballast Failure Lamp & Ballast ........ EL 1 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 

0.78 BF Inst.

0.4 

Replacement EL 2 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 

0.77 BF Inst.

2.9 

EL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Inst.

1.9 

Event III: New Construction and Renovation.New Lamp & Ballast 

Purchase.

EL 1 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 

0.78 BF Inst.

0.4 

EL 2 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 

0.77 BF Inst.

2.9 

EL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Inst.

1.9 

2-Lamp 4-foot Medium Bipin Programmed Start.Commercial ....... Event I: Lamp Failure ... Lamp Replacement EL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.88 BF Prog.

2.6 

Event II: Ballast Failure Lamp & Ballast Replacement.EL 1 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 

0.72 BF Prog.

0.3 

EL 2 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 

0.72 BF Prog.

2.3 

EL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.88 BF Prog.

2.6 

Event III: New Construction and Renovation.New Lamp & Ballast 

Purchase.

EL 1 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 

0.72 BF Prog.

0.3 

EL 2 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 

0.72 BF Prog.

2.3 

EL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.88 BF Prog.

2.6 

4-Lamp 4-foot Medium Bipin Instant Start.Commercial ....... Event I: Lamp Failure ... Lamp Replacement EL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Inst.

2.7 

Event II: Ballast Failure Lamp & Ballast Replacement.EL 1 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 

0.78 BF Inst.

0.5 

EL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Inst.

2.7 

Event III: New Construction and Renovation.New Lamp & Ballast 

Purchase.

EL 1 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 

0.78 BF Inst.

0.5 

EL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Inst.

2.7 

4-Lamp 4-foot Medium Bipin Programmed Start.Commercial ....... Event I: Lamp Failure ... Lamp Replacement EL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.89 BF Prog.

2.7 

Event II: Ballast Failure Lamp & Ballast Replacement.EL 1 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Prog.

1.0 

EL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Prog.

1.9 

Event III: New Construction and Renovation.New Lamp & Ballast 

Purchase.

EL 1 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Prog.

1.0 

EL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 

0.87 BF Prog.

1.9 

T5 Miniature Bipin Standard Output Commercial ....... Event II: Ballast Failure Lamp & Ballast Replacement.EL 1 104.3 27.8 W T5 & 

0.85 BF Prog.

1.1 

EL 2 109.7 27.8 W T5 & 

0.85 BF Prog.

1.8 

EL 2 111.5 26 W T5 & 0.85 

BF Prog.

1.9 

EL 2 116.0 25 W T5 & 0.85 

BF Prog.

2.1 

Event III: New Construction and Renovation.New Lamp & Ballast 

Purchase.

EL 1 104.3 27.8 W T5 & 

0.85 BF Prog.

1.1 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4126 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.29—GSFL EFFICACY LEVELS WITH REBUTTABLE PAYBACK PERIOD LESS THAN THREE YEARS—Continued 

Lamp 

description Sector Event Response Efficacy level 

Rated 

lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Design option 

Mean 

payback 

period 

years 

EL 2 109.7 27.8 W T5 & 

0.85 BF Prog.

1.8 

EL 2 111.5 26 W T5 & 0.85 

BF Prog.

1.9 

EL 2 116.0 25 W T5 & 0.85 

BF Prog.

2.1 

T8 Single Pin Slimline .................... Commercial ....... Event II: Ballast Failure Lamp & Ballast Replacement.EL 1 98.2 60.1 W T8 & 

0.77 BF Prog.

0.5 

EL 2 99.0 60.1 W T8 & 

0.77 BF Prog.

1.5 

EL 2 105.6 54 W T8 & 0.77 

BF Prog.

2.3 

Event III: New Construction and Renovation.New Lamp & Ballast 

Purchase.

EL 1 98.2 60.1 W T8 & 

0.77 BF Prog.

0.5 

EL 2 99.0 60.1 W T8 & 

0.77 BF Prog.

1.5 

EL 2 105.6 54 W T8 & 0.77 

BF Prog.

2.3 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

DOE performed MIAs to estimate the 

impact of amended energy conservation 

standards on manufacturers of GSFLs 

and IRLs. The following section 

describes the expected impacts on GSFL 

and IRL manufacturers at each TSL. 

Chapter 13 of the final rule TSD 

explains the MIA in further detail. 

a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results 

The tables in this section depict the 

financial impacts (represented by 

changes in INPV) of potential amended 

energy standards on GSFL and IRL 

manufacturers, as well as the conversion 

costs that DOE estimates GSFL and IRL 

manufacturers would incur at each TSL. 

DOE separately breaks out the impacts 

on GSFL and IRL manufacturers. To 

evaluate the range of cash-flow impacts 

on the GSFL and IRL industries, DOE 

modeled three markup scenarios for 

GSFLs and two markup scenarios for 

IRLs that correspond to the range of 

anticipated market responses to 

potential amended standards. Each 

scenario results in a unique set of cash 

flows and corresponding industry 

values at each TSL. 

In the following discussion, the INPV 

results refer to the difference in industry 

value between the base case and the 

standards case that result from the sum 

of discounted cash flows from the base 

year (2015) through the end of the 

analysis period. The results also discuss 

the difference in cash flows between the 

base case and the standards case in the 

year before the compliance date for 

potential amended energy conservation 

standards. This figure represents the 

size of the required conversion costs 

relative to the cash flow generated by 

the GSFL and IRL industries in the 

absence of potential amended energy 

conservation standards. 

Cash-Flow Analysis Results by TSL for 

General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

To assess the upper (less severe) 

bound of the range of potential impacts 

on GSFL manufacturers, DOE modeled 

a flat, or preservation of gross margin, 

markup scenario. This scenario assumes 

that in the standards case, 

manufacturers would be able to pass 

along all the higher production costs 

required for more efficacious products 

to their consumers. Specifically, the 

industry would be able to maintain its 

average base-case gross margin (as a 

percentage of revenue) despite the 

higher product costs in the standards 

case. In general, the larger the product 

price increases, the less likely 

manufacturers are to achieve the cash 

flow from operations calculated in this 

scenario because it is less likely that 

manufacturers would be able to fully 

mark up these larger cost increases. 

To assess the lower (more severe) 

bound of the range of potential impacts 

on the GSFL manufacturers, DOE 

modeled a two-tier markup scenario. 

The two-tiered markup scenario 

assumes manufacturers offer two 

different tiers of markups, one for lower 

efficacy levels and one for higher 

efficacy levels. This scenario models a 

situation where a reduction in premium 

markups reduces the profitability of 

higher efficacy products. During 

manufacturer interviews, manufacturers 

provided information on the range of 

typical efficacy levels in these two tiers 

and the change in profitability at each 

level. DOE used this information to 

estimate markups for GSFLs under a 

two-tier pricing strategy. In the 

standards case, DOE modeled the 

situation in which GSFL standards 

result in less product differentiation, 

compression of the higher markup tier, 

and an overall reduction in profitability. 

In addition to an upper and lower 

bound markup scenario, DOE also 

modeled the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario. This scenario 

models the situation where 

manufacturers earn the same nominal 

operating profit in the standards case as 

they would earn in the base case, 

despite the higher production costs 

resulting from standards. While this 

scenario does not represent an upper or 

lower bound for this analysis, it 

displays the INPV results if 

manufacturers are able to implement a 

common pricing strategy following 

abrupt changes to MPCs, as is the case 

with energy conservation standards. 

Table VII.30 through Table VII.32 

present the projected results for GSFLs 

under the flat, preservation of operating 

profit, and two-tier markup scenarios. 

DOE examined results for all five 

product classes (4-foot MBP, 8-foot SP 

slimline, 8-foot RDC HO, 4-foot T5 

MiniBP SO, and 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO) 

together. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4127 

TABLE VII.30—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL SERVICE FLUORESCENT LAMPS—FLAT MARKUP

SCENARIO

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV .................................................... (2013$ millions) ......... 1,551.6 1,601.1 1,599.8 1,682.0 1,978.4 1,996.2 

Change in INPV ................................... (2013$ millions) ......... .................. 49.5 48.2 130.4 426.8 444.6 

(%) ............................. .................. 3.2 3.1 8.4 27.5 28.7 

Product Conversion Costs ................... (2013$ millions) ......... .................. 0.9 2.0 5.1 7.8 9.2 

Capital Conversion Costs .................... (2013$ millions) ......... .................. 1.0 11.2 2.0 18.8 29.9 

Total Conversion Costs ....................... (2013$ millions) ......... .................. 1.9 13.2 7.2 26.6 39.1 

TABLE VII.31—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL SERVICE FLUORESCENT LAMPS—PRESERVATION OF

OPERATING PROFIT

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV .................................................... (2013$ millions) ......... 1,551.6 1,551.0 1,542.0 1,542.9 1,525.4 1,516.4 

Change in INPV ................................... (2013$ millions) ......... .................. (0.6) (9.6) (8.7) (26.2) (35.2) 

(%) ............................. .................. 0.0 ¥0.6 ¥0.6 ¥1.7 ¥2.3 

Product Conversion Costs ................... (2013$ millions) ......... .................. 0.9 2.0 5.1 7.8 9.2 

Capital Conversion Costs .................... (2013$ millions) ......... .................. 1.0 11.2 2.0 18.8 29.9 

Total Conversion Costs ....................... (2013$ millions) ......... .................. 1.9 13.2 7.2 26.6 39.1 

TABLE VII.32—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL SERVICE FLUORESCENT LAMPS—TWO TIER MARKUP

SCENARIO

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV .................................................... (2013$ millions) ......... 1,551.6 1,508.7 1,495.1 1,477.4 1,221.6 1,183.9 

Change in INPV ................................... (2013$ millions) ......... .................. (42.9) (56.5) (74.2) (330.0) (367.7) 

(%) ............................. .................. ¥2.8 ¥3.6 ¥4.8 ¥21.3 ¥23.7 

Product Conversion Costs ................... (2013$ millions) ......... .................. 0.9 2.0 5.1 7.8 9.2 

Capital Conversion Costs .................... (2013$ millions) ......... .................. 1.0 11.2 2.0 18.8 29.9 

Total Conversion Costs ....................... (2013$ millions) ......... .................. 1.9 13.2 7.2 26.6 39.1 

TSL 1 sets the efficacy level at 

baseline for two product classes (4-foot 

MBP and 8-foot SP slimline) and EL 1 

for three product classes (8-foot RDC 

HO, 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO, and 4-foot T5 

MiniBP HO). EL 1 for the 4-foot T5 

MiniBP HO product class represents 

max tech. At TSL 1, DOE estimates 

impacts on INPV range from $49.5 

million to ¥$42.9 million, or a change 

in INPV of 3.2 percent to ¥2.8 percent. 

At TSL 1, industry free cash flow 

(operating cash flow minus capital 

expenditures) is estimated to decrease 

by less than 1 percent to $164.2 million, 

compared to the base-case value of 

$164.5 million in 2017, the year leading 

up to the energy conservation standards. 

Percentage impacts on INPV range 

from slightly positive to slightly 

negative at TSL 1. DOE does not 

anticipate that manufacturers would 

lose a significant portion of their INPV 

at this TSL. This is because the vast 

majority of shipments already meets or 

exceeds the efficacy levels prescribed at 

TSL 1. DOE projects that in the expected 

year of compliance (2018), 100 percent 

of 4-foot MBP and 8-foot SP slimline 

shipments would meet or exceed the 

efficacy levels at TSL 1. DOE estimates 

that these lamps account for 86 percent 

of GSFL shipments in 2018. Meanwhile, 

in 2018, 32 percent of 8-foot RDC HO 

shipments, 46 percent of 4-foot T5 

MiniBP SO, and 39 percent of 4-foot T5 

MiniBP HO shipments would meet the 

efficacy levels at TSL 1. Because these 

products comprise only a small 

percentage of total GSFL shipments in 

2018, a very small percentage of total 

GSFL shipments would need to be 

converted at TSL 1 to meet these 

efficacy standards. 

DOE expects conversion costs to be 

small compared to the industry value 

because most of the GSFL shipments, on 

a total volume basis, already meet or 

exceed the efficacy levels prescribed at 

this TSL. DOE expects GSFL 

manufacturers to incur $0.9 million in 

product conversion costs for lamp 

redesign and testing. DOE estimates 

manufacturers will have minimal 

capital conversion costs associated with 

TSL 1, as most efficacy gains will be 

achieved through increasing the amount 

of REOs used to coat the lamps, not 

through any major equipment upgrades 

or capital investments. DOE expects 

$1.0 million in capital conversion costs 

for manufacturers to upgrade and 

recalibrate production line automation. 

At TSL 1, under the flat markup 

scenario, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC increases by 

approximately 6 percent relative to the 

base-case MPC. Manufacturers are able 

to fully pass on this cost increase to 

consumers by design in this markup 

scenario. This slight price increase 

would mitigate the $1.9 million in 

conversion costs estimated at TSL 1, 

resulting in slightly positive INPV 

impacts at TSL 1 under the flat markup 

scenario. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, manufacturers 

earn the same nominal operating profit 

as would be earned in the base case, but 

manufacturers do not earn additional 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4128 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

profit from their investments. The 6 

percent MPC increase is slightly 

outweighed by a lower average markup 

of 1.51 (compared to the flat markup of 

1.52) and $1.9 million in conversion 

costs, resulting in slightly negative 

impacts at TSL 1. 

Under the two-tier markup scenario, 

manufacturers lose differentiation in 

their product offerings and premium 

markups erode as high-efficacy products 

become baseline offerings due to 

standards. The 6 percent MPC increase 

does not mitigate the lower average 

markup of 1.50 and $1.9 million in 

conversion costs, resulting in slightly 

negative impacts at TSL 1. 

TSL 2 sets the efficacy level at 

baseline for one product class (4-foot 

MBP), EL 1 for three product classes (8- 

foot SP slimline, 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO, 

and 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO), and EL 2 for 

one product class (8-foot RDC HO). EL 

1 for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO product 

class and EL 2 for the 8-foot RDC HO 

product class represent max tech. At 

TSL 2, DOE estimates impacts on INPV 

to range from $48.2 million to ¥$56.5 

million, or a change in INPV of 3.1 

percent to ¥3.6 percent. At this 

standard level, industry free cash flow 

is estimated to decrease by 

approximately 3.4 percent to $159.3 

million, compared to the base case value 

of $164.5 million in 2017. 

Percentage impacts on INPV range 

from slightly positive to slightly 

negative at TSL 2. DOE does not 

anticipate that manufacturers would 

lose a significant portion of their INPV 

at this TSL because the vast majority of 

shipments already meet or exceed the 

efficacy levels prescribed at TSL 2. DOE 

projects that in 2018, 100 percent of 4- 

foot MBP shipments would meet or 

exceed the efficacy levels at TSL 2. DOE 

estimates that shipments of this product 

classes will comprise 83 percent of 

GSFL shipments in 2018. Meanwhile, in 

2018, 60 percent of 8-foot SP slimline 

lamps shipments, 10 percent of 8-foot 

RDC HO shipments, 46 percent of 4-foot 

T5 MiniBP SO, and 39 percent of 4-foot 

T5 MiniBP HO shipments would meet 

or exceed the efficacy levels at TSL 2. 

DOE expects conversion costs to be 

small compared to the industry value 

because most of the GSFL shipments, on 

a total volume basis, already meet or 

exceed the efficacy levels analyzed at 

this TSL. DOE expects that product 

conversion costs will rise from $0.9 

million at TSL 1 to $2.0 million at TSL 

2 for lamp redesign and testing. Capital 

conversion costs will increase from $1.0 

million at TSL 1 to $11.2 million at TSL 

2. This is driven by the fact that both 8- 

foot product classes would have to meet 

higher efficacy levels at this TSL. DOE 

believes this will result in higher capital 

conversion costs related to upgrading 

and recalibrating production line 

automation. 

At TSL 2, under the flat markup 

scenario, the shipment-weightedaverage MPC increases by 7 percent, 

relative to the base-case MPC. In this 

scenario, INPV impacts are slightly 

positive because of manufacturers’ 

ability to pass the higher production 

costs to consumers outweighs the $13.2 

million in conversion costs. Under the 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario, the 7 percent MPC increase is 

slightly outweighed by a lower average 

markup of 1.51 (compared to the flat 

markup of 1.52) and $13.2 million in 

conversion costs, resulting in slightly 

negative impacts at TSL 2. Under the 

two-tier markup scenario, the 7 percent 

MPC increase is also slightly 

outweighed by a lower average markup 

of 1.50 and $13.2 million in conversion 

costs, resulting in slightly negative 

impacts at TSL 2. 

TSL 3 sets the efficacy level at 

baseline for two product classes (8-foot 

SP slimline and 8-foot RDC HO) and EL 

1 for three product classes (4-foot MBP, 

4-foot T5 MiniBP SO, and 4-foot T5 

MiniBP HO). EL 1 for the 4-foot T5 

MiniBP HO product class represents 

max tech. At TSL 3, DOE estimates 

impacts on INPV to range from $130.4 

million to ¥$74.2 million, or a change 

in INPV of 8.4 percent to ¥4.8 percent. 

At this standard level, industry free cash 

flow is estimated to decrease by 

approximately 1.5 percent to $154.1 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $164.5 million in 2017. 

While more significant than the 

impacts at TSL 2, the lower bound 

markup scenario impacts on INPV at 

TSL 3 are still relatively minor 

compared to the total industry value. 

Percentage impacts on INPV range from 

moderately positive to slightly negative 

at TSL 3. DOE does not anticipate that 

manufacturers would lose a significant 

portion of their INPV at TSL 3. While 

less than the previous TSLs, a large 

percentage of total shipments still 

already meet or exceed the efficacy 

levels prescribed at TSL 3. DOE projects 

that in 2018, 57 percent of the 4-foot 

MBP, 100 percent of 8-foot SP slimline, 

100 percent of 8-foot RDC HO 

shipments, 46 percent of 4-foot T5 

MiniBP SO, and 39 percent of 4-foot T5 

MiniBP HO shipments would meet or 

exceed the efficacy levels at TSL 3. 

DOE expects conversion costs to 

remain small at TSL 3, compared to the 

industry value, because a significant 

percentage of the GSFL shipments, on a 

total volume basis, already meet or 

exceed the efficacy levels at this TSL. 

TSL 3 is the first TSL that increases the 

efficacy requirement for 4-foot MBP 

lamps, which as previously noted, 

comprise a large majority of GSFL 

shipments. Efficacy gains for these 

products, however, would likely be 

achieved with additional REOs, which 

would not require a significant capital 

investment. At TSL 3, DOE expects 

product conversion costs to increase 

from TSL 2 to $5.1 million. DOE, 

however, estimates that capital 

conversion costs will decrease from TSL 

2 to $2.0 million at TSL 3 as no 

amended efficacy standards would be 

set at TSL 3 for 8-foot SP slimline 

products or the 8-foot RDC HO product 

class. The lower ELs for these two 

product classes outweigh the increase in 

EL of the 4-ft MBP product class and 

would cause manufacturers to invest 

less in capital conversion costs at TSL 

3 than at TSL 2. 

At TSL 3, under the flat markup 

scenario, the shipment-weightedaverage MPC increases by 16 percent 

relative to the base-case MPC. In this 

scenario, INPV impacts are slightly 

positive because manufacturers’ ability 

to pass the higher production costs to 

consumers outweighs the $7.2 million 

in conversion costs. Under the 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario, the 16 percent MPC increase is 

slightly outweighed by a lower average 

markup of 1.49 (compared to the flat 

markup scenario markup of 1.52) and 

$7.2 million in conversion costs, 

resulting in slightly negative impacts at 

TSL 3. Under the two-tier markup 

scenario, the 16 percent MPC increase is 

outweighed by a lower average markup 

of 1.48 and $7.2 million in conversion 

costs, resulting in negative impacts at 

TSL 3. 

TSL 4 sets the efficacy level at 

baseline for two product classes (8-foot 

SP slimline and 8-foot RDC HO), EL 1 

for one product class (4-foot T5 MiniBP 

HO), and EL 2 for two product classes 

(4-foot MBP and T5 MiniBP SO). EL 1 

for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO product 

class and EL 2 for the 4-foot MBP and 

T5 MiniBP SO product classes represent 

max tech. At TSL 4, DOE estimates 

impacts on INPV to range from $426.8 

million to ¥$330.0 million, or a change 

in INPV of 27.5 percent to ¥21.3 

percent. At this standard level, industry 

free cash flow is estimated to decrease 

by approximately 7 percent to $154.1 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $164.5 million in the year 

leading up to energy conservation 

standards. 

Percentage impacts on INPV range 

from significantly positive to 

moderately negative at TSL 4. DOE 

projects that in 2018, 23 percent of 4- 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4129 

foot MBP, 100 percent of 8-foot SP 

slimline, 100 percent of 8-foot RDC HO 

shipments, 14 percent of 4-foot T5 

MiniBP SO, and 39 percent of 4-foot T5 

MiniBP HO shipments would meet or 

exceed the efficacy levels at TSL 4. 

While DOE expects conversion costs 

to increase from TSL 3 to TSL 4, DOE 

estimates the costs will still be small 

compared to the total industry value. 

DOE expects product conversion costs 

for GSFL manufacturers to increase from 

$5.1 million at TSL 3 to $7.8 million at 

TSL 4. DOE expects capital conversion 

costs to increase from $2.0 million at 

TSL 3 to $18.8 million at TSL 4. While 

a higher percentage of shipments would 

need to be converted to meet the 

efficacy requirements at TSL 4, 

increasing the efficacy of GSFLs will not 

likely be a very capital-intensive 

process, compared to the base case 

INPV. Instead, increasing GSFL efficacy 

will likely be more focused around 

increasing the amount of REOs in the 

lamps. 

At TSL 4, under the flat markup 

scenario the shipment-weighted-average 

MPC increases by 52 percent relative to 

the base-case MPC. In this scenario, 

INPV impacts are significantly positive 

because of manufacturers’ ability to pass 

the higher production costs to 

consumers outweighs the $26.6 million 

in conversion costs. Under the 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario, the 52 percent MPC increase is 

slightly outweighed by a lower average 

markup of 1.44 (compared to the flat 

markup scenario markup of 1.52) and 

$26.6 million in conversion costs, 

resulting in slightly negative impacts at 

TSL 4. Under the two-tier markup 

scenario, the 52 percent MPC increase is 

moderately outweighed by a lower 

average markup of 1.39 and $26.6 

million in conversion costs, resulting in 

moderately negative impacts at TSL 4. 

TSL 5 sets the efficacy level at max 

tech for all product classes. This 

represents EL 1 for one product class (4- 

foot T5 MiniBP HO) and EL 2 for four 

product classes (4-foot MBP, 8-foot SP 

slimline, 8-foot RDC HO, and 4-foot T5 

MiniBP SO). At TSL 5, DOE estimates 

impacts on INPV to range from $444.5 

million to ¥$367.7 million, or a change 

in INPV of 28.7 percent to ¥23.7 

percent. At this standard level, industry 

free cash flow is estimated to decrease 

by 10 percent to $148.7 million, 

compared to the base-case value of 

$164.5 million in 2017. 

Percentage impacts on INPV range 

from significantly positive to 

significantly negative at TSL 5. DOE 

projects that in 2018, 23 percent of the 

4-foot MBP, 26 percent of 8-foot SP 

slimline, 10 percent of 8-foot RDC HO, 

14 percent of 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO, and 

39 percent of 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO 

shipments would meet the efficacy 

levels at TSL 5. 

DOE expects conversion costs to 

increase from TSL 4 to TSL 5 due to the 

8-foot slimline and 8-foot RDC HO 

product classes moving to max tech at 

TSL 5. DOE estimates that capital 

conversion costs will be $29.9 million at 

TSL 5 as a result of manufacturers 

having to upgrade all of their 

production lines to manufacture maxtech products. DOE expects GSFL 

manufacturers to incur $9.2 million in 

product conversion costs for lamp 

redesigns and testing. However, these 

larger total conversion costs at TSL 5, 

$39.1 million, remain relatively small 

compared to the approximately $1.5 

billion base-case GSFL INPV. 

At TSL 5, under the flat markup 

scenario, the shipment-weightedaverage MPC increases by 55 percent 

relative to the base-case MPC. In this 

scenario, INPV impacts are significantly 

positive because of manufacturers’ 

ability to pass the higher production 

costs to consumers outweighs the $39.1 

million in conversion costs. Under the 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario, the 55 percent MPC increase is 

slightly outweighed by a lower average 

markup of 1.44 (compared to the flat 

markup scenario markup of 1.52) and 

$39.1 million in conversion costs, 

resulting in slightly negative impacts at 

TSL 5. Under the two-tier markup 

scenario, the 55 percent MPC increase is 

significantly outweighed by the lower 

average markup of 1.38 and $39.1 

million in conversion costs, resulting in 

significantly negative impacts at TSL 5. 

Cash-Flow Analysis Results by TSL for 

Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

DOE incorporated two markup 

scenarios to represent the upper and 

lower bounds of the IRL industry: The 

flat, or preservation of gross margin, 

markup scenario to represent the upper 

bound (least severe) and the 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario to represent the lower bound 

(most severe). DOE, however, analyzed 

one TSL for IRLs in addition to the 

baseline level. DOE also analyzed an 

alternative shipment scenario for IRLs, 

the shortened lifetime scenario, in 

addition to the reference case. DOE 

acknowledges that to meet TSL 1, IRL 

manufacturers may choose to shorten 

the lifetime of some of their IRLs, rather 

than make the investments to increase 

the efficacy of the lamps. DOE presents 

the results of this analysis in appendix 

13B of this final rule TSD. 

Table VII.33 and Table VII.34 present 

the projected results for IRLs under the 

flat markup and preservation of 

operating profit markup scenarios. DOE 

examined results for one representative 

product class for IRLs. 

TABLE VII.33—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMPS—FLAT MARKUP SCENARIO

Units Base case 

Trial standard 

level 

1 

INPV ............................................................................. (2013$ millions) ............................................................ 145.4 93.0 

Change in INPV ............................................................ (2013$ millions) ............................................................ ........................ (52.5) 

(%) ................................................................................ ........................ ¥36.1 

Product Conversion Costs ............................................ (2013$ millions) ............................................................ ........................ 6.2 

Capital Conversion Costs ............................................. (2013$ millions) ............................................................ ........................ 66.4 

Total Conversion Costs ................................................ (2013$ millions) ............................................................ ........................ 72.6 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4130 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.34—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMPS—PRESERVATION OF

OPERATING PROFIT MARKUP SCENARIO

Units Base case 

Trial standard 

level 

1 

INPV ............................................................................. (2013$ millions) ............................................................ 145.4 89.2 

Change in INPV ............................................................ (2013$ millions) ............................................................ ........................ (56.2) 

(%) ................................................................................ ........................ ¥38.6 

Product Conversion Costs ............................................ (2013$ millions) ............................................................ ........................ 6.2 

Capital Conversion Costs ............................................. (2013$ millions) ............................................................ ........................ 66.4 

Total Conversion Costs ................................................ (2013$ millions) ............................................................ ........................ 72.6 

TSL 1 sets the efficacy level at EL 1, 

max tech, for the IRL representative 

unit. At TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts 

on INPV to range from ¥$52.5 million 

to ¥$56.2 million, or a change in INPV 

of ¥36.1 percent to ¥38.6 percent. At 

TSL 1, industry free cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by approximately 

142 percent to ¥$9.3 million, compared 

to the base-case value of $22.64 million 

in 2017. 

INPV impacts are significantly 

negative at TSL 1, regardless of the 

markup scenario chosen. DOE estimates 

that in 2018, approximately half of the 

IRL shipments would meet the efficacy 

requirements at TSL 1. The other half of 

the shipments would need to be 

converted to meet the standards at this 

TSL. 

DOE expects substantial conversion 

costs for IRL manufacturers at TSL 1 

associated with increasing the efficacy 

of IRLs. Manufacturers would have to 

invest in retooling burner machines, 

increasing coating capacity, and 

upgrading their production lines to 

allow for enhanced reflector coating. 

Some manufacturers expressed concern 

that they do not currently possess the 

technology required at the analyzed 

standard level and could exit the market 

entirely. Overall, DOE expects these 

capital conversion costs to total $66.4 

million for the industry. DOE estimates 

that IRL manufacturers will also incur 

$6.2 million in product conversion costs 

for lamp and production line redesign, 

as well as testing and certification. 

At TSL 1, under the flat markup 

scenario, the shipment-weightedaverage MPC increases by 12 percent 

relative to the base-case MPC. In this 

scenario, INPV impacts are negative 

because the manufacturers’ ability to 

pass the higher production costs to 

consumers is outweighed by the 

substantial $72.6 million conversion 

costs. Under the preservation of 

operating profit markup scenario, the 12 

percent MPC increase is again 

outweighed by a lower average markup 

of 1.50 (compared to the flat markup 

scenario markup of 1.52) and $72.6 

million in conversion costs, resulting in 

significantly negative impacts at TSL 1. 

The significant capital and product 

conversion costs that IRL manufacturers 

must make at TSL 1 cause INPV to be 

significantly negative, regardless of the 

markup scenario analyzed. 

DOE also analyzed a shortened 

lifetime sensitivity scenario where 

manufacturers shorten the lifetime of 

IRLs to mitigate the investments they 

must make to comply with the 

standards at TSL 1. By shortening the 

lifetime of IRLs, manufacturers reduce 

the capital conversion costs they must 

make to comply with the standards at 

TSL 1. DOE presents the INPV results of 

this analysis in appendix 13B of this 

final rule TSD. 

b. Impacts on Employment 

DOE quantitatively assessed the 

impacts of potential amended energy 

conservation standards on direct 

employment. DOE used the GRIM to 

estimate the domestic labor 

expenditures and number of domestic 

production workers in the base case and 

at each TSL from 2015 to 2047. DOE 

used statistical data from the U.S. 

Census Bureau’s 2011 Annual Survey of 

Manufacturers (ASM), the results of the 

engineering analysis, and interviews 

with manufacturers to determine the 

inputs necessary to calculate industrywide labor expenditures and domestic 

employment levels. Labor expenditures 

involved with the manufacturing of the 

product are a function of the labor 

intensity of the product, the sales 

volume, and an assumption that wages 

remain fixed in real terms over time. 

In the GRIM, DOE used the labor 

content of each product and the MPCs 

to estimate the annual labor 

expenditures in the industry. DOE used 

census data and interviews with 

manufacturers to estimate the portion of 

the total labor expenditures that is 

attributable to domestic labor. 

The production worker estimates in 

this section only cover workers up to 

the line-supervisor level involved in 

fabricating and assembling a product 

within a manufacturing facility. 

Workers performing services that are 

closely associated with production 

operations, such as material handing 

with a forklift, are also included as 

production labor. DOE’s estimates 

account for production workers who 

manufacture only the specific products 

covered of this rulemaking. For 

example, a worker on a fluorescent lamp 

ballast production line would not be 

included with the estimate of the 

number of GSFL or IRL workers. 

The employment impacts shown in 

Table VII.35 and Table VII.36 represent 

the potential production employment 

that could result following amended 

energy conservation standards. The 

upper bound of the results estimates the 

maximum change in the number of 

production workers that could occur 

after compliance with potential 

amended standards when assuming that 

manufacturers continue to produce the 

same scope of covered products in the 

same production facilities. It also 

assumes that domestic production does 

not shift to lower labor-cost countries. 

Because there is a real risk of 

manufacturers evaluating sourcing 

decisions in response to potential 

amended standards, the lower bound of 

the employment results includes the 

estimated total number of U.S. 

production workers in the industry who 

could lose their jobs if some or all 

existing production were moved outside 

of the United States. While the results 

present a range of employment impacts 

following 2018, the following sections 

also include qualitative discussions of 

the likelihood of negative employment 

impacts at the various TSLs. Finally, the 

employment impacts shown are 

independent of the employment impacts 

from the broader U.S. economy, 

documented in chapter 17 of this final 

rule TSD. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4131 

Employment Impacts for General 

Service Fluorescent Lamps 

Using 2011 ASM data and interviews 

with manufacturers, DOE estimates that 

approximately three quarters of the 

GSFLs sold in the United States are 

manufactured domestically. With this 

assumption, DOE estimates that in the 

absence of amended energy 

conservation standards, there would be 

approximately 1,937 domestic 

production workers involved in 

manufacturing GSFLs in 2018. Table 

VII.35 shows the range of the impacts of 

amended energy conservation standards 

on U.S. production workers in the GSFL 

industry. 

TABLE VII.35—POTENTIAL CHANGES IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DOMESTIC GENERAL SERVICE FLUORESCENT LAMP

PRODUCTION WORKERS IN 2018 

Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

Total Number of Domestic Production Workers 

in 2018 (without changes in production locations) ................................................................. 1,937 1,937 1,937 1,934 1,918 1,916 

Potential Changes in Domestic Production 

Workers in 2018 * ............................................. .................... .................... .................... (3)–(1,937) (19)–(1,937) (21)–(1,937) 

* DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Numbers in parentheses indicate negative numbers. 

At the upper end of the range, all 

examined TSLs show slight negative 

impacts on domestic employment 

levels. DOE believes that manufacturers 

could face slight negative impacts on 

domestic employment levels because 

there would be an increase in the 

shipments of products typically not 

manufactured domestically, such as 4- 

foot T5 MiniBP lamps, and a decrease 

of products typically manufactured 

domestically, such as 4-foot MBP lamps. 

Several manufacturers emphasized 

that it is difficult to predict employment 

impacts of energy conservation 

standards. One potential uncertainty is 

the future price of REOs and these 

employment decisions become more 

complex when more REOs are required 

for higher efficacious products. 

DOE does not expect any significant 

changes in domestic employment at 

TSLs 1 or 2 because standards would 

not be amended for 4-foot MBP lamps, 

which comprise approximately 83 

percent of GSFL shipments in 2018. 

While DOE does not anticipate the 

entire, or even a large portion of, 

domestic employment to move abroad at 

TSLs 3, 4, or 5, DOE acknowledges that 

there could be a loss of domestic 

employment at these TSLs due to the 

required increase in efficacy of 4-foot 

MBP lamps. The potential loss of 

domestic employment would most 

likely be a result of a possible increase 

in the price of REOs. Based on the REO 

prices modeled in the reference case, 

DOE does not estimate a significant loss 

of domestic employment at TSLs 3, 4, or 

5. Overall, manufacturers were 

uncertain about how amended energy 

conservation standards would affect 

domestic employment and sourcing 

decisions. Ultimately, both employment 

and sourcing decisions could be 

determined by the stability and 

predictability of REO prices. 

Employment Impacts for Incandescent 

Reflector Lamps 

Using 2011 ASM data and interviews 

with manufacturers, DOE estimates that 

approximately half of the IRLs sold in 

the United States are manufactured 

domestically. With this assumption, 

DOE estimates that in the absence of 

potential amended energy conservation 

standards, there would be 

approximately 281 domestic production 

workers involved in manufacturing IRLs 

in 2018. Table VII.36 shows the range of 

the impacts of potential amended 

energy conservation standards on U.S. 

production workers in the IRL industry. 

TABLE VII.36—POTENTIAL CHANGES IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DOMESTIC INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMP

PRODUCTION WORKERS IN 2018 

Base case 

Trial standard 

level 

1 

Total Number of Domestic Production Workers in 2018 (without changes in production locations) ..................... 281 303 

Potential Changes in Domestic Production Workers in 2018 * ............................................................................... ........................ 22–(281) 

* DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Numbers in parentheses indicate negative numbers 

At the upper end of the range TSL 1 

shows a slight positive impact on 

domestic employment levels. The 

increasing product cost at TSL 1 would 

result in higher labor expenditures perunit, which could cause manufacturers 

to hire more domestic workers to meet 

this added labor demand, assuming IRL 

production remains in domestic 

facilities. 

Manufacturers are concerned that 

higher prices for IRLs will drive 

consumers to alternate technologies and 

it may not make economic sense for 

them to continue to produce IRLs. 

Increasing the efficacy of IRLs would 

cost manufacturers millions in capital 

conversion costs. Some stated that they 

do not have the technology to meet the 

potential energy conservation standards 

and said it is possible they would not 

spend their limited resources to convert 

all IRL production to meet efficacy 

levels at TSL 1. Ultimately, the high 

investment costs associated with 

increasing the efficacy of IRLs could 

cause some IRL manufacturers to exit 

the market or move production abroad. 

As part of the MIA for the NOPR, DOE 

presented a range of potential impacts 

on domestic IRL employment at the 

proposed standard level, TSL 1 for the 

NOPR. In the NOPR analysis for IRLs, 

the impact at TSL 1 ranged from an 

additional hiring of approximately 30 

employees, due to the increase in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4132 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

production costs of IRLs at TSL 1, to a 

potential decrease of approximately 300 

employees, if all domestic IRL 

manufacturing moved overseas. NEMA 

stated that the lower bound scenario, 

where up to 300 domestic employees 

would lose their job, would be the most 

likely scenario if DOE adopted IRL 

standards at TSL 1. (NEMA, No. 54 at 

p. 9) GE similarly expressed concern at 

the NOPR public meeting, stating that if 

IRL manufacturers are required to make 

significant investments to keep IRL 

production in the United States, it will 

put any domestic IRL production 

employment at risk. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 49 at p. 232) 

DOE presents a range of possible 

domestic employment impacts due to 

the uncertainty regarding the future 

production location of IRLs (i.e., 

domestic versus foreign) as 

manufacturers could move current 

domestic production overseas as a result 

of IRL standards. DOE understands 

there is a real risk that IRL 

manufacturers could either move 

domestic production to a lower laborcost country in an effort to reduce labor 

expenditures or they could exit the IRL 

market altogether due to declining 

market share of IRLs. DOE took into 

consideration any potential negative 

domestic employment impact on U.S. 

manufacturing caused by either 

manufacturers moving IRL production 

overseas in response to potential 

standards or IRL manufacturers 

potentially exiting the market before 

selecting the standards for IRLs in this 

final rule. 

NEMA also commented that the 

increase in the price of IRLs caused by 

potential standards could cause 

consumers to forgo purchasing IRLs in 

favor of LEDs. Therefore, NEMA 

believes that there could be a significant 

reduction in the number of IRLs 

purchased by consumers, as a result of 

IRL standards, which will cause 

domestic IRL manufacturing to be 

severely impacted. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 

10) While DOE recognizes that LEDs are 

increasingly taking more and more 

market share from IRLs over time, DOE’s 

shipment analysis does not model 

consumers switching from IRLs to LEDs 

as a result of higher energy conservation 

standards of IRLs. Therefore, DOE does 

not anticipate a reduction in the number 

of domestic employees caused by 

consumers forgoing the purchases of 

IRLs in favor of LEDs as a result of 

potential IRL standards. See chapter 11 

of this final rule TSD for a complete 

description of the shipments analysis. 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

GSFL manufacturers stated that they 

did not anticipate any capacity 

constraints outside of the availability of 

REOs. One manufacturer pointed out 

during manufacturer interviews that 

moving the industry to max tech could 

triple the amount of REOs demanded by 

GSFL manufacturers. Tripling the 

demand for REOs that are already 

difficult to obtain could trigger some 

capacity concerns by creating extra 

volatility in the market. The sharp 

increase in demand for REOs could 

cause wide variations in the price and 

availability of REOs, making production 

costs more unpredictable. 

A few IRL manufacturers expressed 

concern during manufacturer interviews 

that their IR coating machines would 

not have a large enough capacity and 

that the companies that manufacture 

those machines might not be able to 

respond to the demand for IR coating 

machines necessary to manufacture 

more efficacious IRLs. Meeting the high 

level of coating capacity as a result of 

higher efficacy standards for IRLs this 

rule may be more difficult for smaller 

manufacturers than larger 

manufacturers. Some manufactures 

suggested that large manufacturers may 

already have the coating capacity 

necessary and that the smaller 

manufacturers may need to incur capital 

expenditures to add coating capacity at 

higher standards. 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of 

Manufacturers 

Using average cost assumptions to 

develop an industry cash-flow estimate 

may not be adequate for assessing 

differential impacts among 

manufacturer subgroups. Small 

manufacturers, niche product 

manufacturers, and manufacturers 

exhibiting cost structures substantially 

different from the industry average 

could be affected disproportionately. 

DOE analyzed the impacts to small 

businesses in section VIII.B and did not 

identify any other adversely impacted 

subgroups for GSFLs or IRLs for this 

rulemaking based on the results of the 

industry characterization. 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

While any one regulation may not 

impose a significant burden on 

manufacturers, the combined effects of 

recent or impending regulations may 

have serious consequences for some 

manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, 

or an entire industry. Assessing the 

impact of a single regulation may 

overlook this cumulative regulatory 

burden. In addition to energy 

conservation standards, other 

regulations can significantly affect 

manufacturers’ financial operations. 

Multiple regulations affecting the same 

manufacturer can strain profits and lead 

companies to abandon product lines or 

markets with lower expected future 

returns than competing products. For 

these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis 

of cumulative regulatory burden as part 

of its rulemakings pertaining to product 

efficacy. 

For the cumulative regulatory burden 

analysis, DOE looks at other regulations 

that could affect GSFL manufacturers 

that will take effect approximately 3 

years before or after the compliance date 

of amended energy conservation 

standards for these products. In written 

comments, manufacturers cited Federal 

regulations on products other than 

GSFLs that contribute to their 

cumulative regulatory burden. The 

compliance years and expected industry 

conversion costs of relevant amended 

energy conservation standards are 

indicated in Table VII.37. 

TABLE VII.37—COMPLIANCE DATES AND EXPECTED CONVERSION EXPENSES OF FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION

STANDARDS AFFECTING GENERAL SERVICE FLUORESCENT LAMP MANUFACTURERS

Federal energy conservation standards Approximate compliance 

date 

Estimated total 

industy conversion 

expense 

General Service Incandescent Lamps, 74 FR 12058 (March 23, 2009) .................................... 2012; 2013; & 2014 N/A † 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts, 76 FR 70548 (November 14, 2011) ............................................... 2014 $82 million (2010$) 

Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures, 79 FR 7746 (February 10, 2014) .................................................. 2017 $3.0 million (2012$) 

General Service Lamps ............................................................................................................... * 2019 N/A‡‡ 

Ceiling Fan Light Kits .................................................................................................................. * 2019 N/A‡‡ 

HID Lamps, 79 FR 62910 (October 21, 2014) ............................................................................ ** N/A N/A‡‡ 

Candelabra Base Incandescent Lamps and Intermediate Base Incandescent Lamps .............. *** N/A N/A‡‡ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4133 

TABLE VII.37—COMPLIANCE DATES AND EXPECTED CONVERSION EXPENSES OF FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION

STANDARDS AFFECTING GENERAL SERVICE FLUORESCENT LAMP MANUFACTURERS—Continued 

Federal energy conservation standards Approximate compliance 

date 

Estimated total 

industy conversion 

expense 

Other Incandescent Reflector Lamps .......................................................................................... *** N/A N/A‡‡ 

† For minimum performance requirements prescribed by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), DOE did not estimate total industry conversion costs because an MIA was not completed as part of a rulemaking. Pub. L. 110–140. EISA 2007 made numerous 

amendments to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975, Pub. L. 94–163, (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309), which established an energy 

conservation program for major household appliances and industrial and commercial equipment. 

‡‡ For energy conservation standards for rulemakings awaiting DOE final action, DOE does not have a finalized estimated total industry conversion cost. 

* The dates listed are an approximation. The exact dates are pending final DOE action. 

** DOE has published a notice of proposed determination that did not establish energy conservation standards for any HID lamps. 

*** These rulemakings are placed on hold due to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112–74). 

NEMA commented that energy 

conservation standards have become 

increasingly burdensome on lighting 

manufacturers as the lighting sector has 

experienced more rulemakings since 

EISA 2007 than any other covered 

product sector. NEMA also commented 

that several of these standards have 

required significant investment from 

lighting manufacturers and resulted in a 

negative financial impact to these 

lighting manufacturers (NEMA, No. 54 

at pp. 2–3) NEMA further stated, that 

given the large negative impacts to 

manufacturers based on the proposed 

IRL standards in the NOPR and the large 

negative impacts to IRL manufacturers 

from the previous 2009 Lamps Rule, as 

well as the other DOE prescribed energy 

conservation standards on lighting 

manufacturers, Executive Order 12866 

directs DOE to consider ‘‘alternatives to 

direct regulation’’ so that its regulations 

‘‘impose the least burden on society, 

consistent with obtaining regulatory 

objectives, taking into account, among 

other things, and to the extent 

practicable, the cost of cumulative 

regulations.’’ (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 8) 

DOE agrees with NEMA that at least 

four major energy conservation 

standards have been enacted on lighting 

products since EISA 2007. These 

previous standards covered GSFLs and 

IRLs (74 FR 34080 [July 14, 2009]), 

which went into effect in July 2012, 

fluorescent lamp ballasts (76 FR 70548 

[November 14, 2011]), which went into 

effect in November 2014, and metal 

halide lamp fixtures (79 FR 7746 

[February 10, 2014]), which will go into 

effect in February 2017. DOE also agrees 

that the INPV impacts to manufacturers 

for these rulemakings ranged from 

moderate to significant, depending on 

the markup scenario analyzed. The 

cumulative regulatory burden seeks to 

mitigate the overlapping effects on 

manufacturers of new or revised DOE 

standards and other regulatory actions 

affecting those same manufacturers. 

DOE considered the cumulative 

regulatory burden on lighting 

manufacturers as one of the burdens of 

complying with potential GSFL and IRL 

standards when selecting the final 

standards for these products in this rule. 

3. National Impact Analysis 

Projections of shipments are an 

important input to the NIA. As 

discussed in section VI.I, DOE 

developed a shipments model that 

incorporated substitution matrixes, 

which specify the product choices 

available to consumers (lamps as well as 

lamp-and-ballast combinations for 

fluorescent lamps) depending on 

whether they are renovating lighting 

systems, installing lighting systems in 

new construction, or simply replacing 

lamps. The model includes a module 

that assigns shipments to product 

classes and efficacy levels based on 

consumer sensitivities to first costs and 

operation and maintenance costs. The 

model estimates the shipments of each 

lamp type in the base case and under 

the conditions set by each TSL. Table 

VII.37 and Table VII.38 present the 

estimated cumulative shipments in the 

base case and the relative change under 

each TSL. 

TABLE VII.38—EFFECT OF STANDARD CASES ON CUMULATIVE SHIPMENTS OF GSFL IN 2018–2047 

Lamp type 

Base case TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

Cumulative 

shipments 

millions 

Change in shipments relative 

to base case 

(percent) 

Change in shipments relative to 

base case 

(percent) 

Change in shipments relative to 

base case 

(percent) 

Change in shipments relative to 

base case 

Change in shipments relative to 

base case 

(percent) 

4-foot MBP ........................... 5,800 0.00 0 .24 ¥1 .8 ¥12 ¥12 

8-foot SP slimline ................. 190 0.00 ¥5 .2 3 .6 35 9 .6 

8-foot RDC HO .................... 43 0.00 ¥0 .28 0 .00 ¥0 .01 ¥0 .29 

4-foot T5, MiniBP SO ........... 330 0.00 0 .77 23 160 170 

4-foot T5, MiniBP HO .......... 760 0.00 0 .02 ¥0 .01 ¥0 .07 ¥0 .05 

2-foot U-shaped ................... 240 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 

Total GSFL * ................. 7,300 0.00 0 .09 ¥0 .24 ¥1 .8 ¥1 .4 

* May not sum due to rounding. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4134 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

91U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 

‘‘Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis’’ (Sept. 17, 

2003) (Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/

omb/circulars_a004_a-4/). 

92Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to review 

its standards at least once every 6 years, and 

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

any new standard is promulgated before 

compliance is required, except that in no case may 

any new standards be required within 6 years of the 

compliance date of the previous standards. While 

adding a 6-year review to the 3-year compliance 

period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes that it may 

undertake reviews at any time within the 6-year 

period and that the 3-year compliance date may 

yield to the 6-year backstop. A 9-year analysis 

period may not be appropriate given the variability 

that occurs in the timing of standards reviews and 

the fact that, for some consumer products, the 

compliance period is 5 years rather than 3 years. 

TABLE VII.39—EFFECT OF STANDARD CASES ON CUMULATIVE SHIPMENTS OF IRL IN 2018–2047 

Lamp type 

Base case TSL 1 

Cumulative 

shipments 

millions 

Change in shipments relative 

to base case 

Standard spectrum; >2.5 inch diameter; <125 V ................................................................................................ 230 ¥16% 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

For each TSL, DOE projected energy 

savings for GSFLs and IRLs purchased 

in the 30-year period that begins in the 

year of anticipated compliance with 

amended standards (2018–2047). The 

savings are measured over the entire 

lifetime of products purchased in the 

30-year period. DOE quantified the 

energy savings attributable to each TSL 

as the difference in energy consumption 

between each standards case and the 

base case, accounting for the effects of 

the standards on product switching and 

shipments. Table VII.39 presents the 

estimated energy savings for each 

considered GSFL TSL, and Table VII.40 

presents the estimated energy savings 

for each IRL TSL. The approach for 

estimating shipments and NES is further 

described in sections VI.I and VI.J and 

is detailed in chapter 11 and 12 of the 

final rule TSD. 

TABLE VII.40—CUMULATIVE ENERGY SAVINGS FOR GSFL TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR UNITS SOLD IN 2018–2047 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

quads 

Primary Energy (Power Sector Consumption) ................................................................................ 0.18 0.19 0.71 2.4 2.4 

FFC Energy ...................................................................................................................................... 0.19 0.20 0.74 2.5 2.6 

TABLE VII.41—CUMULATIVE ENERGY

SAVINGS FOR IRL TRIAL STANDARD

LEVEL FOR UNITS SOLD IN 2018– 

2047 

Trial Standard 

Level 

1 

quads 

Primary Energy (Power Sector Consumption) .............. 0.011 

FFC Energy .......................... 0.011 

OMB Circular A–4 91 requires 

agencies to present analytical results, 

including separate schedules of the 

monetized benefits and costs that show 

the type and timing of benefits and 

costs. Circular A–4 also directs agencies 

to consider the variability of key 

elements underlying the estimates of 

benefits and costs. For this rulemaking, 

DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis 

using nine, rather than 30, years of 

product shipments. The choice of a 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.92 The review 

timeframe established in EPCA is 

generally not synchronized with the 

product lifetime, product manufacturing 

cycles, or other factors specific to GSFLs 

and IRLs. Thus, this information is 

presented for informational purposes 

only and is not indicative of any change 

in DOE’s analytical methodology. The 

NES results based on nine years of 

shipments are presented in Table VII.41 

and Table VII.42. The impacts are 

counted over the lifetime of GSFLs and 

IRLs purchased in 2018–2026. 

TABLE VII.42—CUMULATIVE ENERGY SAVINGS FOR GSFL TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR UNITS SOLD IN 2018–2026 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

quads 

Primary Energy (Power Sector Consumption) ................................................................................ 0.098 0.10 0.38 1.2 1.2 

FFC Energy ...................................................................................................................................... 0.10 0.11 0.39 1.2 1.2 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4135 

TABLE VII.43—CUMULATIVE ENERGY

SAVINGS FOR IRL TRIAL STANDARD

LEVEL FOR UNITS SOLD IN 2018– 

2026 

Trial Standard 

Level 

1 

quads 

Primary Energy (Power Sector 

Consumption) ........................ 0.0089 

FFC Energy .............................. 0.0093 

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of 

the total costs and savings for 

consumers that would result from the 

TSLs considered for GSFLs and IRLs. 

DOE quantified the costs and benefits 

attributable to each TSL as the 

difference in total product costs and 

total operating costs between each 

standards case and the base case, 

accounting for the effects of the 

standards on product switching and 

shipments. 

A portion of the savings in operating 

costs in some of the TSLs is due to 

switching to products with lower 

operating costs. In particular, the 

adopted standard in the rulemaking is 

projected to increase the typical cost of 

4-foot MBP lamps relative to 8-foot SP 

slimline or 4-foot MiniBP T5s, therefore 

driving some consumers to shift toward 

the latter two product classes, yielding 

a reduction in operating costs relative to 

the base case. 

Table VII.43 shows the consumer NPV 

results for each TSL considered for 

GSFLs, and Table VII.44 shows the 

consumer NPV results for each TSL 

considered for IRLs. In each case, the 

impacts cover the lifetime of product 

purchased in 2018–2047. 

TABLE VII.44—NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR GSFL TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR UNITS SOLD IN

2018–2047 

billion 2013$ 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

7% discount rate .................................................................................................................... ¥0.37 ¥0.51 0.35 2.0 1.6 

3% discount rate .................................................................................................................... ¥0.42 ¥0.61 1.1 5.5 4.9 

TABLE VII.45—NET PRESENT VALUE

OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR IRL 

TRIAL STANDARD LEVEL FOR UNITS

SOLD IN 2018–2047 

TSL 1 

billion 2013$ 

7% discount rate ............... 0.17 

TABLE VII.45—NET PRESENT VALUE

OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR IRL 

TRIAL STANDARD LEVEL FOR UNITS

SOLD IN 2018–2047—Continued 

TSL 1 

billion 2013$ 

3% discount rate ............... 0.25 

The NPV results based on the 

aforementioned 9-year shipments period 

are presented in Table VII.45 and Table 

VII.46. The impacts are counted over the 

lifetime of product purchased in 2018– 

2026. As mentioned previously, this 

information is presented for 

informational purposes only and is not 

indicative of any change in DOE’s 

analytical methodology or decision 

criteria. 

TABLE VII.46—NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR GSFL TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR UNITS SOLD IN

2018–2026 

billion 2013$ 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

7% discount rate .................................................................................................................... ¥0.26 ¥0.37 0.16 0.65 0.33 

3% discount rate .................................................................................................................... ¥0.25 ¥0.4 0.52 1.9 1.5 

TABLE VII.47—NET PRESENT VALUE

OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR IRL 

TRIAL STANDARD LEVEL FOR UNITS

SOLD IN 2018–2026 

TSL 1 

billion 2013$ 

7% discount rate ............... 0.14 

3% discount rate ............... 0.19 

c. Alternative Scenario Analyses 

As discussed in section VI.I and VI.J, 

DOE conducted several sensitivity 

analyses to determine the potential 

impact of uncertain future prices for 

materials that are important to the 

manufacture of efficient GSFL and IRL 

products. 

In the case of GSFLs, DOE considered 

the possibility that the price of rare 

earth oxides would rise again. As 

mentioned in section VI.I, rare earth 

oxides, used in GSFL phosphors to 

improve lamp efficacy, underwent a 

large price spike in 2010 and 2011, but 

their prices have since lowered to 

almost their pre-spike level. To assess 

the effect of higher rare earth prices on 

the impact of energy conservation 

standards for GSFLs, DOE performed an 

alternative analysis in which the 

average price of rare earth oxides was 

assumed to be midway between the 

peak of the 2011 price spike and the 

pre-spike level, and was assumed to 

remain at that elevated level throughout 

the analysis period. The details of the 

price model that DOE used for this 

analysis are given in appendix 11B of 

the final rule TSD. The impacts of the 

modeled rare earth oxide price increase 

on the NES and NPV of this rulemaking 

were small to moderate and did not 

affect the ranking of the TSLs (see 

chapter 12 of the final rule TSD). 

In the case of IRLs, DOE considered 

the possibility of a significant increase 

in the price of xenon gas, which DOE 

believes is now used as a fill gas in all 

standards-compliant IRL products. 

Demand for xenon gas has been rising 

recently, which may lead to price 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4136 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

increases in the future. To assess the 

effect of a significant xenon price 

increase on the impact of an energy 

conservation standard for IRLs, DOE 

performed an alternative analysis in 

which the price of xenon is assumed to 

increase by a factor of ten in the near 

future and remain at these elevated 

levels throughout the analysis period. 

The details of the xenon market 

assessment used to inform this analysis 

are given in appendix 7C of the final 

rule TSD. The impacts of the modeled 

xenon price increase on the NES and 

NPV of this rulemaking were minimal 

and did not affect the ranking of the 

TSLs (see chapter 12 of the final rule 

TSD). 

d. Indirect Impacts on Employment 

DOE expects energy conservation 

standards for GSFLs and IRLs to reduce 

energy costs for product owners and the 

resulting net savings to be redirected to 

other forms of economic activity. Those 

shifts in spending and economic activity 

could affect the demand for labor. As 

described in section VI.O, DOE used an 

input/output model of the U.S. economy 

to estimate indirect employment 

impacts of the TSLs that DOE 

considered in this rulemaking. DOE 

understands that there are uncertainties 

involved in projecting employment 

impacts, especially changes in the later 

years of the analysis. Therefore, DOE 

generated results for near-term time 

frames, where these uncertainties are 

reduced. 

The results suggest that the standards 

are likely to have negligible impact on 

the net demand for labor in the 

economy. The net change in jobs is so 

small that it would be imperceptible in 

national labor statistics and might be 

offset by other, unanticipated effects on 

employment. Chapter 17 of the final 

rule TSD presents detailed results. 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Equipment 

DOE concluded that the standards it 

proposed in the NOPR will not lessen 

the utility or performance of GSFLs and 

IRLs. DOE reached this conclusion 

based on the analyses conducted to 

develop the proposed GSFL and IRL 

efficacy levels. In the engineering 

analysis, DOE considered only 

technology options that would not have 

adverse impacts on product utility. See 

section VI.B and chapter 4 of the final 

rule TSD for further details regarding 

the screening analysis. DOE also 

divided products in to classes based on 

performance-related features that justify 

different standard levels such as those 

impacting consumer utility. DOE then 

developed separate standard levels for 

each product class. See section VI.C and 

chapter 3 of the final rule TSD for 

further details regarding product classes 

selected and consumer utility. 

Further, DOE’s evaluation shows that 

products meeting proposed efficacy 

levels are not of lesser utility or 

performance than products at existing 

standard levels. DOE considered several 

characteristics when evaluating utility 

and performance of GSFLs including 

physical constraints (i.e., shape and 

size), diameter, lumen package, color 

quality (i.e., CCT and CRI), lifetime, and 

ability to dim. As discussed in section 

VI.B.1, DOE ensured full wattage lamps 

were able to meet the proposed efficacy 

levels to preserve reliable dimming. 

DOE determined that these GSFL 

performance characteristics were not 

diminished for any proposed standard 

level. For IRLs, DOE considered lumen 

package, lifetime, shape, and diameter 

when evaluating utility and 

performance. DOE determined that 

these IRL performance characteristics 

were not diminished for any proposed 

standard level. DOE did not assess CRI 

or CCT for IRLs because they are 

intended as a measure of the light 

quality of non-incandescent/halogen 

lamps when compared with 

incandescent/halogen lamps. See 

section VI.D and chapter 5 of the final 

rule TSD for further details on the 

selection of more efficacious substitutes 

for the baseline and development of 

proposed efficacy levels. 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

Per EPCA, DOE is required to 

establish energy conservation standards 

that ‘‘shall be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency * * * which the Secretary 

determines is technologically feasible 

and economically justified.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) To determine economic 

justification, DOE considers (among 

other factors) ‘‘the economic impact of 

the standard on the manufacturers’’ and 

‘‘the impact of any lessening of 

competition * * * that is likely to 

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

NEMA noted that the efficacy levels 

proposed for IRLs in the NOPR were 

dependent on the use of a single-ended 

IR burner which is limited to a single 

company due to patent, and that DOE 

legally cannot favor a single company 

over all others. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 10) 

NEMA commented that only one US 

manufacturer has an industrial setup to 

produce single-ended IR burners which 

are used in smaller diameter lamps. 

NEMA remarked that the 3.5 percent 

discount in efficacy would grant a 

competitive advantage to this 

manufacturer. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 30– 

31) 

In the engineering analysis, DOE 

scaled the efficacy levels of large 

diameter IRLs (i.e., greater than 2.5 

inches) to determine the efficacy levels 

of small diameter IRLs (i.e., equal to or 

less than 2.5 inches). In addition to a 

reduction in efficacy due to a small 

diameter, DOE also applied an 

additional 3.5 percent reduction to 

account for the need to use single-ended 

burners in small diameter lamps to 

maintain the same shape. DOE did not 

find a patent specific to single-ended 

burners used in small diameter IRLs and 

therefore, believes single-ended 

technology is accessible. Also, based on 

interviews with manufacturers DOE 

does not believe there are any technical 

impediments to setting up the 

production of single-ended small 

diameter IRLs. DOE acknowledges that 

manufacturers who do not currently 

have the industrial setup to produce 

single-ended IR burners, could face 

additional conversion costs to 

implement this production setup than 

manufacturers that already have this 

production setup. DOE did not include 

these additional conversion costs for 

those manufacturers without singleended burner production capabilities in 

the MIA since there are no 

manufacturers currently producing 

small diameter IRLs that are within the 

scope of this rulemaking and the MIA 

typically only analyzes the costs 

associated with maintaining the total 

base case production volume at the 

standards efficacy levels for each 

product class. 

While DOE acknowledges that there 

could be additional costs for 

manufacturers without single-ended 

burner production capabilities, based on 

manufacturer interviews and an 

assessment of the technology, DOE does 

not believe there is a technical or legal 

(i.e., patent) barrier to implementing a 

single-ended burner manufacturing 

process. Therefore, DOE concluded that 

the efficacy level determined for IRLs in 

this final rule would not result in 

competitive disadvantage to 

manufacturers. 

DOJ also reviewed the standards 

proposed in the NOPR analysis for 

GSFLs and IRLs and similarly 

concluded that they are unlikely to have 

a significant adverse impact on 

competition. 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve 

Energy 

Enhanced energy efficiency, where 

economically justified, improves the 

nation’s energy security, strengthens the 

economy, and reduces the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4137 

environmental impacts or costs of 

energy production. Reduced electricity 

demand due to energy conservation 

standards is also likely to reduce the 

cost of maintaining the reliability of the 

electricity system, particularly during 

peak-load periods. As a measure of this 

reduced demand, the Utility Impact 

Analysis show reductions in electricity 

generation and installed capacity across 

the analysis period, with the magnitude 

and peak of these reductions varying by 

electricity source fuel type, such as coal, 

natural gas, nuclear, oil, and 

renewables. Chapter 16 in the final rule 

TSD presents the estimated reduction in 

generation and installed capacity for the 

TSLs that DOE considered in this 

rulemaking. 

Energy savings from standards for 

GSFLs and IRLs could also produce 

environmental benefits in the form of 

reduced emissions of air pollutants and 

GHGs associated with electricity 

production. Table VII.47 and Table 

VII.48 provide DOE’s estimate of 

cumulative emissions reductions 

projected to result from the TSLs 

considered in this rulemaking. DOE 

reports annual emissions reductions for 

each TSL in chapter 14 of the final rule 

TSD. 

TABLE VII.48—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATED FOR GSFL TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

Trial Standard Level 

1 2 3 4 5 

Power Sector Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) .................................................................................... 12 12 45 150 150 

SO2 (thousand tons) .......................................................................................... 11 11 41 140 140 

NOX (thousand tons) ......................................................................................... 9.4 9.8 36 120 120 

Hg (tons) ............................................................................................................ 0.033 0.034 0.13 0.42 0.43 

CH4 (thousand tons) .......................................................................................... 1.0 1.1 4.0 14 14 

N2O (thousand tons) .......................................................................................... 0.15 0.15 0.58 2.0 2.0 

Upstream Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) .................................................................................... 0.58 0.60 2.3 7.7 7.9 

SO2 (thousand tons) .......................................................................................... 0.11 0.11 0.41 1.4 1.4

NOX (thousand tons) ......................................................................................... 8.2 8.5 32 110 110 

Hg (tons) ............................................................................................................ 0.00024 0.00025 0.00093 0.0031 0.0032 

CH4 (thousand tons) .......................................................................................... 48 50 190 640 650 

N2O (thousand tons) .......................................................................................... 0.0052 0.0054 0.020 0.069 0.070 

Total Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) .................................................................................... 12 13 48 160 160 

SO2 (thousand tons) .......................................................................................... 11 11 42 140 140 

NOX (thousand tons) ......................................................................................... 18 18 69 230 240 

Hg (tons) ............................................................................................................ 0.033 0.035 0.13 0.43 0.44 

CH4 (thousand tons) .......................................................................................... 49 51 190 650 660 

CH4 (million tons CO2eq) * ................................................................................. 1,400 1,400 5,400 18,000 19,000 

N2O (thousand tons) .......................................................................................... 0.15 0.16 0.60 2.0 2.1 

N2O (thousand tons CO2eq) * ............................................................................ 41 42 160 540 550 

* CO2eq is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same GWP. 

TABLE VII.49—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATED FOR

IRL TRIAL STANDARD LEVEL

Trial 

Standard 

Level 

1 

Power Sector Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ............ 0.74 

SO2 (thousand tons) ................... 0.75 

NOX (thousand tons) .................. 0.62 

Hg (tons) ..................................... 0.0023 

CH4 (thousand tons) ................... 0.06 

N2O (thousand tons) ................... 0.0085 

Upstream Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ............ 0.032 

SO2 (thousand tons) ................... 0.006 

NOX (thousand tons) .................. 0.45 

Hg (tons) ..................................... 0.000014 

CH4 (thousand tons) ................... 0.0003 

TABLE VII.49—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATED FOR

IRL TRIAL STANDARD LEVEL—Continued 

Trial 

Standard 

Level 

1 

N2O (thousand tons) ................... 2.6 

Total Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ............ 0.77 

SO2 (thousand tons) ................... 0.76 

NOX (thousand tons) .................. 1.1 

Hg (tons) ..................................... 0.0023 

CH4 (thousand tons) ................... 2.7 

CH4 (thousand tons CO2eq)* ..... 76 

N2O (thousand tons) ................... 0.0088 

N2O (thousand tons CO2eq)* ..... 2.3 

* CO2eq is the quantity of CO2 that would 

have the same GWP. 

As part of the analysis for this rule, 

DOE estimated monetary benefits likely 

to result from the reduced emissions of 

CO2 and NOX that DOE estimated for 

each of the TSLs considered. As 

discussed in section VI.M.1, DOE used 

the most recent values for the SCC 

developed by an interagency process. 

The four sets of SCC values resulting 

from that process (expressed in 2013$) 

represented by $12.0/metric ton (the 

average value from a distribution that 

uses a 5-percent discount rate), $40.5/

metric ton (the average value from a 

distribution that uses a 3-percent 

discount rate), $62.4/metric ton (the 

average value from a distribution that 

uses a 2.5-percent discount rate), and 

$119/metric ton (the 95th-percentile 

value from a distribution that uses a 3- 

percent discount rate). These values 

correspond to the value of emission 

reductions in 2015; the values for later 

years are higher due to increasing 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4138 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

damages as the projected magnitude of 

climate change increases. 

Table VII.49 and Table VII.50 present 

the global value of CO2 emissions 

reductions at each TSL. For each of the 

four cases, DOE calculated a present 

value of the stream of annual values 

using the same discount rate as was 

used in the studies upon which the 

dollar-per-ton values are based. DOE 

calculated domestic values as a range 

from 7 percent to 23 percent of the 

global values, and these results are 

presented in chapter 15 of the final rule 

TSD. 

TABLE VII.50—ESTIMATES OF GLOBAL PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION UNDER GSFL TRIAL STANDARD

LEVELS

TSL 

SCC Case * 

5% discount rate, 

average * 

3% discount rate, 

average * 

2.5% discount 

rate, average * 

3% discount rate, 

95th percentile * 

Million 2013$ 

Power Sector Emissions 

1 ............................................................................................... 100 430 660 1,300 

2 ............................................................................................... 110 440 690 1,400 

3 ............................................................................................... 390 1,600 2,600 5,000 

4 ............................................................................................... 1,300 5,400 8,500 17,000 

5 ............................................................................................... 1,300 5,600 8,700 17,000 

Upstream Emissions 

1 ............................................................................................... 5.0 21 33 65 

2 ............................................................................................... 5.2 22 34 67 

3 ............................................................................................... 19 82 130 250 

4 ............................................................................................... 65 270 430 840 

5 ............................................................................................... 66 280 440 860 

Total Emissions 

1 ............................................................................................... 110 450 690 1,400 

2 ............................................................................................... 110 470 720 1,400 

3 ............................................................................................... 410 1,700 2,700 5,300 

4 ............................................................................................... 1,400 5,700 8,900 18,000 

5 ............................................................................................... 1,400 5,800 9,100 18,000 

* For each of the four cases, the corresponding SCC value for emissions in 2015 is $12.0, $40.5, $62.4, and $119 per metric ton (2013$). 

TABLE VII.51—ESTIMATES OF GLOBAL PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION UNDER IRL TRIAL STANDARD

LEVEL

TSL 

SCC Case * 

5% discount rate, 

average * 

3% discount rate, 

average * 

2.5% discount 

rate, average * 

3% discount rate, 

95th percentile * 

Million 2013$ 

Power Sector Emissions 

1 ............................................................................................... 7.1 28 44 86 

Upstream Emissions 

1 ............................................................................................... 0.31 1.2 1.9 3.7 

Total Emissions 

1 ............................................................................................... 7.4 30 46 90 

* For each of the four cases, the corresponding SCC value for emissions in 2015 is $12.0, $40.5, $62.4, and $119 per metric ton (2013$). 

DOE is well aware that scientific and 

economic knowledge about the 

contribution of CO2 and other GHG 

emissions to changes in the future 

global climate and the potential 

resulting damages to the world economy 

continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any 

value placed on reducing CO2 emissions 

in this rulemaking is subject to change. 

DOE, together with other Federal 

agencies, will continue to review 

various methodologies for estimating 

the monetary value of reductions in CO2

and other GHG emissions. This ongoing 

review will consider the comments on 

this subject that are part of the public 

record for this and other rulemakings, as 

well as other methodological 

assumptions and issues. However, 

consistent with DOE’s legal obligations, 

and taking into account the uncertainty 

involved with this particular issue, DOE 

has included in this amended rule the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4139 

most recent values and analyses 

resulting from the interagency process. 

DOE also estimated the cumulative 

monetary value of the economic benefits 

associated with NOX emissions 

reductions anticipated to result from 

amended standards for GSFLs and IRLs. 

The dollar-per-ton value that DOE used 

is discussed in section VI.L. Table 

VII.51 and Table VII.52 present the 

cumulative present values for each TSL 

calculated using 7-percent and 3- 

percent discount rates. 

TABLE VII.52—ESTIMATES OF

PRESENT VALUE OF NOX EMISSIONS

REDUCTION UNDER GSFL TRIAL

STANDARD LEVELS

TSL 

3% 

discount 

rate 

7% 

discount 

rate 

Million 2013$ 

Power Sector Emissions 

1 ........................ 17 11 

2 ........................ 18 12 

3 ........................ 66 42 

4 ........................ 210 130 

5 ........................ 220 140 

Upstream Emissions 

1 ........................ 14 8.8 

TABLE VII.52—ESTIMATES OF

PRESENT VALUE OF NOX EMISSIONS

REDUCTION UNDER GSFL TRIAL

STANDARD LEVELS—Continued 

TSL 

3% 

discount 

rate 

7% 

discount 

rate 

2 ........................ 15 9.3 

3 ........................ 56 34 

4 ........................ 190 110 

5 ........................ 190 110 

Total Emissions 

1 ........................ 32 20 

2 ........................ 33 21 

3 ........................ 120 75 

4 ........................ 400 240 

5 ........................ 410 250 

TABLE VII.53—ESTIMATES OF

PRESENT VALUE OF NOX EMISSIONS

REDUCTION UNDER IRL TRIAL

STANDARD LEVEL

TSL 3% discount 

rate 

7% discount 

rate 

Million 2013$ 

Power Sector Emissions 

1 ........................ 1.3 0.97 

TABLE VII.53—ESTIMATES OF

PRESENT VALUE OF NOX EMISSIONS

REDUCTION UNDER IRL TRIAL

STANDARD LEVEL—Continued 

TSL 3% discount 

rate 

7% discount 

rate 

Upstream Emissions 

1 ........................ 0.92 0.67 

Total Emissions 

1 ........................ 2.2 1.6 

7. Summary of National Economic 

Impacts 

The NPV of the monetized benefits 

associated with emissions reductions 

can be viewed as a complement to the 

NPV of the consumer savings calculated 

for each TSL considered in this 

rulemaking. Table VII.53 presents the 

NPV values that result from adding the 

estimates of the potential economic 

benefits resulting from reduced CO2 and 

NOX emissions in each of four valuation 

scenarios to the NPV of consumer 

savings calculated for each TSL 

considered in this rulemaking, at both a 

7-percent and 3-percent discount rate. 

The CO2 values used in the columns of 

each table correspond to the four sets of 

SCC values discussed previously. 

TABLE VII.54—NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER SAVINGS COMBINED WITH PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS

FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS UNDER GSFL TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

TSL 

Consumer NPV at 3% Discount Rate added with: 

SCC Case 

$12.0/metric ton 

CO2 plus NOX* 

SCC Case 

$40.5/metric ton 

CO2 plus NOX* 

SCC Case 

$62.4/metric ton 

CO2 plus NOX* 

SCC Case 

$119/metric ton 

CO2 plus NOX* 

Billion 2013$ 

1 ............................................................................................... ¥0 .28 0 .058 0 .31 0 .98 

2 ............................................................................................... ¥0 .47 ¥0 .11 0 .15 0 .85 

3 ............................................................................................... 1 .7 3 .0 3 .9 6 .5 

4 ............................................................................................... 7 .2 12 15 23 

5 ............................................................................................... 6 .7 11 14 23 

Consumer NPV at 7% Discount Rate added with: 

TSL SCC Case $12.0/

metric ton CO2

plus NOX* 

SCC Case $40.5/

metric ton CO2

plus NOX* 

SCC Case $62.4/

metric ton CO2

plus NOX* 

SCC Case $119/

metric ton CO2

plus NOX* 

Billion 2013$ 

1 ............................................................................................... ¥0 .24 0 .097 0 .34 1 .0 

2 ............................................................................................... ¥0 .37 0 .153 0 .24 0 .94 

3 ............................................................................................... 0 .84 2 .2 3 .1 5 .7 

4 ............................................................................................... 3 .6 8 .0 11 20 

5 ............................................................................................... 3 .3 7 .7 11 20 

* These label values represent the global SCC in 2015, in 2013$. For NOX emissions, each case uses the medium value, which corresponds 

to $2,684 per ton. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4140 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.55—NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER SAVINGS COMBINED WITH PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS

FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS UNDER IRL TRIAL STANDARD LEVEL

TSL SCC Case 

$12.0/metric ton 

CO2 plus NOX* 

SCC Case 

$40.5/metric ton 

CO2 plus NOX* 

SCC Case 

$62.4/metric ton 

CO2 plus NOX* 

SCC Case 

$119/metric ton 

CO2 plus NOX* 

Billion 2013$ 

1 ....................................................................................................... 0.26 0.29 0.30 0.35 

Consumer NPV at 7% Discount Rate added with: 

TSL SCC Case 

$12.0/metric ton 

CO2 plus NOX* 

SCC Case 

$40.5/metric ton 

CO2 plus NOX* 

SCC Case 

$62.4/metric ton 

CO2 plus NOX* 

SCC Case 

$119/metric ton 

CO2 plus NOX* 

Billion 2013$ 

1 ....................................................................................................... 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.26 

* These label values represent the global SCC in 2015, in 2013$. For NOX emissions, each case uses the medium value, which corresponds 

to $2,684 per ton. 

Although adding the value of 

consumer savings to the values of 

emission reductions provides a valuable 

perspective, two issues should be 

considered. First, the national operating 

cost savings are domestic U.S. consumer 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of market transactions, while the value 

of CO2 reductions is based on a global 

value. Second, the assessments of 

operating cost savings and the SCC are 

performed with different methods that 

use different time frames for analysis. 

The national operating cost savings is 

measured for the lifetime of product 

shipped in 2018–2047. The SCC values, 

on the other hand, reflect the present 

value of future climate-related impacts 

resulting from the emission of one 

metric ton of CO2 in each year. These 

impacts continue well beyond 2100. 

C. Conclusions 

When considering proposed 

standards, the new or amended energy 

conservation standard that DOE adopts 

for any type (or class) of covered 

product must be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that the Secretary determines 

is technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining whether a 

standard is economically justified, the 

Secretary must determine whether the 

benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens, considering to the greatest 

extent practicable the seven statutory 

factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or amended 

standard must also ‘‘result in significant 

conservation of energy.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B)) 

DOE considers the impacts of 

standards at each TSL, beginning with 

the max tech level, to determine 

whether that level meets the evaluation 

criteria. Where the max tech level is not 

justified, DOE then considers the next 

most efficient level and undertakes the 

same evaluation until it reaches the 

highest efficacy level that is 

technologically feasible, economically 

justified, and saves a significant amount 

of energy. 

To aid the reader in understanding 

the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL, 

Table VII.55 and Table VII.56 in this 

section summarize the quantitative 

analytical results for each TSL, based on 

the assumptions and methodology 

discussed herein. The efficacy levels 

contained in each TSL are described in 

section VII.A. In addition to the 

quantitative results presented in the 

tables, DOE also considers other 

burdens and benefits that affect 

economic justification. These include 

the impacts on identifiable subgroups of 

consumers who may be 

disproportionately affected by a national 

standard (see section VII.B.1.b) and 

impacts on employment. DOE discusses 

the impacts on employment in GSFL 

and IRL manufacturing in section 

VII.B.2.b and discusses the indirect 

employment impacts in section 

VII.B.3.d. 

DOE also notes that the economics 

literature provides a wide-ranging 

discussion of how consumers trade off 

upfront costs and energy savings in the 

absence of government intervention. 

Much of this literature attempts to 

explain why consumers appear to 

undervalue energy efficiency 

improvements. There is evidence that 

consumers undervalue future energy 

savings as a result of (1) a lack of 

information; (2) a lack of sufficient 

salience of the long-term or aggregate 

benefits; (3) a lack of sufficient savings 

to warrant accelerating or altering 

purchases; (3) inconsistent weighting of 

future energy cost savings relative to 

available returns on other investments; 

(4) computational or other difficulties 

associated with the evaluation of 

relevant tradeoffs; and (5) a divergence 

in incentives (for example, renter versus 

owner or builder versus purchaser). 

Other literature indicates that with lessthan-perfect foresight and a high degree 

of uncertainty about the future, it may 

be rational for consumers to trade off 

these types of investments at a higherthan-expected rate between current 

consumption and uncertain future 

energy cost savings. This 

undervaluation suggests that regulation 

that promotes energy efficiency can 

produce significant net private gains (as 

well as producing social gains by, for 

example, reducing pollution). 

In DOE’s current regulatory analysis, 

potential changes in the benefits and 

costs of a regulation due to changes in 

consumer purchase decisions are 

included in two ways. First, if 

consumers forego a purchase of a 

product in the standards case, this 

decreases sales for product 

manufacturers and the cost to 

manufacturers is included in the MIA. 

Second, DOE accounts for energy 

savings attributable only to products 

actually used by consumers in the 

standards case; if a standard decreases 

the number of products purchased by 

consumers, this decreases the potential 

energy savings from an energy 

conservation standard. DOE provides 

estimates of changes in the volume of 

product purchases in chapter 9 of the 

final rule TSD. DOE’s current analysis 

does not explicitly control for 

heterogeneity in consumer preferences, 

preferences across subcategories of 

products or specific features, or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4141 

93P.C. Reiss and M.W. White, Household 

Electricity Demand, Revisited, Review of Economic 

Studies (2005) 72, 853–883. 

94Alan Sanstad, Notes on the Economics of 

Household Energy Consumption and Technology 

Choice. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

(2010) (Available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_

theory.pdf. 

consumer price sensitivity variation 

according to household income.93

While DOE is not prepared at present 

to provide a fuller quantifiable 

framework for estimating the benefits 

and costs of changes in consumer 

purchase decisions due to an energy 

conservation standard, DOE is 

committed to developing a framework 

that can support empirical quantitative 

tools for improved assessment of the 

consumer welfare impacts of appliance 

standards. DOE has posted a paper that 

discusses the issue of consumer welfare 

impacts of appliance standards, and 

potential enhancements to the 

methodology by which these impacts 

are defined and estimated in the 

regulatory process.94 DOE welcomes 

comments on how to more fully assess 

the potential impact of energy 

conservation standards on consumer 

choice and how to quantify this impact 

in its future regulatory analysis. 

1. Benefits and Burdens of Trial 

Standard Levels Considered for General 

Service Fluorescent Lamps 

Table VII.55 and Table VII.56 

summarize the quantitative impacts 

estimated for each TSL for GSFL. 

TABLE VII.56—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR GSFL: NATIONAL IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

National FFC Energy Savings quads 

0.19 0.20 0.74 2.5 2.6 

NPV of Consumer Benefits 2013$ billion 

13% discount rate ...................................................... 0.42 0.61 1.1 5.5 4.9 

17% discount rate ...................................................... 0.37 0.51 0.35 2.0 1.6 

Cumulative Emissions Reduction (Total FFC Emissions) 

CO2 (million metric tons) ............................................ 12 13 48 160 160 

SO2 (thousand tons) .................................................. 11 11 42 140 140 

NOX (thousand tons) ................................................. 18 18 69 230 240 

Hg (tons) .................................................................... 0.033 0.035 0.13 0.43 0.44 

CH4 (thousand tons) .................................................. 49 51 190 650 660 

CH4 (million tons CO2eq)* ......................................... 1,400 1,400 5,400 18,000 19,000 

NO2 (thousand tons) .................................................. 0.15 0.16 0.60 2.0 2.1 

NO2 (thousand tons CO2eq) * .................................... 41 42 160 540 550 

Value of Emissions Reduction (Total FFC Emissions) 

CO2, 2013$ billion ** ................................................... 0.11 to 1.4 0.11 to 1.4 0.41 to 5.3 1.4 to 18 1.4 to 18 

NOX—3% discount rate, 2013$ million ..................... 32 33 120 400 410 

NOX—7% discount rate, 2013$ million ..................... 20 21 75 240 250 

CO2 is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same GWP. 

** Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions. 

TABLE VII.57 SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR GSFL: MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

Manufacturer Impacts 

Change in Industry NPV (2013$ million)† ...........................

(Base Case Industry NPV of $1,551.6) ............................... 49.5—(42.9) 48.2—(56.5) 130.4—(74.2) 426.8—(330.0) 444.6—(367.7) 

Change in Industry NPV (%)† ............................................. 3.2—(2.8) 3.1—(3.6) 8.4—(4.8) 27.5—(21.3) 28.7—(23.7) 

Consumer Mean LCC Savings 2013$ 

4-foot MBP ≤4,500 K ........................................................... 0.00 0.00 0.07 5.98 5.98 

4-foot T5 MiniBP SO ≤4,500 K ............................................ 2.87 2.87 2.87 5.68 5.68 

4-foot T5 MiniBP HO ≤4,500 K ............................................ 4.74 4.74 4.74 4.74 4.74 

8-foot SP Slimline ≤4,500 K ................................................ 0.00 5.02 0.00 0.00 1.72 

8-foot RDC HO ≤4,500 K ..................................................... ¥9.66 ¥16.94 0.00 0.00 ¥16.94 

Weighted Average * ............................................................. 0.49 0.56 0.54 5.55 5.47 

Consumer Mean PBP years** 

4-foot MBP ≤4,500 K ........................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.1 3.1 

4-foot T5 MiniBP SO ≤4,500 K ............................................ 1.2 1.2 1.2 4.0 4.0 

4-foot T5 MiniBP HO ≤4,500 K ............................................ 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 

8-foot SP Slimline ≤4,500 K ................................................ 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 4.4 

8-foot RDC HO ≤4,500 K ..................................................... NER NER 0.0 0.0 NER 

Weighted Average * ............................................................. 0.3 0.3 0.8 3.0 3.2 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4142 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.57 SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR GSFL: MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS—Continued 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

Weighted-Average Consumers with Net Cost (%)* ............. 8.6 10.5 61.1 22.0 24.9 

Weighted-Average Consumers with Net Benefit (%)* ......... 5.9 6.9 34.9 73.4 75.1 

Weighted-Average Consumers with No Impact (%)* .......... 85.5 82.6 4.0 4.6 0.0 

* DOE calculates the LCC savings and PBP relative to the baseline for each EL for each representative product class. Each TSL corresponds 

to a specific EL for each representative product class. (See Table VII.1 for the TSLs analyzed and the corresponding ELs.) The weighted averages are calculated by weighting the shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2018. 

** Does not include weighting for ‘‘NER’’ scenarios. Entries of ‘‘NER’’ indicate standard levels that do not reduce operating costs, which prevents the consumer from recovering the increased purchase cost. 

† Values in parentheses are negative values. 

First, DOE considered TSL 5, the most 

efficient level (max tech), which would 

save an estimated total of 2.56 quads of 

energy, an amount DOE considers 

significant. TSL 5 has an estimated NPV 

of consumer benefit of $1.6 billion using 

a 7-percent discount rate, and $4.9 

billion using a 3 percent discount rate. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 5 are 160 million metric tons of 

CO2, 240 thousand tons of NOX, 140 

thousand tons of SO2, 0.44 tons of Hg, 

660 thousand tons of CH4, and 2.1 

thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions at TSL 5 ranges from $1.4 

billion to $18 billion. 

At TSL 5, DOE estimates industry will 

need to invest approximately $39.1 

million in conversion costs. At TSL 5, 

the projected change in INPV ranges 

from a decrease of $367.7 million to an 

increase of $444.6 million, which 

equates to a decrease of 23.7 percent 

and an increase of 28.7 percent, 

respectively, in INPV for manufacturers 

of covered GSFLs. 

At TSL 5, the weighted-average LCC 

savings is $5.98 for the 4-foot MBP 

lamps, $5.68 for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP 

SO lamps, $4.74 for the 4-foot T5 

MiniBP HO lamps, $1.72 for the 8-foot 

SP slimline lamps, and ¥$16.94 for the 

8-foot RDC HO lamps. 

At TSL 5, 8-foot HO lamps are 

required to meet EL 2, which represents 

an 800 series full wattage T8 lamp. 

Because no reduced wattage 8-foot HO 

lamps exist at this level, consumers who 

require 8-foot HO lamps must purchase 

a more efficient lamp that consumes the 

same amount of energy as lamps 

available at lower efficacy levels. Thus, 

for an increased cost, these consumers 

must purchase a lamp that produces 

more light but does not save energy. 

Because there are no energy-saving 

options for 8-foot HO consumers at TSL 

5, all consumers that continue to 

purchase this lamp type would 

experience negative LCC savings. 

After considering the analysis and 

weighing the benefits and the burdens, 

DOE has determined that at TSL 5 for 

GSFLs, the benefits of energy savings, 

positive NPV of total consumer benefits, 

the overall positive impacts on 

consumers, emission reductions and the 

estimated monetary value of the 

emissions reductions would be 

outweighed by the potential reduction 

in industry value and negative LCC 

savings experienced by consumers of 8- 

foot RDC HO lamps. Therefore, the 

Secretary has concluded that TSL 5 is 

not economically justified. 

Next, DOE considered TSL 4, which 

represents the combination of ELs that 

achieve the maximum NPV. TSL 4 

would save an estimated total of 2.5 

quads of energy, an amount DOE 

considers significant and approaches 

maximum energy savings achieved at 

TSL 5. TSL 4 has an estimated NPV of 

consumer benefit of $2.0 billion using a 

7-percent discount rate, and $5.5 billion 

using a 3 percent discount rate. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 4 are 160 million metric tons of 

CO2, 230 thousand tons of NOX, 140 

thousand tons of SO2, 0.43 tons of Hg, 

650 thousand tons of CH4, and 2.0 

thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions at TSL 4 ranges from $1.4 

billion to $18 billion. 

At TSL 4, DOE estimates industry will 

need to invest approximately $26.6 

million in conversion costs. At TSL 4, 

the projected change in INPV ranges 

from a decrease of $330.0 million to an 

increase of $426.8 million, which 

equates to a decrease of 21.3 percent 

and an increase of 27.5 percent, 

respectively, in INPV for manufacturers 

of covered GSFLs. 

At TSL 4, the weighted average LCC 

savings is $5.98 for the 4-foot MBP 

lamps, $5.68 for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP 

SO lamps, and $4.74 for the 4-foot T5 

MiniBP HO lamps. At TSL 4, no 

amended standard is adopted for the 8- 

foot SP slimline lamps or 8- foot RDC 

HO lamps and therefore LCC savings are 

not reported. 

After considering the analysis and 

weighing the benefits and the burdens, 

DOE determined that at TSL 4 for 

GSFLs, the benefits of energy savings, 

positive NPV of total consumer benefits, 

the overall positive impacts on 

consumers, emission reductions and the 

estimated monetary value of the 

emissions reductions would outweigh 

the potential reduction in industry 

value. The Secretary has concluded that 

TSL 4 would save a significant amount 

of energy and is technologically feasible 

and economically justified. 

Based on the above considerations, 

DOE adopts the energy conservation 

standards for GSFLs at TSL 4. Table 

VII.57 presents the adopted energy 

conservation standards for GSFLs. 

TABLE VII.58—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR GSFL 

Lamp type CCT 

K 

Adopted level 

lm/W 

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

>4,500 

92.4 

88.7 

2-Foot U-Shaped ..................................................................................................................................................... ≤4,500 

>4,500 

85.0 

83.3 

8-Foot Slimline ......................................................................................................................................................... ≤4,500 

>4,500 

97.0 

93.0 

8-Foot High Output .................................................................................................................................................. ≤4,500 

>4,500 

92.0 

88.0 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4143 

95See section VI.M for description of the method 

used for annualization. 

96The annualized consumer operating cost 

savings, NOX reduction monetized value, and 

consumer incremental product costs are higher with 

a 7-percent discount rate than with a 3-percent 

discount rate. This is in contrast to the present 

values in Table VII.58. Under certain conditions, 

different present values may lead to similar 

annualized values when calculated with different 

discount rates. In this case, the combined effects of 

(a) projecting to 2018 the present values that DOE 

calculated in 2014, and (b) annualizing the 

projected values with 3 percent and 7 percent 

discount rates over the 30-year analysis period, lead 

to similar annualized values. For consumer 

incremental product costs, the effect is more 

pronounced because the time series covers only 30 

years, instead of the longer period covered for 

operating cost savings and NOX reduction 

monetized value. 

TABLE VII.58—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR GSFL—Continued 

Lamp type CCT 

K 

Adopted level 

lm/W 

4-Foot Miniature Bipin Standard Output .................................................................................................................. ≤4,500 

>4,500 

95.0 

89.3 

4-Foot Miniature Bipin High Output ......................................................................................................................... ≤4,500 

>4,500 

82.7 

76.9 

2. Summary of Benefits and Costs 

(Annualized) of the Adopted Standards 

for General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

The benefits and costs of these 

standards, for product sold in 2018– 

2047, can also be expressed in terms of 

annualized values. The annualized 

monetary values are the sum of (1) the 

annualized national economic value of 

the benefits from consumer operation of 

product that meet the amended 

standards (consisting primarily of 

operating cost savings from using less 

energy, minus increases in product 

purchase and installation costs, which 

is another way of representing consumer 

NPV), and (2) the annualized monetary 

value of the benefits of emission 

reductions, including CO2 emission 

reductions.95

Estimates of annualized benefits and 

costs of the standards for GSFL are 

shown in Table VII.58. The results 

under the primary estimate are as 

follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate 

for benefits and costs other than CO2

reduction, for which DOE used a 3- 

percent discount rate along with the 

SCC series that has a value of $40.5/t in 

2015, the cost of the standards in this 

rule is $841 million per year in 

increased equipment costs, while the 

benefits are $1,030 million per year in 

reduced equipment operating costs, 

$310 million in CO2 reductions, and 

$22.4 million in reduced NOX

emissions. In this case, the net benefit 

amounts to $516 million per year. Using 

a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits 

and costs and the SCC series that has a 

value of $40.5/t in 2015, the cost of the 

standards in this rule is $724 million 

per year in increased equipment costs, 

while the benefits are $1,020 million per 

year in reduced operating costs, $310 

million in CO2 reductions, and $21.6 

million in reduced NOX emissions. In 

this case, the net benefit amounts to 

$627 million per year. 96

TABLE VII.59—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF AMENDED STANDARDS FOR GSFL (TSL 4) * 

Discount rate Primary estimate Low net benefits 

estimate 

High net benefits 

estimate 

Million 2013$/year 

Benefits 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ............... 7% ..............................

3% ..............................

1,030 ..........................

1,020 ..........................

1,010 ..........................

1,000 ..........................

1,050 

1,050 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($12.0/t 

case) **.

5% .............................. 97.5 ............................ 97.1 ............................ 97.5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($40.5/t 

case) **.

3% .............................. 310 ............................. 308 ............................. 310 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($62.4/t 

case) **.

2.5% ........................... 448 ............................. 446 ............................. 448 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($119/t 

case) **.

3% .............................. 950 ............................. 946 ............................. 950 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,684/

ton) **.

7% ..............................

3% ..............................

22.4 ............................

21.6 ............................

22.3 ............................

21.5 ............................

22.4 

21.6 

Total Benefits † ............................................... 7% plus CO2 range .... 1,150 to 2,000 ............ 1,130 to 1,980 ............ 1,170 to 2,030 

7% .............................. 1,360 .......................... 1,340 .......................... 1,390 

3% plus CO2 range .... 1,140 to 2,000 ............ 1,120 to 1,970 ............ 1,170 to 2,030 

3% .............................. 1,360 .......................... 1,330 .......................... 1,390 

Costs 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ........... 7% ..............................

3% ..............................

841 .............................

724 .............................

882 .............................

763 .............................

841 

724 

Net Benefits 

Total † ............................................................. 7% plus CO2 range .... 300 to 1,160 ............... 241 to 1,090 ............... 328 to 1,180 

7% .............................. 516 ............................. 452 ............................. 540 

3% plus CO2 range .... 415 to 1,270 ............... 350 to 1,200 ............... 443 to 1,300 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4144 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.59—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF AMENDED STANDARDS FOR GSFL (TSL 4) *—Continued 

Discount rate Primary estimate Low net benefits 

estimate 

High net benefits 

estimate 

3% .............................. 627 ............................. 561 ............................. 655 

* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with GSFLs shipped in 2018–2047. These results include benefits to consumers that accrue after 2047 from the products purchased in 2018–2047. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The Primary Benefits Estimate assumes 

the Reference case energy prices from AEO 2014 and decreasing incremental product cost, due to price learning. The Low Benefits Estimate 

uses the Low Economic Growth energy prices from AEO 2014 and constant real product prices. The High Benefits Estimate assumes the Low 

Economic Growth energy price estimates from AEO 2014 and the same decreasing incremental product costs as in the Primary Benefits Estimate. 

** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The 

first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporate an escalation factor. The value for NOX is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis. 

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

($40.5/t case). In the rows labeled ‘‘7% plus CO2 range’’ and ‘‘3% plus CO2 range,’’ the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the 

labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values. 

3. Benefits and Burdens of Trial 

Standard Levels Considered for 

Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

Table VII.59 and Table VII.60 

summarize the quantitative impacts 

estimated for the TSL for IRL. 

TABLE VII.60—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR IRL: NATIONAL IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 

National FFC Energy Savings quads 

0.011 

NPV of Consumers Benefits 2013$ billion 

3% discount rate ............................................................................................................................................................................ 0.25 

7% discount rate ............................................................................................................................................................................ 0.17 

Cumulative Emissions Reduction (Total FFC Emissions) 

CO2 (million metric tons) ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.77 

SO2 (thousand tons) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 0.76 

NOx (thousand tons) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1.1 

Hg (tons) ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 0.0023 

CH4 (thousand tons) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2.7 

CH4 (thousand tons CO2eq) * ........................................................................................................................................................ 76 

N2O (thousand tons) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 0.0088 

N2O (thousand tons CO2eq) * ........................................................................................................................................................ 2.3 

Value of Emissions Reduction (Total FFC Emissions) 

CO2 2013$ million ** ...................................................................................................................................................................... 7 to 90 

NOX—3% discount rate 2013$ million .......................................................................................................................................... 2.2 

NOX—7% discount rate 2013$ million .......................................................................................................................................... 1.6 

* CO2eq is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same GWP. 

** Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions. 

TABLE VII.61—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR IRL: MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 

Manufacturer Impacts 

Change in Industry NPV (2013$ million)* (Base Case Industry NPV of $145.4) ........................................................................ (52.5)–(56.2) 

Change in Industry NPV (%)* ....................................................................................................................................................... (36.1)–(38.6) 

Consumer Mean LCC Savings * 2013$ 

Standard spectrum; >2.5 inch diameter; <125 V .......................................................................................................................... 3.09 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4145 

TABLE VII.61—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR IRL: MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS—Continued 

Category TSL 1 

Consumer Mean PBP * years 

Standard spectrum; >2.5 inch diameter; <125 V .......................................................................................................................... 5.3 

Consumers with Net Cost % ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.0 

Consumers with Net Benefit % ..................................................................................................................................................... 100.0 

Consumers with No Impact % ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.0 

* Values in parentheses are negative values. 

DOE considered TSL 1, which would 

save an estimated total of 0.0102 quads 

of energy, an amount DOE considers 

significant. TSL 1 has an estimated NPV 

of consumer benefit of $0.17 billion 

using a 7-percent discount rate, and 

$0.25 billion using a 3-percent discount 

rate. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 1 are 0.77 million metric tons of 

CO2, 1.1 thousand tons of NOX, 0.76 

thousand tons of SO2, 0.0023 tons of Hg, 

2.7 thousand tons of CH4, and 0.0088 

thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions at TSL 1 ranges from $7 

million to $90 million. 

At TSL 1, the weighted average LCC 

savings for the standard spectrum, >2.5 

inch diameter, <125 V product class is 

$3.09. The LCC savings were positive 

for both representative lamp units in 

each sector. 

At TSL 1, DOE estimates industry 

would need to invest approximately 

$72.6 million in conversion costs. At 

TSL 1, the projected change in INPV 

ranges from a decrease of $52.5 million 

to a decrease of $56.2 million. If the 

larger decrease is realized, TSL 1 could 

result in a net loss of up to 38.6 percent 

in INPV to manufacturers of covered 

IRLs. 

At TSL 1, given the size of the 

investment, DOE believes there is 

uncertainty as to whether manufacturers 

would spend the capital required to 

produce more efficient, longer lifetime 

products at the volume needed to satisfy 

the market demand. Manufacturers 

could instead choose to forego the 

significant investment and produce 

exempt products or exit the market 

entirely. DOE is also aware that to meet 

higher efficacy levels, manufacturers 

can choose to produce lamps with a 

shorter lifetime and did so in response 

to the July 2012 standards by 

introducing IRLs with shorter lifetimes. 

DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis to 

assess the impacts of manufacturers 

shortening the lifetime of covered IRLs 

to meet TSL 1. DOE determined that if 

manufacturers shorten the lifetime of 

IRLs, consumers would experience 

negative LCC savings in both the 

residential and commercial sectors. 

After considering the analysis and 

weighing the benefits and the burdens, 

DOE concluded that, at TSL 1 for IRLs, 

the benefits of energy savings, positive 

NPV of consumer benefits, positive 

impacts on consumers (as indicated by 

positive average LCC savings), emission 

reductions and the estimated monetary 

value of the emissions reductions would 

be outweighed by the potential 

reduction in industry value and the 

potential negative costs to consumers in 

the scenario that manufacturers 

shortened the lifetime of covered IRLs. 

Consequently, DOE has concluded that 

TSL 1 is not economically justified. 

Based on the above considerations, 

DOE is not amending energy 

conservation standards for IRLs. 

VIII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 

Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), 

requires each agency to identify the 

problem that it intends to address, 

including, where applicable, the failures 

of private markets or public institutions 

that warrant new agency action, as well 

as to assess the significance of that 

problem. The problems that these 

standards address are as follows: 

(1) There is limited relevant consumer 

information in the lighting market, and 

the high costs of gathering and 

analyzing relevant information leads 

some consumers to miss opportunities 

to make cost-effective investments in 

energy efficiency. 

(2) In some cases the benefits of more 

efficient products are not realized due to 

misaligned incentives between 

purchasers and users. An example of 

such a case is when the product 

purchase decision is made by a building 

contractor or building owner who does 

not pay the energy costs. 

(3) There are external benefits 

resulting from improved energy 

efficiency of GSFLs and IRLs that are 

not captured by the users of such 

products. These benefits include 

externalities related to public health, 

environmental protection and national 

security that are not reflected in energy 

prices, such as reduced emissions of air 

pollutants and greenhouse gases that 

impact human health and global 

warming. 

In addition, DOE has determined that 

this regulatory action is a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866. DOE presented to OIRA in 

the OMB for review the draft rule and 

other documents prepared for this 

rulemaking, including a regulatory 

impact analysis (RIA), and has included 

these documents in the rulemaking 

record. The assessments prepared 

pursuant to Executive Order 12866 can 

be found in the technical support 

document for this rulemaking. 

DOE has also reviewed this regulation 

pursuant to Executive Order 13563. (76 

FR 3281, Jan. 21, 2011) EO 13563 is 

supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms 

the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. 

To the extent permitted by law, agencies 

are required by Executive Order 13563 

to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation 

only upon a reasoned determination 

that its benefits justify its costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor 

regulations to impose the least burden 

on society, consistent with obtaining 

regulatory objectives, taking into 

account, among other things, and to the 

extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

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

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4146 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. 

DOE emphasizes as well that 

Executive Order 13563 requires agencies 

to use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible. In its guidance, OIRA has 

emphasized that such techniques may 

include identifying changing future 

compliance costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes. For this final rule, 

DOE has utilized the latest market and 

technology assessments, product 

information, and prices available at the 

time of this analysis and developed 

shipment projections based on historical 

data and key market drivers to 

determine national energy savings and 

net present value of potential standards. 

Further, in anticipation of future trends 

DOE has also considered various 

alternative scenarios including increases 

in rare earth phosphor and xenon 

prices. Therefore, DOE believes that this 

rule is consistent with these principles, 

including the requirement that, to the 

extent permitted by law, benefits justify 

costs and that net benefits are 

maximized. 

For future regulatory efforts regarding 

this product category, DOE will utilize 

the latest market and technology 

assessments, product information, and 

prices available at the time of the 

analysis and develop shipment 

projections based on historical data and 

key market drivers. Additionally, the 

agency will restrospectively evaluate the 

consumer choice model and related 

shipments trends that project that 

consumers will switch from purchasing 

one type of product class to another as 

a result of the revised energy efficiency 

standards. DOE’s evaluation will verify 

the assumptions and revise as 

appropriate the consumer choice model 

for the next rulemaking iteration. 

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, 

and a final regulatory flexibility analysis 

(FRFA) for any such rule that an agency 

adopts as a final rule, unless the agency 

certifies that the rule, if promulgated, 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. As required by Executive Order 

13272, ‘‘Proper Consideration of Small 

Entities in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 

53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE 

published procedures and policies on 

February 19, 2003, to ensure that the 

potential impacts of its rules on small 

entities are properly considered during 

the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. 

DOE has made its procedures and 

policies available on the Office of the 

General Counsel’s Web site (http://

energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). 

DOE reviewed the April 2014 NOPR (79 

FR 24068) and this rule under the 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act and the procedures and policies 

published on February 19, 2003. 

As a result of this review, DOE has 

prepared a FRFA for GSFLs, but not for 

IRLs since DOE is not setting amended 

energy conservation standards for IRLs 

as part of this rule. As presented and 

discussed in the following section, the 

GSFL FRFA describes impacts on GSFL 

manufacturers and discusses 

alternatives that could minimize these 

impacts. A statement of the reasons for 

establishing the standards in this rule, 

and the objectives of, and legal basis for 

these standards, are set forth elsewhere 

in the preamble and not repeated here. 

Chapter 13 of this final rule TSD 

contains more information about the 

impact of this rulemaking on 

manufacturers. 

1. Description and Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

a. Methodology for Estimating the 

Number of Small Entities 

For manufacturers of GSFLs, the 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

has set a size threshold, which defines 

those entities classified as ‘‘small 

businesses’’ for the purposes of the 

statute. DOE used the SBA’s small 

business size standards to determine 

whether any small entities would be 

subject to the requirements of the rule. 

65 FR 30836, 30848 (May 15, 2000), as 

amended at 65 FR 53533, 53544 (Sept. 

5, 2000) and codified at 13 CFR part 

121.The size standards are listed by 

North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) code and industry 

description and are available at http:// 

www.sba.gov/content/table-smallbusiness-size-standards. GSFL 

manufacturing is classified under 

NAICS code 335110, ‘‘Electric Lamp 

Bulb and Part Manufacturing.’’ The SBA 

sets a threshold of 1,000 employees or 

less for an entity to be considered as a 

small business for this category. 

To estimate the number of companies 

that could be small business 

manufacturers of GSFLs covered by this 

rulemaking, DOE conducted a market 

survey using publicly available 

information. DOE’s research involved 

industry trade association membership 

directories (including NEMA), 

information from previous rulemakings, 

individual company Web sites, SBA’s 

database, and market research tools 

(e.g., Hoover’s reports). DOE also asked 

stakeholders and industry 

representatives if they were aware of 

any small manufacturers during 

manufacturer interviews and DOE 

public meetings. DOE used information 

from these sources to create a list of 

companies that potentially manufacture 

or sell GSFLs and would be impacted by 

this rulemaking. As necessary, DOE 

contacted companies to determine 

whether they met the SBA’s definition 

of a small business manufacturer of 

GSFLs. DOE screened out companies 

that do not offer products covered by 

this rulemaking, do not meet the 

definition of a ‘‘small business,’’ or are 

completely foreign owned and operated. 

For GSFLs, DOE initially identified a 

total of 47 potential companies that sell 

GSFLs in the United States. After 

reviewing publicly available 

information on these potential GSFL 

manufacturers, DOE determined that 26 

were either large manufacturers, 

manufacturers that were completely 

foreign owned and operated, or did not 

sell GSFLs covered by this rulemaking. 

DOE then contacted the remaining 21 

GSFL companies to determine whether 

they met SBA’s definition of a small 

business and whether they 

manufactured or sold GSFLs that would 

be affected by these standards. Based on 

these efforts, DOE estimated that there 

are 21 small businesses that either 

manufacture or sell covered GSFLs in 

the United States. 

b. Manufacturer Participation 

DOE contacted all 21 identified GSFL 

small businesses to invite them to take 

part in a small business MIA interview. 

Of the GSFL manufacturers DOE 

contacted, eight responded to DOE’s 

email and phone communications and 

13 did not. DOE was able to reach and 

discuss potential standards with two of 

the eight GSFL small business 

manufacturers that responded. The 

remaining six declined DOE’s request to 

be interviewed for this rulemaking. DOE 

also obtained information about small 

business manufacturers and potential 

impacts on small businesses while 

interviewing large manufacturers. 

c. GSFL Industry Structure and Nature 

of Competition 

Three major manufacturers supply 

approximately 90 percent of the GSFL 

market. None of these three major GSFL 

manufacturers are small businesses. 

DOE estimates that the remaining 10 

percent of the GSFL market is served by 

either small businesses or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4147 

manufacturers that are completely 

foreign owned and operated. No small 

business has more than a three percent 

market share in the GSFL industry. 

Small businesses that sell covered 

GSFLs tend to be companies that 

outsource the manufacturing to overseas 

companies who produce the lamps 

specified by the small businesses. These 

small businesses provide the 

specifications for these lamps as well as 

the testing and certification to comply 

with any U.S. energy conservation 

standards. 

d. Comparison Between Large and Small 

Entities 

For GSFLs, small businesses differ 

from large manufacturers in several 

ways that directly affect the extent to 

which a company would be impacted by 

energy conservation standards. The 

main differences between small and 

large entities for this rulemaking are that 

small manufacturers of GSFLs have 

lower sales volumes and are frequently 

not the original manufacturers of GSFLs. 

Therefore, these small businesses would 

not have any capital conversion costs to 

comply with amended standards, since 

the machinery used to produce GSFLs is 

owned and operated by overseas 

manufacturers. The small businesses 

would most likely experience higher 

per-unit costs for the products if the 

conversion costs experienced by the 

overseas manufacturers are passed 

through to the small businesses, 

potentially reducing those small 

business’ manufacturer markups and 

profits. 

Small businesses would also have 

product conversion costs associated 

with testing and certifying any lamps 

that would need to be redesigned due to 

standards. Typically the testing and 

certification costs are proportional to 

the number of products offered by a 

company and not the volume of sales. 

Some small businesses stated they could 

offer up to 75 percent of the number of 

covered products that large 

manufacturers offer; however, the 

volume of sales for each single product 

offered by a small business would be 

significantly smaller than that of a larger 

manufacturer. Consequently, the 

revenue associated with a single 

product is much smaller for small 

businesses than for large manufacturers. 

Therefore, these small businesses could 

have product conversion costs in the 

same range as large manufacturers, since 

product conversion costs scale to 

number of products offered, even 

though the total revenue is significantly 

lower for small businesses compared to 

large manufacturers. 

Lower sales volumes are the biggest 

disadvantage for most small businesses. 

A lower-volume business’ product 

conversion costs are spread over fewer 

units than a larger competitor. Thus, 

unless the small business can 

differentiate its product in some way 

that earns a price premium, the small 

business experiences a reduction in 

profit per-unit relative to the large 

manufacturer. Most small GSFL 

businesses operate in the same lighting 

markets as large manufacturers and do 

not operate in niche GSFL markets. 

Much of the same manufacturing 

equipment would need to be purchased 

by both large manufacturers and small 

businesses to produce GSFLs at higher 

efficacy levels. If the small business is 

not the original lamp manufacturer, the 

manufacturer that sells to the small 

business would have to purchase this 

manufacturing equipment. Therefore, 

undifferentiated small businesses would 

face a greater per-unit cost penalty 

because they must spread the 

conversion costs over fewer units. While 

small businesses may not be directly 

paying these capital conversion costs, 

they are still responsible for selling 

certified products made by the original 

lamp manufacturers. The costs incurred 

by contracted manufacturers are passed 

on to small businesses that must 

maintain profit margins by either 

increasing product prices or decreasing 

profitability. 

2. Description and Estimate of 

Compliance Requirements 

Small GSFL businesses will be 

affected differently by the amended 

energy conservation standards 

compared to large manufacturers. One 

of the key differences between large 

manufacturers and the small businesses 

identified by DOE for this rulemaking is 

that small GSFL businesses typically 

outsource the manufacturing of the 

lamps they sell to original product 

manufacturers abroad. This, in addition 

to the small volume of sales typical of 

small businesses, results in small GSFL 

businesses having different types and 

amounts of conversion costs compared 

to large manufacturers. 

As a result of these standards, small 

GSFL businesses will incur product 

conversion costs because products that 

no longer meet the efficacy levels of 

these standards will most likely need to 

be redesigned, retested, and recertified. 

Since small businesses have 

significantly less revenue and annual 

R&D budgets than large manufacturers, 

the product conversion costs necessary 

to comply with amended standards 

represent a significant portion of a small 

business’ annual revenue. However, 

unlike large manufacturers, small 

businesses will most likely not incur 

any capital conversion costs due to 

amended standards because small 

businesses usually do not own and 

operate the machinery used to 

manufacture the covered GSFLs. The 

capital conversion costs incurred by 

original product manufacturers will 

instead be passed along indirectly to the 

domestic small businesses. 

In the GSFL market, DOE identified 

21 small GSFL businesses with covered 

products affected by this rulemaking. It 

is unlikely that small GSFL businesses 

will incur any capital conversion costs 

because small businesses usually do not 

own and operate the machinery used to 

manufacture the covered GSFLs; 

however, they will likely face 

significant product conversion costs to 

cover R&D, certification, and testing of 

products that need to be redesigned to 

meet the efficacy levels set in this 

standard. DOE estimates that 

approximately 61 percent of the covered 

products offered by small GSFL 

manufacturers meet the efficacy levels 

established by this rule, TSL 4. As a 

result, an average of approximately 39 

percent of products would need to be 

redesigned to meet these efficacy levels, 

resulting in small GSFL businesses 

incurring more than $1.08 million on 

average in product conversion costs or 

nearly five times as much as typical 

annual GSFL R&D expenses. GSFL sales 

account for approximately 25 percent of 

a typical small business’ annual 

revenue, so redesigning up to 39 percent 

of those offerings could have a 

significant impact on their business. 

Redesigning a large majority of product 

offerings that represent a significant 

revenue stream will be more difficult for 

small businesses, compared to large 

businesses, as they have less R&D and 

revenue. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4148 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VIII.1—ESTIMATED GSFL PRODUCT CONVERSION COSTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF ANNUAL GSFL R&D EXPENSE

Product conversion cost 

as a percentage of 

annual R&D expense 

(percent) 

Total conversion cost as 

a percentage of annual 

revenue 

(percent) 

Typical Large Manufacturer ..................................................................................................... 3 1 

Typical Small Manufacturer ..................................................................................................... 471 21 

Small businesses in the GSFL 

industry expressed concern that 

possible manufacturing downtime, 

discontinuation of product lines, and 

high direct and indirect conversion 

costs resulting from amended GSFL 

energy conservation standards could 

have a significant impact on their 

revenue and could affect domestic 

employment decisions. Domestic 

employment impacts could be 

especially prevalent, since GSFL 

revenue accounts for approximately 25 

percent of a typical small business’ 

revenue. Domestic employment impacts 

would be seen in small business’ sales 

forces and warehouse staff that could be 

potentially downsized as a result of the 

GSFL standards established in this rule. 

3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict 

With Other Rules and Regulations 

DOE is not aware of any rules or 

regulations that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the final rule established. 

4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

The discussion in the previous 

section analyzes impacts on GSFL small 

businesses that would result from DOE’s 

final rule. In addition to the other TSLs 

being considered, the final rule TSD 

includes a RIA. For GSFLs, the RIA 

discusses the following policy 

alternatives: (1) No change in standard; 

(2) consumer rebates; (3) consumer tax 

credits; (4) manufacturer tax credits; (5) 

voluntary energy efficiency targets; and 

(6) bulk government purchases. While 

these alternatives may mitigate to some 

varying extent the economic impacts on 

small entities compared to the adopted 

standards, DOE did not consider these 

alternatives further because they are 

expected to result in energy savings that 

are much smaller than those that will be 

achieved by the adopted standard levels 

in this final rule (for 4-foot MBP the 

energy savings ranged from 51 percent 

to 98 percent less primary energy 

savings; for 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO the 

energy savings ranged from 84 percent 

to 98 percent less primary energy 

savings). In reviewing alternatives, DOE 

also examined energy conservation 

standards set at lower efficacy levels. 

DOE notes that it did not consider an 

alternative compliance date for the 

entire industry affected by this 

rulemaking. DOE is constrained by the 

three-year lead time required by statute 

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

compliance date alternatives may be 

available to individual manufacturers, 

as discussed below. Accordingly, DOE 

is declining to adopt any of these 

alternatives and is adopting the 

standards set forth in this rulemaking. 

See chapter 18 of the final rule TSD for 

further detail on the policy alternatives 

that DOE considered. 

Additional compliance flexibilities 

may be available through other means. 

For example, individual manufacturers 

may petition for a waiver of the 

applicable test procedure. Further, 

EPCA provides that a manufacturer 

whose annual gross revenue from all of 

its operations does not exceed 

$8,000,000 may apply for an exemption 

from all or part of an energy 

conservation standard for a period not 

longer than 24 months after the effective 

date of a final rule establishing the 

standard. Additionally, Section 504 of 

the Department of Energy Organization 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 7194, provides authority 

for the Secretary to adjust a rule issued 

under EPCA in order to prevent ‘‘special 

hardship, inequity, or unfair 

distribution of burdens’’ that may be 

imposed on that manufacturer as a 

result of such rule. Manufacturers 

should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

E, and part 1003 for additional details. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Manufacturers of GSFLs must certify 

to DOE that their products comply with 

any applicable energy conservation 

standards. In certifying compliance, 

manufacturers must test their products 

according to the DOE test procedures for 

GSFLs, including any amendments 

adopted for those test procedures. DOE 

has established regulations for the 

certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for all covered consumer 

products and commercial equipment, 

including GSFLs. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 

2011). The collection-of-information 

requirement for the certification and 

recordkeeping is subject to review and 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement 

has been approved by OMB under OMB 

Control Number 1910–1400. Public 

reporting burden for the certification is 

estimated to average 30 hours per 

response, including the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969, DOE has determined that the rule 

fits within the category of actions 

included in Categorical Exclusion (CX) 

B5.1 and otherwise meets the 

requirements for application of a CX. 

See 10 CFR part 1021, App. B, B5.1(b); 

1021.410(b) and Appendix B, B(1)-(5). 

The rule fits within the category of 

actions because it is a rulemaking that 

establishes energy conservation 

standards for consumer products or 

industrial equipment, and for which 

none of the exceptions identified in CX 

B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made 

a CX determination for this rulemaking, 

and DOE does not need to prepare an 

Environmental Assessment or 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

this rule. DOE’s CX determination for 

this rule is available at http://

cxnepa.energy.gov/. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism.’’ 

64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on federal agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt state law or 

that have Federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4149 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

state and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 13735. EPCA 

governs and prescribes federal 

preemption of state regulations as to 

energy conservation for the products 

that are the subject of this rule. States 

can petition DOE for exemption from 

such preemption to the extent, and 

based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6297) No further action is 

required by Executive Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ imposes on federal agencies 

the general duty to adhere to the 

following requirements: (1) Eliminate 

drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; and 

(3) provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard and promote simplification 

and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 

7, 1996). Section 3(b) of Executive Order 

12988 specifically requires that 

Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in section 3(a) and section 

3(b) to determine whether they are met 

or it is unreasonable to meet one or 

more of them. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, the final 

rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires 

each federal agency to assess the effects 

of federal regulatory actions on state, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Pub. L. 104–4, sec. 201 

(codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For an 

amended regulatory action likely to 

result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by state, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

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

The UMRA also requires a federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of state, local, and Tribal 

governments on a ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. On March 18, 

1997, DOE published a statement of 

policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE’s policy 

statement is also available at http://

energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. 

DOE has concluded that the final rule 

would likely require expenditures of 

$100 million or more on the private 

sector. Such expenditures may include: 

(1) Investment in research and 

development and in capital 

expenditures by GSFL manufacturers in 

the years between the final rule and the 

compliance date for the new standards, 

and (2) incremental additional 

expenditures by consumers to purchase 

higher efficacy GSFLs, starting at the 

compliance date for the applicable 

standard. 

Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a 

federal agency to respond to the content 

requirements of UMRA in any other 

statement or analysis that accompanies 

the final rule. 2 U.S.C. 1532(c). The 

content requirements of section 202(b) 

of UMRA relevant to a private sector 

mandate substantially overlap the 

economic analysis requirements that 

apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and 

Executive Order 12866. The 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this final rule and the ‘‘Regulatory 

Impact Analysis’’ section of the final 

rule TSD respond to those requirements. 

Under section 205 of UMRA, the 

Department is obligated to identify and 

consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives before 

promulgating a rule for which a written 

statement under section 202 is required. 

2 U.S.C. 1535(a). DOE is required to 

select from those alternatives the most 

cost effective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule unless DOE publishes an 

explanation for doing otherwise, or the 

selection of such an alternative is 

inconsistent with law. As required by 42 

U.S.C. 6295(i)(4)–(5), this rule 

establishes energy conservation 

standards for GSFLs that are designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency that DOE has 

determined to be both technologically 

feasible and economically justified. A 

full discussion of the alternatives 

considered by DOE is presented in the 

‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis’’ section of 

the final rule TSD for this rule. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

rule would not have any impact on the 

autonomy or integrity of the family as 

an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation 

would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

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

provides for federal agencies to review 

most disseminations of information to 

the public under guidelines established 

by each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed 

this rule under the OMB and DOE 

guidelines and has concluded that it is 

consistent with applicable policies in 

those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4150 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Distribution, or Use’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

significant energy action. A ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ is defined as any action 

by an agency that promulgates or is 

expected to lead to promulgation of a 

final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866, or any successor order; and (2) 

is likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, or (3) is designated by the 

Administrator of OIRA as a significant 

energy action. For any significant energy 

action, the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

DOE has concluded that this 

regulatory action, which sets forth 

energy conservation standards for 

GSFLs, is not a significant energy action 

because the amended standards are not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy, nor has it been designated as 

such by the Administrator at OIRA. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects on the final 

rule. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued 

its Final Information Quality Bulletin 

for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 

2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin 

establishes that certain scientific 

information shall be peer reviewed by 

qualified specialists before it is 

disseminated by the Federal 

Government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

Bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information,’’ 

which the Bulletin defines as scientific 

information the agency reasonably can 

determine will have, or does have, a 

clear and substantial impact on 

important public policies or private 

sector decisions. 70 FR 2667. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal in-progress peer 

reviews of the energy conservation 

standards development process and 

analyses and has prepared a Peer 

Review Report pertaining to the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

analyses. Generation of this report 

involved a rigorous, formal, and 

documented evaluation using objective 

criteria and qualified and independent 

reviewers to make a judgment as to the 

technical/scientific/business merit, the 

actual or anticipated results, and the 

productivity and management 

effectiveness of programs and/or 

projects. The ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Standards Rulemaking Peer Review 

Report’’ dated February 2007 has been 

disseminated and is available at the 

following Web site: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/peer_review.html. 

M. Congressional Notification 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will 

report to Congress on the promulgation 

of this rule prior to its effective date. 

The report will state that it has been 

determined that the rule is a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

IX. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of today’s final rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, and 

Small businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 

30, 2014. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE amends part 430 of 

chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations, as set 

forth below: 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 2. In § 430.2, add the definitions for 

‘‘700 series fluorescent lamp’’, 

‘‘Designed and marketed’’, ‘‘Fluorescent 

lamp designed for use in reprographic 

equipment,’’ ‘‘Impact-resistant 

fluorescent lamp,’’ ‘‘Lamps primarily 

designed to produce radiation in the 

ultraviolet region of the spectrum,’’ 

‘‘Reflectorized or aperture lamp,’’ in 

alphabetical order, and revise the 

definition for ‘‘Fluorescent lamp’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 430.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

700 series fluorescent lamp means a 

fluorescent lamp with a color rendering 

index (measured according to the test 

procedures outlined in Appendix R to 

subpart B of this part) that is in the 

range (inclusive) of 70 to 79. 

* * * * * 

Designed and marketed means that 

the intended application of the lamp is 

clearly stated in all publicly available 

documents (e.g., product literature, 

catalogs, and packaging labels). This 

definition is applicable to terms related 

to the following covered lighting 

products: Fluorescent lamp ballasts; 

fluorescent lamps; general service 

fluorescent lamps; general service 

incandescent lamps; general service 

lamps; incandescent lamps; 

incandescent reflector lamps; medium 

base compact fluorescent lamps; and 

specialty application mercury vapor 

lamp ballasts. 

* * * * * 

Fluorescent lamp means a low 

pressure mercury electric-discharge 

source in which a fluorescing coating 

transforms some of the ultraviolet 

energy generated by the mercury 

discharge into light, including only the 

following: 

(1) Any straight-shaped lamp 

(commonly referred to as 4-foot medium 

bipin lamps) with medium bipin bases 

of nominal overall length of 48 inches 

and rated wattage of 25 or more; 

(2) Any U-shaped lamp (commonly 

referred to as 2-foot U-shaped lamps) 

with medium bipin bases of nominal 

overall length between 22 and 25 inches 

and rated wattage of 25 or more; 

(3) Any rapid start lamp (commonly 

referred to as 8-foot high output lamps) 

with recessed double contact bases of 

nominal overall length of 96 inches; 

(4) Any instant start lamp (commonly 

referred to as 8-foot slimline lamps) 

with single pin bases of nominal overall 

length of 96 inches and rated wattage of 

49 or more; 

(5) Any straight-shaped lamp 

(commonly referred to as 4-foot 

miniature bipin standard output lamps) 

with miniature bipin bases of nominal 

overall length between 45 and 48 inches 

and rated wattage of 25 or more; and 

(6) Any straight-shaped lamp 

(commonly referred to 4-foot miniature 

bipin high output lamps) with miniature 

bipin bases of nominal overall length 

between 45 and 48 inches and rated 

wattage of 44 or more. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4151 

Fluorescent lamp designed for use in 

reprographic equipment means a 

fluorescent lamp intended for use in 

equipment used to reproduce, reprint, 

or copy graphic material. 

* * * * * 

Impact-resistant fluorescent lamp 

means a lamp that: 

(1) Has a coating or equivalent 

technology that is compliant with NSF/ 

ANSI 51 (incorporated by reference; see 

§ 430.3) and is designed to contain the 

glass if the glass envelope of the lamp 

is broken; and 

(2) Is designated and marketed for the 

intended application, with: 

(i) The designation on the lamp 

packaging; and 

(ii) Marketing materials that identify 

the lamp as being impact-resistant, 

shatter-resistant, shatter-proof, or 

shatter-protected. 

* * * * * 

Lamps primarily designed to produce 

radiation in the ultraviolet region of the 

spectrum means fluorescent lamps that 

primarily emit light in the portion of the 

electromagnetic spectrum where light 

has a wavelength between 10 and 400 

nanometers. 

* * * * * 

Reflectorized or aperture lamp means 

a fluorescent lamp that contains an 

inner reflective coating on the bulb to 

direct light. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 430.32 is amended by 

revising paragraph (n) to read as 

follows: 

§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation 

standards and their effective dates. 

* * * * * 

(n) General service fluorescent lamps 

and incandescent reflector lamps. (1) 

Except as provided in paragraphs (n)(2), 

(n)(3), and (n)(4) of this section, each of 

the following general service fluorescent 

lamps manufactured after the effective 

dates specified in the table shall meet or 

exceed the following lamp efficacy and 

CRI standards: 

Lamp type Nominal 

lamp wattage 

Minimum 

CRI 

Minimum 

average lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

Effective date 

4-foot medium bipin ............................................................................ >35 W 

≤35 W 

69 

45 

75.0 

75.0 

Nov. 1, 1995. 

Nov. 1, 1995. 

2-foot U-shaped .................................................................................. >35 W 

≤ 35 W 

69 

45 

68.0 

64.0 

Nov. 1, 1995. 

Nov. 1, 1995. 

8-foot slimline ..................................................................................... >65 W 

≤65 W 

69 

45 

80.0 

80.0 

May 1, 1994. 

May 1, 1994. 

8-foot high output ............................................................................... >100 W 

≤100 W 

69 

45 

80.0 

80.0 

May 1, 1994. 

May 1, 1994. 

(2) The standards described in 

paragraph (n)(1) of this section do not 

apply to: 

(i) Any 4-foot medium bipin lamp or 

2-foot U-shaped lamp with a rated 

wattage less than 28 watts; 

(ii) Any 8-foot high output lamp not 

defined in ANSI C78.81 (incorporated 

by reference; see § 430.3) or related 

supplements, or not 0.800 nominal 

amperes; or 

(iii) Any 8-foot slimline lamp not 

defined in ANSI C78.3 (incorporated by 

reference; see § 430.3). 

(3) Except as provided in paragraph 

(n)(4) of this section, each of the 

following general service fluorescent 

lamps manufactured after July 14, 2012, 

shall meet or exceed the following lamp 

efficacy standards shown in the table: 

Lamp type Correlated color 

temperature 

Minimum 

average lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

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

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

89 

88 

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

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

84 

81 

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

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

97 

93 

8-foot high output ............................................................................................... ≤4,500K ...........................................................

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

92 

88 

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

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

86 

81 

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

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

76 

72 

(4) Each of the following general 

service fluorescent lamps manufactured 

on or after January 26, 2018, shall meet 

or exceed the following lamp efficacy 

standards shown in the table: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4152 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Lamp type Correlated color 

temperature 

Minimum 

average lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

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

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

92.4 

88.7 

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

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

85.0 

83.3 

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

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

97.0 

93.0 

8-foot high output ............................................................................................... ≤4,500K ...........................................................

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

92.0 

88.0 

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

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

95.0 

89.3 

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

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

82.7 

76.9 

(5) Except as provided in paragraph 

(n)(6) of this section, each of the 

following incandescent reflector lamps 

manufactured after November 1, 1995, 

shall meet or exceed the lamp efficacy 

standards shown in the table: 

Nominal lamp wattage 

Minimum 

average lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

40–50 ................................ 10.5 

51–66 ................................ 11.0 

67–85 ................................ 12.5 

86–115 .............................. 14.0 

116–155 ............................ 14.5 

156–205 ............................ 15.0 

(6) Each of the following incandescent 

reflector lamps manufactured after July 

14, 2012, shall meet or exceed the lamp 

efficacy standards shown in the table: 

Rated lamp wattage Lamp spectrum Lamp diameter 

inches Rated voltage 

Minimum 

average lamp 

efficacy 

lm/W 

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

<125 V 

6.8*P0.27

5.9*P0.27

≤2.5 ≥125 V 

<125 V 

5.7*P0.27

5.0*P0.27

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

<125 V 

5.8*P0.27

5.0*P0.27

≤2.5 ≥125 V 

<125 V 

4.9*P0.27

4.2*P0.27

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

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

(7)(i)(A) Subject to the exclusions in 

paragraph (n)(7)(ii) of this section, the 

standards specified in this section shall 

apply to ER incandescent reflector 

lamps, BR incandescent reflector lamps, 

BPAR incandescent reflector lamps, and 

similar bulb shapes on and after January 

1, 2008. 

(B) Subject to the exclusions in 

paragraph (n)(7)(ii) of this section, the 

standards specified in this section shall 

apply to incandescent reflector lamps 

with a diameter of more than 2.25 

inches, but not more than 2.75 inches, 

on and after June 15, 2008. 

(ii) The standards specified in this 

section shall not apply to the following 

types of incandescent reflector lamps: 

(A) Lamps rated at 50 watts or less 

that are ER30, BR30, BR40, or ER40 

lamps; 

(B) Lamps rated at 65 watts that are 

BR30, BR40, or ER40 lamps; or 

(C) R20 incandescent reflector lamps 

rated 45 watts or less. 

* * * * * 

Appendix 

[The following letter from the Department of 

Justice will not appear in the Code of 

Federal Regulations.] 

U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust 

Division, William J. Baer, Acting 

Assistant Attorney General, RFK Main 

Justice Building, 950 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20530–0001, (202) 

514–2401/(202) 616–2645 (Fax) 

August 25, 2014 

Eric J. Fygi, Deputy General Counsel, 

Department of Energy, Washington, DC 

20585 

Dear Deputy General Counsel Fygi: I am 

responding to your June 11, 2014 letter 

seeking the views of the Attorney General 

about the potential impact on competition of 

proposed energy conservation standards for 

general service fluorescent lamps and certain 

incandescent reflector lamps. Your request 

was submitted under Section 

325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended (ECPA), 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V), which requires the 

Attorney General to make a determination of 

the impact of any lessening of competition 

that is likely to result from the imposition of 

proposed energy conservation standards. The 

Attorney General’s responsibility for 

responding to requests from other 

departments about the effect of a program on 

competition has been delegated to the 

Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust 

Division in 28 CFR 0.40(g). 

In conducting its analysis the Antitrust 

Division examines whether a proposed 

standard may lessen competition, for 

example, by substantially limiting consumer 

choice, by placing certain manufacturers at 

an unjustified competitive disadvantage, or 

by inducing avoidable inefficiencies in 

production or distribution of particular 

products. A lessening of competition could 

result in higher prices to manufacturers and 

consumers. 

We have reviewed the proposed standards 

contained in the Notice of Proposed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4153 

Rulemaking (79 FR 24068, April 29, 2014) 

(NOPR). We have also reviewed 

supplementary information submitted to the 

Attorney General by the Department of 

Energy. Based on this review, our conclusion 

is that the proposed energy conservation 

standards for general service fluorescent 

lamps and certain incandescent reflector 

lamps are unlikely to have a significant 

adverse impact on competition. 

Sincerely, 

William J. Baer 

Enclosure 

[FR Doc. 2015–00317 Filed 1–22–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2