34080 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket Number EE–2006–STD–0131] 

RIN 1904–AA92 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards and Test 

Procedures 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 Department of Energy 

(DOE) is announcing that pursuant to 

the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

(EPCA), it is amending the energy 

conservation standards for certain 

general service fluorescent lamps and 

incandescent reflector lamps. DOE is 

also adopting new energy conservation 

standards and amendments to its test 

procedures for certain general service 

fluorescent lamps not currently covered 

by standards. Additionally, DOE is 

amending the definitions of certain 

terms found in the general provisions. It 

has determined that energy conservation 

standards for these products would 

result in significant conservation of 

energy, and are technologically feasible 

and economically justified. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

September 14, 2009. Compliance with 

the standards established in today’s 

final rule is required starting on July 14, 

2012. The incorporation by reference of 

certain publications listed in this rule 

was approved by the Director of the 

Federal Register on September 14, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to 

read background documents, the 

technical support document, transcripts 

of the public meetings in this 

proceeding, or comments received, visit 

the U.S. Department of Energy, Resource 

Room of the Building Technologies 

Program, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th 

Floor, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 

586–2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at the above telephone number 

for additional information regarding 

visiting the Resource Room. You may 

also obtain copies of certain previous 

rulemaking documents in this 

proceeding (i.e., framework document, 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking, 

notice of proposed rulemaking), draft 

analyses, public meeting materials, and 

related test procedure documents from 

the Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy’s Web site at: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/ 

incandescent_lamps.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ms. Linda Graves, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–1851. E-mail: 

Linda.Graves@ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–72, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9507. E-mail: 

Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of the Final Rule 

A. The Standard Levels 

B. Current Federal Standards for General 

Service Fluorescent Lamps and 

Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

C. Benefits and Burdens to Purchasers of 

General Service Fluorescent Lamps and 

Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

D. Impact on Manufacturers 

E. National Benefits 

F. Conclusion 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

General Service Fluorescent Lamps, 

Incandescent Reflector Lamps, and 

General Service Incandescent Lamps 

III. Issues Affecting the Scope of This 

Rulemaking 

A. Additional General Service Fluorescent 

Lamps for Which DOE is Adopting 

Standards 

1. Scope of EPCA Requirement that DOE 

Consider Standards for Additional 

Lamps 

2. Determination of the Additional Lamps 

to Which Standards Will Apply 

a. Four-Foot Medium Bipin Lamps 

b. Two-Foot Medium Bipin, U-Shaped 

Lamps 

c. Eight-Foot Recessed, Double-Contact 

Lamps 

d. Eight-Foot Single Pin Slimline Lamps 

e. Very High Output Straight-Shaped 

Lamps 

f. T5 Lamps 

g. Various Other Fluorescent Lamps 

3. Summary of GSFL for Which DOE Has 

Adopted Standards 

B. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Scope of 

Coverage 

1. Covered Wattage Range 

2. Exempted Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

3. Museum Lighting 

C. Amended Definitions 

1. ‘‘Rated Wattage’’ 

2. ‘‘Colored Fluorescent Lamp’’ 

D. Off Mode and Standby Mode Energy 

Consumption Standards 

E. Color Rendering Index Standards for 

General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

IV. General Discussion 

A. Test Procedures 

B. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

C. Energy Savings 

D. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

a. Economic Impact on Consumers and 

Manufacturers 

b. Life-Cycle Costs 

c. Energy Savings 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

f. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy 

g. Other Factors 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

V. Methodology and Discussion of Comments 

on Methodology 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. Product Classes 

a. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

i. Modified-Spectrum Fluorescent Lamps 

ii. 25 Watt 4-Foot MBP Lamps 

iii. Summary of GSFL Product Classes 

b. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

i. Modified-Spectrum Lamps 

ii. Lamp Diameter 

iii. Voltage 

iv. IRL Summary 

B. Engineering Analysis 

1. Approach 

2. Representative Product Classes 

3. Baseline Models 

4. Efficacy Levels 

a. GSFL Compliance Reports 

b. 4-Foot MiniBP Efficacy Levels 

c. IRL Manufacturing Variability 

5. Scaling to Product Classes Not Analyzed 

a. 2-Foot U-Shaped Lamps 

b. Lamps With Higher CCTs 

c. Modified Spectrum IRL 

d. Small Diameter IRL 

e. IRL With Rated Voltages Greater Than or 

Equal to 125 Volts 

C. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

1. Consumer Product Price 

2. Sales Tax 

3. Annual Operating Hours 

4. Electricity Prices and Electricity Price 

Trends 

5. Ballast Lifetime 

6. Lamp Lifetime 

7. Discount Rates 

8. Residential Fluorescent Lamp Analysis 

9. Rebuttable Payback Period Presumption 

D. National Impact Analysis—National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

Analysis 

1. Overview of NIA Changes in This Notice 

2. Shipments Analysis 

3. Macroeconomic Effects on Growth 

4. Reflector Market Growth 

5. Penetration of R–CFLs and Emerging 

Technologies 

6. Building Codes 

7. GSFL Shipments Growth 

8. Residential Installed GSFL Stock 

9. GSFL Lighting Expertise Scenarios 

10. IRL Product Substitution Scenarios 

11. Discount Rates 

E. Consumer Sub-Group Analysis 

F. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34081 

G. Employment Impact Analysis 

H. Utility Impact Analysis 

I. Environmental Assessment 

J. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

VI. Discussion of Other Key Issues and 

Comments 

A. Sign Industry Impacts 

B. Max-Tech IRL 

1. Treatment of Proprietary Technologies 

2. Other Technologies 

a. High-Efficiency IR Coatings 

b. Silverized Reflectors 

c. Integrally-Ballasted Low-Voltage IRL 

3. Lamp Lifetime 

C. IRL Lifetime 

1. Baseline Lifetime Scenario 

2. Minimum Lamp Lifetime Requirement 

3. 6,000-Hour-Lifetime Lamps 

D. Impact on Competition 

1. Manufacturers 

2. Suppliers 

E. Xenon 

F. IRL Hot Shock 

G. Rare Earth Phosphors 

H. Product and Performance Feature 

Availability 

1. Dimming Functionality 

2. GSFL Product Availability 

I. Alternative Standard Scenarios 

1. Tiered Standard 

2. Delayed Effective Date 

3. Residential Exemption 

4. Conclusions Regarding Alternative 

Standard Scenarios 

J. Benefits and Burdens 

VII. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

1. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

2. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

B. Significance of Energy Savings 

C. Economic Justification 

1. Economic Impact on Consumers 

a. Life-Cycle Costs and Payback Period 

i. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

ii. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

2. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results for 

the IRL Lifetime Sensitivity 

b. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

c. Impacts on Employment 

d. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

e. Impacts on Manufacturers That Are 

Small Businesses 

3. National Net Present Value and Net 

National Employment 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy 

7. Other Factors 

D. Conclusion 

1. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

Conclusion 

a. Trial Standard Level 5 

b. Trial Standard Level 4 

2. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

Conclusion 

a. Trial Standard Level 5 

b. Trial Standard Level 4 

VIII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act of 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act of 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 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

ACEEE American Council for an Energy 

Efficient Economy 

ACG Applied Coatings Group 

ADLT Advanced Lighting Technologies, 

Inc. 

AEO Annual Energy Outlook 

ANOPR advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking 

ANSI American National Standards 

Institute 

ASAP Appliance Standards Awareness 

Project 

BEF ballast efficacy factor 

BF ballast factor 

BR bulged reflector (reflector lamp shape) 

BT Building Technologies Program 

Btu British thermal units 

CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule 

CAMR Clean Air Mercury Rule 

CBECS Commercial Buildings Energy 

Consumption Survey 

CCT correlated color temperature 

CEC California Energy Commission 

CEE Consortium for Energy Efficiency 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CFL compact fluorescent lamp 

CIE International Commission on 

Illumination 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

CRI color rendering index 

CSL candidate standard level 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DOJ U.S. Department of Justice 

E26 Medium screw-base (incandescent 

lamp base type) 

EEI Edison Electric Institute 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

EISA 2007 Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007 

EL efficacy level 

E.O. Executive Order 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPACT 1992 Energy Policy Act of 1992 

EPACT 2005 Energy Policy Act of 2005 

EPCA Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

ER elliptical reflector (reflector lamp shape) 

EU European Union 

EuP Energy-Using Product 

FEMP Federal Energy Management Program 

FR Federal Register 

FTC U.S. Federal Trade Commission 

GE General Electric Lighting and Industrial 

GRIM Government Regulatory Impact 

Model 

GSFL general service fluorescent lamp 

GSIL general service incandescent lamp 

GW gigawatt 

Hg mercury 

HID high-intensity discharge 

HIR halogen infrared reflector 

HO high output 

HVAC heating, ventilating and airconditioning 

IALD International Association of Lighting 

Designers 

IESNA Illuminating Engineering Society of 

North America 

ImSET Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies 

INPV industry net present value 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change 

I–O input-output 

IR infrared 

IRL incandescent reflector lamp 

K Kelvin 

kt kilotons 

LCC life-cycle cost 

LED light-emitting diode 

lm lumens 

LMC U.S. Lighting Market Characterization 

Volume I 

lm/W lumens per watt 

MBP medium bipin 

MECS Manufacturer Energy Consumption 

Survey (MECS) 

MIA manufacturer impact analysis 

miniBP miniature bipin 

MMt million metric tons 

Mt metric tons 

MW megawatts 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NEEP Northeast Energy Efficiency 

Partnership 

NEMA National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association 

NEMS National Energy Modeling System 

NEMS–BT National Energy Modeling 

System—Building Technologies 

NES national energy savings 

NIA national impact analysis 

NIST National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

NOPR notice of proposed rulemaking 

NOX nitrogen oxides 

NPV net present value 

NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council 

NVLAP National Voluntary Laboratory 

Accreditation Program 

OEM original equipment manufacturer 

OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs 

OMB U.S. Office of Management and 

Budget 

PAR parabolic aluminized reflector 

(reflector lamp shape) 

PBP payback period 

PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric 

PSI Product Stewardship Institute 

quad quadrillion (1015) Btu 

R reflector (reflector lamp shape) 

R–CFL reflector compact fluorescent lamp 

R&D research and development 

RDC recessed double contact 

RECS Residential Energy Consumption 

Survey 

RIA regulatory impact analysis 

SBA U.S. Small Business Administration 

SO standard output 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SP single pin 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34082 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

T5, T8, T10, T12 tubular fluorescent lamps, 

diameters of 0.625, 1, 1.25 or 1.5 inches, 

respectively 

TSD technical support document 

TSL trial standard level 

TWh terawatt-hour 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

U.S.C. United States Code 

UV ultraviolet 

V volts 

VHO very high output 

W watts 

I. Summary of the Final Rule 

A. The Standard Levels 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.; 

EPCA), provides that any new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

that the Department of Energy 

prescribes for covered consumer and/or 

commercial products, including general 

service fluorescent lamps (GSFL) and 

incandescent reflector lamps (IRL), must 

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)) Furthermore, the new or 

amended standard must ‘‘result in 

significant conservation of energy.’’ (42 

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

conservation standards in today’s final 

rule, which apply to certain types of 

types of GSFL and IRL, satisfy these 

requirements, as well as all other 

applicable statutory provisions 

discussed in this notice. 

Table I.1 and Table I.2 present the 

energy conservation standard levels 

DOE is adopting today. These standards 

will apply to GSFL and IRL listed in 

those tables that are manufactured for 

sale in the United States, or imported 

into the United States, on or after July 

14, 2012. 

TABLE I.1—SUMMARY OF THE AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATIONS STANDARDS FOR GENERAL SERVICE FLUORESCENT

LAMPS

Lamp type Correlated color temperature 

Energy conservation standard 

(lm/W) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE I.2—SUMMARY OF THE ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMPS

Lamp wattage Lamp type Diameter 

(inches) Voltage 

Energy conservation standard 

(lm/W) 

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

<125 

6.8*P0.27

5.9*P0.27

≤2.5 ≥125 

<125 

5.7*P0.27

5.0*P0.27

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

<125 

5.8*P0.27

5.0*P0.27

≤2.5 ≥125 

<125 

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. 

B. Current Federal Standards for 

General Service Fluorescent Lamps and 

Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

Table I.3 and Table I.4 present the 

current statutorily-prescribed Federal 

energy conservation standards for GSFL 

and IRL. The standards set requirements 

for minimum efficacy and color 

rendering index (CRI) levels for certain 

GSFL, and minimum efficacy levels for 

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

CFR 430.32(n)) 

TABLE I.3—EPCA STANDARD LEVELS FOR GSFL 

Lamp type Nominal lamp 

wattage Minimum CRI Minimum average efficacy (lm/W) 

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

≤35W 45 75.0 

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

≤35W 45 64.0 

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

≤65W 45 80.0 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34083 

TABLE I.3—EPCA STANDARD LEVELS FOR GSFL—Continued 

Lamp type Nominal lamp 

wattage Minimum CRI Minimum average efficacy (lm/W) 

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

≤100W 45 80.0 

TABLE I.4—EPCA STANDARD LEVELS

FOR IRL 

Wattage 

Minimum average 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 

C. Benefits and Burdens to Purchasers 

of General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

and Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

In the April 2009 notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR), DOE considered 

the impacts on consumers of several 

trial standard levels (TSLs) related to 

the efficiency of GSFL and IRL. 74 FR 

16920 (April 13, 2009). In the April 

2009 NOPR, DOE tentatively concluded 

that the economic impacts on most 

consumers (i.e., the average life-cycle 

cost (LCC) savings) of amended 

standards for GSFL and IRL would be 

positive. DOE has reached the same 

conclusion in today’s final rule, as 

explained below. 

The economic impacts on consumers, 

i.e., the average life-cycle cost savings, 

are generally positive in this final rule. 

DOE’s analyses indicate that on average 

residential and commercial consumers 

would see benefits from the proposed 

standards. DOE expects that under the 

standards presented in this final rule, 

the purchase price of high-efficacy 

GSFL would be higher (up to thirteen 

times higher, including the purchase of 

new lamps and a new ballast) than the 

average price of these products today; 

the energy efficiency gains, however, 

would result in lower energy costs that 

more than offset such higher costs for 

the majority of consumers analyzed in 

this final rule. When the potential 

savings due to efficiency gains are 

summed over the lifetime of the highefficacy products, consumers would be 

expected to save up to $67.06 

(depending on the lamp type), on 

average, compared to their expenditures 

over the lives of today’s baseline GSFL. 

The results of DOE’s analyses for IRL 

follow a similar pattern. Although DOE 

expects the purchase price of the higherefficacy IRL to be 47 to 64 percent 

higher than the average price of these 

products today, the energy efficiency 

gains would result in lower energy costs 

that more than offset the higher costs for 

the majority of consumers analyzed in 

this final rule. When these potential 

savings due to efficiency gains are 

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

consumers would save up to $7.95 per 

lamp (depending on the wattage and 

operating sector), on average, compared 

to their expenditures over the lives of 

today’s baseline IRL. 

D. Impact on Manufacturers 

Using a real corporate discount rate of 

10.0 percent, DOE estimates the net 

present value (NPV) of the GSFL and 

IRL industries to be $527–639 million 

and $221–301 million in 2008$, 

respectively. DOE expects the impact of 

today’s standards on the industry net 

present value (INPV) of manufacturers 

of GSFL to be between a 0.6 percent loss 

and a 30.7 percent loss (¥$4 million to 

¥$162 million), and between a 6.8 

percent loss and a 44.4 percent loss 

(¥$21 million to ¥$98 million) for IRL 

manufacturers. Based on DOE’s 

interviews with GSFL and IRL 

manufacturers, DOE expects minimal 

plant closings or loss of employment as 

a result of the standards. 

E. National Benefits 

DOE estimates the GSFL standards 

will save approximately 3.83 to 9.94 

quads (quadrillion (1015) British thermal 

units (Btu)) of energy over 30 years 

(2012–2042). Over the same time period, 

DOE estimates IRL standards will save 

approximately 0.94 to 2.39 quads. By 

2042, DOE expects the energy savings 

from the GSFL and IRL standards to 

eliminate the need for approximately 

1.8 to 6.2 and 0.2 to 1.1 gigawatts of 

generating capacity, respectively. 

These energy savings from GSFL will 

result in cumulative (undiscounted) 

greenhouse gas emission reductions of 

175 to 488 million tons (Mt) of carbon 

dioxide (CO2); for IRL, DOE estimates 

these reductions will be 44 to 106 

million tons (Mt) of CO2. Cumulative for 

GSFL and IRL, DOE estimates that the 

range of the monetized value of CO2

emission reductions is between $0.2 

billion to $24.8 billion, at a 7-percent 

discount rate, and between $0.5 billion 

to $49.8 billion at a 3-percent discount 

rate. The mid-range of the CO2 value 

(using $33 per ton) is $3.9 to $10.2 

billion and $7.6 to $20.6 billion at 7- 

percent and 3-percent discount rates, 

respectively. 

Additionally, the GSFL standards will 

help alleviate air pollution by resulting 

in between approximately 11,000 to 

36,780 tons (11.0 and 36.8 kilotons (kt)) 

of nitrogen oxides (NOX) cumulative 

emission reductions from 2012 through 

2042; the IRL standards will result in 

NOX cumulative emission reductions of 

6.4 to 8.4 kt. Mercury (Hg) cumulative 

emissions reductions over the same time 

period will be reduced by up to 7.3 

metric tons due to GSFL standards and 

1.65 metric tons from IRL standards. 

The monetized values of these 

emissions reductions, cumulative for 

both GSFL and IRL, are estimated at 

$6.0 to $131.5 million for NOX and up 

to $82.6 million for Hg at a 7-percent 

discount rate. Using a 3-percent 

discount rate, the monetized values of 

these emission reductions are $6.9 to 

$162.3 million for NOX and up to $153.7 

million for Hg. 

The national NPV of the GSFL and 

IRL standards is between $10.02 and 

$26.31 billion and $1.83 and $9.06 

billion, respectively, using a 7-percent 

discount rate cumulative from 2012 to 

2042 in 2008$. Using a 3-percent 

discount rate, the national NPV of the 

GSFL and IRL standards is between 

$21.84 and $53.53 billion and $3.78 and 

$17.81 billion, respectively, cumulative 

from 2012 to 2042 in 2008$. This is the 

estimated total value of future savings 

minus the estimated increased costs of 

purchasing GSFL and IRL, discounted to 

2009. 

The benefits and costs of today’s final 

rule can also be expressed in terms of 

annualized 2008$ values over the 

forecast period 2012 through 2042. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for the 

annualized cost analysis, the cost of the 

standards established in today’s final 

rule is $700 million per year in 

increased product and installation costs, 

while the annualized benefits are $2.95 

billion per year in reduced product 

operating costs. Using a 3-percent 

discount rate, the cost of the standards 

established in today’s final rule is $531 

million per year, while the benefits of 

today’s standards are $3.12 billion per 

year. The following tables depict these 

annualized benefits and costs for the 

adopted standards for GSFL and IRL. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34084 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE I.5—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS FOR GSFL 

Category Primary estimate Low estimate High estimate 

Units 

Year 

dollars 

Disc 

(%) 

Period 

covered 

Benefits 

Annualized Monetized 

$millions/year.

2302 ............................ 1329 ............................ 3275 ............................ 2008 7 31 

2420 ............................ 1387 ............................ 3452 ............................ 2008 3 31 

Annualized Quantified .. 10.48 CO2 (Mt) ........... 5.76 CO2 (Mt) ............. 15.2 CO2 (Mt) ............. ........................ 7 31 

1.78 NOX (kt) .............. 1.03 NOX (kt) .............. 2.54 NOX (kt) .............. ........................ 7 31 

0.11 Hg (t) .................. 0 Hg (t) ....................... 0.22 Hg (t) .................. ........................ 7 31 

10.6 CO2 (Mt) ............. 5.69 CO2 (Mt) ............. 15.52 CO2 (Mt) ........... ........................ 3 31 

1.19 NOX (kt) .............. 0.63 NOX (kt) .............. 1.76 NOX (kt) .............. ........................ 3 31 

0.11 Hg (t) .................. 0 Hg (t) ....................... 0.23 Hg (t) .................. ........................ 3 31 

Qualitative 

Costs 

Annualized Monetized 

$millions/year.

582 .............................. 378 .............................. 786 .............................. 2008 7 31 

425 .............................. 230 .............................. 621 .............................. 2008 3 31 

Qualitative 

Net Benefits/Costs 

Annualized Monetized 

$millions/year.

1720 ............................ 951 .............................. 2489 ............................ 2008 7 31 

1994 ............................ 1158 ............................ 2831 ............................ 2008 3 31 

Qualitative 

TABLE I.6—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS FOR IRL 

Category Primary estimate Low estimate High estimate 

Units 

Year 

dollars 

Disc 

(%) 

Period 

covered 

Benefits 

Annualized Monetized 

$millions/year.

650 .............................. 406 .............................. 894 .............................. 2008 7 31 

696 .............................. 424 .............................. 968 .............................. 2008 3 31 

Annualized Quantified .. 2.39 CO2 (Mt) ............. 1.51 CO2 (Mt) ............. 3.28 CO2 (Mt) ............. ........................ 7 31 

0.51 NOX (kt) .............. 0.45 NOX (kt) .............. 0.58 NOX (kt) .............. ........................ 7 31 

0.02 Hg (t) .................. 0 Hg (t) ....................... 0.05 Hg (t) .................. ........................ 7 31 

2.4 CO2 (Mt) ............... 1.45 CO2 (Mt) ............. 3.35 CO2 (Mt) ............. ........................ 3 31 

0.35 NOX (kt) .............. 0.31 NOX (kt) .............. 0.4 NOX (kt) ................ ........................ 3 31 

0.02 Hg (t) .................. 0 Hg (t) ....................... 0.05 Hg (t) .................. ........................ 3 31 

Costs 

Annualized Monetized 

$millions/year.

118 .............................. 227 .............................. 9 .................................. 2008 7 31 

106 .............................. 218 .............................. ¥6 .............................. 2008 3 31 

Qualitative 

Net Benefits/Costs 

Annualized Monetized 

$millions/year.

532 .............................. 179 .............................. 885 .............................. 2008 7 31 

590 .............................. 207 .............................. 973 .............................. 2008 3 31 

F. Conclusion 

DOE has evaluated the benefits 

(energy savings, consumer LCC savings, 

positive national NPV, and emissions 

reductions) to the Nation of today’s new 

and amended energy conservation 

standards for certain GSFL and IRL, as 

well as the costs (loss of manufacturer 

INPV and consumer LCC increases for 

some users of GSFL and IRL). Based 

upon all available information, DOE has 

determined that the benefits to the 

Nation of the standards for GSFL and 

IRL outweigh their costs. Today’s 

standards also represent the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and will result 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34085 

1This part was originally titled Part B; however, 

it was redesignated Part A after Part B was repealed 

by Public Law 109–58. 

in significant energy savings. At present, 

GSFL and IRL that meet the new 

standard levels are commercially 

available. 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety 

of provisions designed to improve 

energy efficiency. Part A1 of Title III (42 

U.S.C. 6291–6309) provides for the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles. The program covers 

consumer products and certain 

commercial products (all of which are 

referred to hereafter as ‘‘covered 

products’’), including GSFL and IRL. (42 

U.S.C. 6292(a)(14) and 6292(i)) DOE 

publishes today’s final rule pursuant to 

Part A of Title III, which provides for 

test procedures, labeling, and energy 

conservation standards for GSFL and 

IRL and certain other types of products, 

and authorizes DOE to require 

information and reports from 

manufacturers. The test procedures for 

GSFL and IRL appear at title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

430, subpart B, appendix R. 

The scope of coverage of these 

provisions for GSFL and IRL is dictated 

by EPCA’s definitions of these and 

related terms, as further discussed 

below. EPCA defines ‘‘general service 

fluorescent lamp’’ as follows: 

* * * [F]luorescent lamps which can be used 

to satisfy the majority of fluorescent 

applications, but does not include any lamp 

designed and marketed for the following nongeneral lighting applications: 

(i) Fluorescent lamps designed to promote 

plant growth. 

(ii) Fluorescent lamps specifically designed 

for cold temperature installations. 

(iii) Colored fluorescent lamps. 

(iv) Impact-resistant fluorescent lamps. 

(v) Reflectorized or aperture lamps. 

(vi) Fluorescent lamps designed for use in 

reprographic equipment. 

(vii) Lamps primarily designed to produce 

radiation in the ultra-violet region of the 

spectrum. 

(viii) Lamps with a color rendering index 

of 87 or greater. 

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

EPCA defines ‘‘incandescent reflector 

lamp’’ as follows: 

* * * [A] lamp in which light is produced 

by a filament heated to incandescence by an 

electric current * * * [and] (commonly 

referred to as a reflector lamp) which is not 

colored or designed for rough or vibration 

service applications, that contains an inner 

reflective coating on the outer bulb to direct 

the light, an R, PAR, ER, BR, BPAR, or 

similar bulb shapes with E26 medium screw 

bases, a rated voltage or voltage range that 

lies at least partially within 115 and 130 

volts, a diameter which exceeds 2.25 inches, 

and has a rated wattage that is 40 watts or 

higher. 

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

EPCA further clarifies this definition 

of IRL by defining lamp types excluded 

from the definition, including ‘‘rough 

service lamp,’’ ‘‘vibration service lamp,’’ 

and ‘‘colored incandescent lamp.’’ (42 

U.S.C. 6291(30)(X), (AA), and (EE)) 

EPCA prescribes specific energy 

conservation standards for certain GSFL 

and IRL. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)) The 

statute further directs DOE to conduct 

two cycles of rulemakings to determine 

whether to amend these standards, and 

to initiate a rulemaking to determine 

whether to adopt standards for 

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

6295(i)(3)–(5)) This rulemaking 

represents the first round of 

amendments to the GSFL and IRL 

energy conservation standards as 

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

also implements the requirement for 

DOE to consider energy conservation 

standards for additional GSFL under 42 

U.S.C. 6295(i)(5). The advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) in this 

proceeding, 73 FR 13620, 13622, 13625, 

13628–29 (March 13, 2008) (the March 

2008 ANOPR), the notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR) in this proceeding, 

74 FR 16920, 16924–26 (April 13, 2009) 

(the April 2009 NOPR), and subsections 

II.B.2 and III.B.2 below provide 

additional detail on the nature and 

statutory history of EPCA’s 

requirements for GSFL and IRL. 

EPCA provides criteria for prescribing 

new or amended standards for covered 

products, including GSFL and IRL. As 

indicated above, any such new or 

amended standard 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)) Further, DOE may 

not prescribe an amended or new 

standard if DOE determines by rule that 

such standard would not result in 

‘‘significant conservation of energy,’’ or 

‘‘is not technologically feasible or 

economically justified.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B)) Additionally, DOE may 

not prescribe an amended or new 

standard for any GSFL or IRL for which 

DOE has not established a test 

procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)) 

EPCA also provides that in deciding 

whether such a standard is 

economically justified for covered 

products, DOE must, after receiving 

comments on the proposed standard, 

determine whether the benefits of the 

standard exceed its burdens by 

considering, to the greatest extent 

practicable, the following seven factors: 

(1) The economic impact of the 

standard on manufacturers and 

consumers of the products subject to the 

standard; 

(2) The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

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 savings likely to result directly 

from the imposition of the standard; 

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered products 

likely to result from the imposition of 

the standard; 

(5) The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing 

by the Attorney General, that is likely to 

result from the imposition of the 

standard; 

(6) The need for national energy 

conservation; and 

(7) Other factors the Secretary 

considers relevant. 

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

In addition under (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)), EPCA, as amended, 

establishes a rebuttable presumption 

that a standard for covered products is 

economically justified if the Secretary 

finds that ‘‘the additional cost to the 

consumer of purchasing a product 

complying with an energy conservation 

standard level will be less than three 

times the value of the energy, and as 

applicable, water, savings during the 

first year that the consumer will receive 

as a result of the standard, as calculated 

under the test procedure * * *’’ in 

place for that standard. 

EPCA also contains what is 

commonly known as an ‘‘antibacksliding’’ provision. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(1)) This provision mandates 

that the Secretary not prescribe any 

amended standard that either increases 

the maximum allowable energy use or 

decreases the minimum required energy 

efficiency of a covered product. EPCA 

further provides that 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 product type (or class) 

with performance characteristics 

(including reliability), features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are 

substantially the same as those generally 

available in the United States * * *.’’ 

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


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34086 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

2Public Law 110–140 (enacted Dec. 19, 2007). 3The Web site address for all the spreadsheets 

developed for this rulemaking proceeding are 

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

appliance_standards/residential/ 

incandescent_lamps.html. 

Section 325(q)(1) of EPCA sets forth 

additional requirements applicable to 

promulgating standards for any type or 

class of covered product that has two or 

more subcategories. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)) Under this provision, DOE 

must specify a different standard level 

than that which applies generally to 

such type or class of product ‘‘for any 

group of covered products which have 

the same function or intended use, if 

* * * products within such group—(A) 

consume a different kind of energy from 

that consumed by other covered 

products within such type (or class); or 

(B) have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have and such feature justifies a 

higher or lower standard’’ than applies 

or will apply to the other products. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(A) and (B)) In 

determining whether a performancerelated feature justifies such a different 

standard for a group of products, DOE 

must ‘‘consider such factors as the 

utility to the consumer of such a 

feature’’ and other factors DOE deems 

appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) Any 

rule prescribing such a standard must 

include an explanation of the basis on 

which DOE established such higher or 

lower level. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) 

Federal energy conservation 

requirements for covered products 

generally supersede State laws or 

regulations concerning energy 

conservation testing, labeling, and 

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

can, however, grant waivers of Federal 

preemption for particular State laws or 

regulations, in accordance with the 

procedures and other provisions of 

section 327(d) of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6297(d)) 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

The energy conservation standards 

that EPCA prescribes for GSFL and IRL, 

and that are currently in force, set 

efficacy levels and color rendering 

index (CRI) levels for certain GSFL, and 

efficacy standards for certain IRL. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(i)(1); 10 CFR 430.32(n)) 

These standard levels are set forth in 

Table I.3 and Table I.4 above. 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

General Service Fluorescent Lamps, 

Incandescent Reflector Lamps, and 

General Service Incandescent Lamps 

This rulemaking represents the first 

round of amendments to these GSFL 

and IRL standards, and it also addresses 

the adoption of standards for additional 

GSFL, as directed by 42 U.S.C. 

6295(i)(3) and (5), respectively. Initially, 

this rulemaking also included 

consideration of energy conservation 

standards for general service 

incandescent lamps (GSIL). However, as 

explained in the April 2009 NOPR, 

amendments to EPCA in the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 

2007 2 (EISA 2007) eliminated DOE’s 

authority to regulate additional GSIL 

and statutorily prescribed standards for 

GSIL; therefore this rulemaking no 

longer addresses GSIL. 74 FR 16920, 

16926 (April 13, 2009). 

DOE commenced this rulemaking on 

May 31, 2006, by publishing its 

framework document for the 

rulemaking, and by giving notice of a 

public meeting and of the availability of 

the document for review and public 

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

The framework document described the 

procedural and analytical approaches 

DOE anticipated using and issues to be 

resolved in the rulemaking. DOE held a 

public meeting on June 15, 2006, to 

present the framework document, 

describe the analyses DOE planned to 

conduct during the rulemaking, obtain 

public comment on these subjects, and 

facilitate the public’s involvement in the 

rulemaking. DOE also allowed the 

submission of written statements after 

the public meeting, and in response 

received 10 written statements. 

On February 21, 2008, DOE issued the 

March 2008 ANOPR in this proceeding. 

73 FR 13620 (March 13, 2008). In the 

March 2008 ANOPR, DOE described 

and sought comment on the analytical 

framework, models, and tools that DOE 

was using to analyze the impacts of 

energy conservation standards for the 

two appliance products. In conjunction 

with issuance of the March 2008 

ANOPR, DOE published on its Web site 

the complete ANOPR technical support 

document (TSD), which included the 

results of DOE’s various preliminary 

analyses in this rulemaking. In the 

March 2008 ANOPR, DOE requested 

oral and written comments on these 

results, and on a range of other issues. 

DOE held a public meeting in 

Washington, DC, on March 10, 2008, to 

present the methodology and results of 

the ANOPR analyses, and to receive oral 

comments from those who attended. In 

the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE invited 

comment in particular on the following 

issues: (1) Consideration of additional 

GSFL; (2) amended definitions; (3) 

product classes; (4) scaling to product 

classes not analyzed; (5) screening of 

design options; (6) lamp operating 

hours; (7) energy consumption of GSFL; 

(8) LCC calculation; (9) installation 

costs; (10) base-case market-share 

matrices; (11) shipment forecasts; (12) 

base-case and standards-case forecasted 

efficiencies; (13) trial standard levels; 

and (14) period for lamp production 

equipment conversion. 73 FR 13620, 

13686–88 (March 13, 2008). In addition, 

subsequent to the public meeting and 

the close of the ANOPR comment 

period, DOE and the National Electrical 

Manufacturers Association (NEMA) met 

on June 26, 2008 at NEMA’s request to 

discuss appropriate standards for high 

correlated color temperature (CCT) 

fluorescent lamps. 74 FR 16920, 16926 

(April 13, 2009). DOE addressed in 

detail the comments it received in 

response to the ANOPR, including 

NEMA’s presentation at the June 2008 

meeting, in the April 2009 NOPR. 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

proposed amended and new energy 

conservation standards for GSFL and 

IRL. In conjunction with the NOPR, 

DOE also published on its Web site the 

complete TSD for the proposed rule, 

which incorporated the final analyses 

DOE conducted and technical 

documentation for each analysis. The 

TSD included the engineering analysis 

spreadsheets, the LCC spreadsheet, the 

national impact analysis spreadsheet, 

and the MIA spreadsheet-all of which 

are available on DOE’s Web site.3 The 

proposed standards were as shown in 

Table II.1 and Table II.2, as presented in 

the April 2009 NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 

17027 (April 13, 2009). 

TABLE II.1—PROPOSED GSFL STANDARD LEVELS IN APRIL 2009 NOPR 

Lamp type Correlated color 

temperature 

Proposed level 

(lm/W) 

4-Foot Medium Bipin ....................................................................................................................................... ≤4,500K 84 

>4,500K 78 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34087 

TABLE II.1—PROPOSED GSFL STANDARD LEVELS IN APRIL 2009 NOPR—Continued 

Lamp type Correlated color 

temperature 

Proposed level 

(lm/W) 

2-Foot U-Shaped ............................................................................................................................................. ≤4,500K 78 

>4,500K 73 

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

>4,500K 91 

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

>4,500K 84 

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

>4,500K 97 

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

>4,500K 85 

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

TABLE II.2—PROPOSED IRL STANDARDS IN APRIL 2009 NOPR 

Lamp type Diameter 

(inches) Voltage Proposed level (lm/W) 

Standard Spectrum 40W–205W .................................................................................................. >2.5 ≤125 

<125 

7.1P0.27

6.2P0.27

≤2.5 ≥125 

<125 

6.3P0.27

5.5P0.27

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

<125 

5.8P0.27

5.0P0.27

≤2.5 ≥125 5.1P0.27

<125 4.4P0.27

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

DOE held a public meeting in 

Washington, DC, on February 3, 2009, to 

hear oral comments on and solicit 

information relevant to the proposed 

rule. At the public meeting and in the 

April 2009 NOPR, DOE invited 

comment in particular on the following 

issues: (1) The scope of covered 

products; (2) the amended definition of 

‘‘colored fluorescent lamp’’; (3) product 

classes for IRL; (4) product classes for 

T5 lamps; (5) the 4-foot MBP residential 

engineering analysis; (6) performance 

characteristics of model lamps used in 

the engineering analysis; (7) the efficacy 

levels for IRL; (8) the efficacy levels for 

GSFL; (9) scaling to product classes not 

analyzed; (10) ballast operating hours in 

all sectors and GSFL operating hours in 

the residential sector; (11) growth rates 

and market penetration in the 

shipments analysis; (12) base-case and 

standards-case market-share matrices; 

(13) the manufacturer impact analysis; 

(14) the determination of environmental 

impacts; (15) the selected trial standard 

levels; (16) the proposed standard 

levels; (17) alternative scenarios to 

achieve greater energy savings for GSFL; 

(18) other technology pathways to meet 

IRL TSL5. 74 FR 16920, 17025–26 (April 

13, 2009). The April 2009 NOPR also 

included additional background 

information on the history of this 

rulemaking. 74 FR 16920, 16925–26 

(April 13, 2009). 

III. Issues Affecting the Scope of This 

Rulemaking 

A. Additional General Service 

Fluorescent Lamps for Which DOE Is 

Adopting Standards 

1. Scope of EPCA Requirement That 

DOE Consider Standards for Additional 

Lamps 

As discussed above, EPCA established 

energy conservation standards for 

certain general service fluorescent 

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

directed the Secretary to ‘‘initiate a 

rulemaking procedure to determine if 

the standards in effect for fluorescent 

lamps * * * should be amended so that 

they would be applicable to additional 

general service fluorescent [lamps] 

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

EPCA directs DOE to consider whether 

to adopt energy efficacy standards for 

additional GSFL beyond those already 

covered by standards prescribed in the 

statute. 

However, as set forth in greater detail 

in the March 2008 ANOPR and the 

April 2009 NOPR, although many GSFL 

not currently subject to standards are 

potential candidates for coverage, it 

could be argued that EPCA’s definitions 

of ‘‘general service fluorescent lamp’’ 

and ‘‘fluorescent lamp’’ conflict with 

(and negate) the requirement of 42 

U.S.C. 6295(i)(5) that DOE consider 

standards for additional GSFL. 73 FR 

13620, 13628–29 (March 13, 2008); 74 

FR 16920, 16920, 16926–27 (April 13, 

2009). Specifically, EPCA defines 

‘‘general service fluorescent lamp’’ as 

‘‘fluorescent lamps’’ that can satisfy the 

majority of fluorescent lamp 

applications and that are not designed 

and marketed for certain specified, 

nongeneral lighting applications. (42 

U.S.C. 6291(30)(B)) Furthermore, EPCA 

defines ‘‘fluorescent lamp’’ as ‘‘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,’’ and as including 

‘‘only’’ the four enumerated types of 

fluorescent lamps for which EPCA 

already prescribes standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6291(30)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(B)) 

Thus, to construe ‘‘general service 

fluorescent lamp’’ in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(i)(5) as being limited by all 

elements of the EPCA definition of 

‘‘fluorescent lamp,’’ would mean there 

are no GSFL that are not already subject 

to standards, and hence, there would be 

no ‘‘additional’’ GSFL for which DOE 

could consider standards. Such an 

interpretation would conflict with the 

directive in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5) that 

DOE consider standards for 

‘‘additional’’ GSFL, thereby rendering 

that provision a nullity. 

For the reasons below, DOE has 

concluded that the term ‘‘additional 

general service fluorescent lamps’’ in 42 

U.S.C. 6295(i)(5) should be construed as 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34088 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

4Titled ‘‘for Fluorescent Lamps—Rapid-Start 

Types—Dimensional and Electrical 

Characteristics.’’ 5Titled ‘‘for Fluorescent Lamps—Instant-Start 

and Cold-Cathode Types—Dimensional and 

Electrical Characteristics’’ 6T5, T8, T10, and T12 are nomenclature used to 

refer to tubular fluorescent lamps with diameters of 

0.625, 1, 1.25, and 1.5 inches respectively. 

not being limited to the four enumerated 

lamp types specified in the EPCA 

definition of ‘‘fluorescent lamp,’’ 

thereby giving effect to the directive in 

42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5) that DOE consider 

standards for additional GSFL. First, 

DOE added this directive to EPCA at the 

same time it added the definitions for 

‘‘general service fluorescent lamps’’ and 

‘‘fluorescent lamps,’’ as part of the 

Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT 1992; 

Pub. L. 102–486). DOE does not believe 

Congress would intentionally insert a 

legislative provision that, when read in 

conjunction with simultaneously added 

definitions, amounts to a nullity. 

Second, reading the definition of 

‘‘fluorescent lamp’’ to preclude 

consideration of standards for 

additional GSFL would run counter to 

the energy-saving purposes of EPCA. It 

is reasonable to assume that, when 

Congress incorporated this directive 

into EPCA, it sought to have DOE 

consider whether standards would be 

warranted for generally available 

products for which EPCA did not 

prescribe standards. Also, it is assumed 

that Congress would not have intended 

for DOE to limit itself to consideration 

of energy conservation standards only 

for those products utilizing technologies 

available in 1992, but instead, it would 

seek to cast a broader net that would 

achieve energy efficiency improvements 

in lighting products incorporating 

newer technologies. 

In addition, DOE understands that the 

industry routinely refers to ‘‘fluorescent 

lamps’’ as including products in 

addition to the four enumerated in the 

statutory definition of that term. In fact, 

in the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

presented its plan for including 

additional GSFL for coverage, and DOE 

did not receive adverse comment. 73 FR 

13620, 13628–29 (March 13, 2008) 

For these reasons, and as further 

explained in the March 2008 ANOPR, 

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

and in the April 2009 NOPR, 74 FR 

16920, 16926–27 (April 13, 2009), DOE 

has concluded that, in addressing 

general service fluorescent lamps in 42 

U.S.C. 6295(i)(5), Congress intended to 

refer to ‘‘fluorescent lamps’’ in a 

broader, more generic sense than as 

expressed in the EPCA definition for 

that term. Consequently, as set forth in 

the April 2009 NOPR, 74 FR 16920, 

16927 (April 13, 2009), DOE views 

‘‘additional’’ GSFL, as that term is used 

in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5), as lamps that: (1) 

Meet the technical portion of the 

statutory definition of ‘‘fluorescent 

lamp’’ (i.e., a low-pressure mercury 

electric-discharge source in which a 

fluorescing coating transforms some of 

the ultraviolet energy generated by the 

mercury discharge into light) (42 U.S.C. 

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

four lamp types specified in that 

definition; (2) can be used to satisfy the 

majority of fluorescent lighting 

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

are not within the exclusions from the 

definition of GSFL specified in 42 

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

which EPCA does not prescribe 

standards. Such an interpretation does 

not alter the existing statutory provision 

or standards for ‘‘fluorescent lamps,’’ 

but it does permit DOE to give effect to 

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

energy conservation standards for a 

wide variety of GSFL that are not 

currently covered by standards. DOE 

notes that it received no adverse 

comments on this interpretation in 

response to the April 2009 NOPR. 

2. Determination of the Additional 

Lamps to Which Standards Will Apply 

To determine the additional GSFL to 

which energy conservation standards 

should apply, DOE first 

comprehensively reviewed the 

fluorescent lighting market and 

identified the following types of lamps 

as ‘‘additional’’ GSFL for consideration 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295 (i)(5), based 

on the four criteria above: 

• 4-foot, medium bipin (MBP), 

straight-shaped lamps, rated wattage of 

less than 28W; 

• 2-foot, medium bipin, U-shaped 

lamps, rated wattage of less than 28W; 

• 8-foot, recessed double contact 

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

lamps not defined in ANSI Standard 

C78.1–1991 4 or with current other than 

0.800 nominal amperes; 

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

slimline lamps with a rated wattage 

greater than or equal to 52, not defined 

in ANSI Standard C78.3–1991; 5

• Very high output (VHO) straightshaped lamps; 

• T5 6 miniature bipin (miniBP) 

straight-shaped lamps; 

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

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

or bases); and 

• Additional fluorescent lamps with 

alternate shapes (e.g., circline lamps and 

pin-based compact fluorescent lamps 

(CFL)). 

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

74 FR 16920, 16927–28 (April 13, 2009). 

For each of these categories of GSFL, 

DOE assessed whether standards had 

the potential to result in energy savings. 

For each category for which it appeared 

that standards could save significant 

amounts of energy, DOE then performed 

a preliminary analysis of whether 

potential standards appeared to be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. Finally, for 

GSFL that met that test, DOE did an indepth analysis of whether, and at what 

levels, standards would be warranted 

under the EPCA criteria in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o), pertaining to energy savings, 

technological feasibility, economic 

justification, and certain other factors. 

Based on this analysis, as summarized 

in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE proposed 

to cover the following additional GSFL: 

• 2-foot, medium bipin U-shaped 

lamps with a rated wattage greater than 

or equal to 25 and less than 28; 

• 4-foot, medium bipin lamps with a 

rated wattage greater than or equal to 25 

and less than 28; 

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

rated wattage greater than or equal to 26; 

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

wattage ≥51; 

• 8-foot recessed double contact, 

rapid start, HO lamps other than those 

defined in ANSI Standard C78.1–1991; 

• 8-foot recessed double contact, 

rapid start, HO lamps (other than 0.800 

nominal amperes) defined in ANSI 

Standard C78.1–1991; and 

• 8-foot single pin instant start 

slimline lamps, with a rated wattage 

greater than or equal to 52, not defined 

in ANSI Standard C78.3–1991 

74 FR 16920, 16930 (April 13, 2009). 

DOE received several comments 

regarding the additional GSFL proposed 

for coverage. In terms of methodology, 

the Green Lighting Campaign 

questioned the criteria DOE used in 

determining whether to include 

additional fluorescent lamps in 

coverage. Specifically, the Green 

Lighting Campaign argued that just 

because a product is low-volume, and, 

therefore, does not represent significant 

energy savings, does not indicate that it 

should not be subject to standards. 

According to the commenter, many lowvolume products are some of the leastefficient products on the market. (Green 

Lighting Campaign, No. 74 at p. 3) 

In response, as described in more 

detail for each lamp described below for 

which coverage was not extended, DOE 

concluded that coverage was 

inappropriate given the small market 

share of these lamps. DOE emphasizes 

that it will vigilantly monitor the market 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34089 

7Available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/index.html. 

shares and other relevant information 

for these lamps and consider whether to 

extend coverage in a future rulemaking. 

NEMA and EEI agreed with the scope 

of coverage proposed in the April 2009 

NOPR. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 43; EEI, No. 45 

at p. 3) However, the Green Lighting 

Campaign disagreed with DOE’s 

proposed scope of coverage, expressing 

concern that DOE’s proposed standards 

in the April 2009 NOPR would allow a 

significant amount of outdated lighting 

equipment to be sold in the U.S. even 

though more efficient replacement 

technologies exist. Specifically, the 

Green Lighting Campaign requested that 

two-pin compact fluorescent lamps, 

high-intensity discharge (HID) lamps, 

ballasts, luminaires, and fluorescent 

lamps of other shapes and sizes be 

included in coverage. (Green Lighting 

Campaign, No. 74 at pp. 1–4) 

In response, DOE considered two-pin 

compact fluorescent lamps and 

fluorescent lamps of other shapes and 

sizes for coverage but concluded that 

they did not meet the statutory criteria 

defined by EPCA, because these lamps 

represent relatively small market shares 

and do not possess the ability to serve 

as substitutes for most covered GSFL. 

See section III.A.2.g for more details. 

Additionally, this rulemaking only 

amends standards for GSFL and IRL, as 

described in section III. DOE is 

addressing standards for ballasts and 

HID lamps in separate rulemakings, and 

DOE currently does not have the 

authority to set energy conservation 

standards for luminaires. Please consult 

the Web site of DOE’s Appliances and 

Commercial Equipment Standards 

Program for further detail.7

Earthjustice and the Green Lighting 

Campaign disagreed with DOE’s 

proposed covered wattage ranges. In the 

April 2009 NOPR, DOE determined the 

wattage range for covered products 

based on commercially-available 

products. 74 FR 16920, 16929–30 (April 

13, 2009). This approach allowed DOE 

to confirm that an energy conservation 

standard would be technologically 

feasible and economically justified for 

any covered product. In comments on 

the March 2008 ANOPR, stakeholders 

stated that instead of determining a 

covered wattage range based on 

commercially-available products, DOE 

should substantially lower covered 

wattage ranges and use narrowly-drawn 

exemptions for those products that did 

not meet the EPCA criteria for inclusion 

as a covered product. 74 FR 16920, 

16929–30 (April 13, 2009). The 

stakeholders believed that this approach 

ensured that energy conservation 

standards would achieve largest 

potential energy savings. DOE 

responded in the April 2009 NOPR and 

agreed that current covered wattage 

ranges should be extended when 

commercially-available product exists, 

but disagreed that they should be 

extended when no products are 

available. DOE is required to consider 

energy conservation standards that are 

technologically feasible. If a lower 

wattage lamp does not yet exist, DOE 

cannot confirm that it would be 

technologically feasible or economically 

justified for such a lamp to meet a set 

energy conservation standard. 

Furthermore, DOE encourages the 

introduction of lamps at lower wattages. 

Thus, DOE decided to only lower the 

wattage range of a covered product if a 

commercially available product existed 

at a lower wattage. 74 FR 16920, 16929– 

30 (April 13, 2009). 

In commenting on the April 2009 

NOPR, Earthjustice again disagreed with 

DOE’s approach and urged DOE to be 

proactive in extending the standards’ 

covered wattage range so as to eliminate 

potential loopholes. Earthjustice argued 

that DOE should cover all wattages of 

the designated product classes that are 

lower than the existing covered wattage 

range unless DOE can prove that 

standards are not technologically 

feasible or economically justified. In not 

doing so, Earthjustice claims DOE is not 

meeting its obligations under EPCA to 

consider standards for all GSFL, 

including those that do not currently 

exist, but might be popular at the time 

the standard takes effect. (Earthjustice, 

No. 60 at p. 4) The Green Lighting 

Campaign asserted that the covered 

wattage ranges proposed in the April 

2009 NOPR ‘‘seem arbitrary and 

unjustified,’’ commenting that the 

European Union’s (EU) energy 

efficiency standards for lighting cover a 

much larger range of rated wattages. 

(Green Lighting Campaign, No. 74 at pp. 

2–3) 

In seeking to advance the energysaving goals of EPCA, DOE understands 

stakeholders’ concerns that new 

products may emerge that are outside of 

the covered wattage range. However, in 

setting up the statutory structure, 

Congress was very careful to ensure that 

any standards set would be based upon 

the best available data, particularly in 

terms of what standards would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. Furthermore, 

given the anti-backsliding provision of 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1), DOE must exercise 

great care so as to set an appropriate 

standard in the first instance. Contrary 

to EPCA’s direction that DOE set 

standards for products that the data 

show to be technologically feasible and 

economically justified, Earthjustice 

would have DOE broaden coverage 

without data, unless DOE can prove a 

negative (i.e., that such standards are 

not economically feasible and 

economically justified). DOE concludes 

that such an approach would violate the 

statute. Accordingly, DOE maintains 

that it is inappropriate to lower the 

covered wattage range to include 

products that do not exist. Without 

knowing the performance characteristics 

of a lamp, DOE cannot know how 

energy conservation standards will 

affect it. It is not possible for DOE to set 

standards for lower-wattage lamps that 

currently do not exist because DOE 

cannot prove that standards for such 

lamps are technologically feasible and 

economically justified. Therefore, DOE 

maintains the covered wattage range 

proposed in the April 2009 NOPR in 

this final rule. It is further noted that if 

low-wattage products do subsequently 

enter the market, DOE would address 

the appropriateness of energy 

conservation standards for such 

products in considering periodic 

amendments to the GSFL and IRL 

standards pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

6295(m). 

In response to comments on the EU’s 

lighting efficiency standards, DOE notes 

that these standards are not directly 

comparable, because they are applied to 

a larger scope of products than what is 

covered in this rulemaking. Thus, the 

cited EU standards encompass a broader 

range of covered wattages (i.e., include 

lower wattage levels) than those 

proposed by DOE, because the EU 

standard covers lamps with shorter 

lengths. 

ACEEE and the CA Stakeholders 

suggested that DOE should lower the 

wattage range of covered products by 

one watt in order to account for 

imprecision in how lamps are rated. 

(ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

38.4 at p. 44–45; CA Stakeholders, No. 

63 at p. 11) ACEEE argued that because 

a lamp’s rated wattage and its ‘‘actual’’ 

wattage often differ, lowering the 

wattage range would prevent 

manufacturers from circumventing 

standards by rating lamps at artificially 

low wattages. For example, a 

manufacturer could rerate a 25 watt 

lamp as a 24 watt lamp, which would 

then not be covered by standards. 

While DOE understands the 

stakeholders’ concerns, DOE believes 

that the definition of ‘‘rated wattage’’ 

sufficiently addresses the issue of 

potential circumvention. As discussed 

in further detail in section III.C.1 below, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34090 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

for lamps currently commerciallyavailable and listed in ANSI C78.81– 

2005 or ANSI C78.901–2005, ‘‘rated 

wattage’’ (as defined in amended 10 

CFR 430.2) is specified for each lamp on 

its corresponding datasheet in the same 

industry standard. Therefore, for these 

lamps, manufacturers may not 

arbitrarily lower the rated wattage of 

lamps listed in the ANSI standards. 

However, due to the emergence of new 

products on the market after publication 

of the ANSI standards, not all currently 

commercially-available lamps are listed 

in ANSI C78.81–2005 or ANSI C78.901– 

2005. For lamps not listed in either 

standard, the rated wattage corresponds 

to the wattage measured when operating 

the lamp on an appropriate ballast, as 

specified by part 1(iii) of the revised 

definition of ‘‘rated wattage.’’ In such a 

case, the ‘‘actual’’ wattage would be 

equivalent to the rated wattage, thereby 

preventing circumvention of the 

standard. Thus, for all covered lamps, 

DOE believes that the definition of 

‘‘rated wattage’’ adopted in this final 

rule prevents manufacturers from 

artificially raising or lowering the rated 

wattage of a lamp, thereby addressing 

any potential loopholes. 

The following sections discuss each 

additional GSFL category DOE 

considered throughout this rulemaking 

and summarize the analysis performed 

to determine to which lamps DOE 

should extend coverage. 

a. Four-Foot Medium Bipin Lamps 

DOE found that there are no 4-foot 

medium bipin lamps with a rated 

wattage below 25W currently on the 

market, but that manufacturers do 

market and sell 25W 4-foot medium 

bipin T8 fluorescent lamps as 

replacements for higher-wattage 4-foot 

bipin T8 lamps. Thus, DOE initially 

concluded that standards for these 

lamps that are 25W or higher, but less 

than 28W, would mitigate the risk of 

unregulated 25W lamps becoming a 

loophole, and would maximize 

potential energy savings. In addition, 

because the technology and incremental 

costs associated with increased efficacy 

of 25W lamps are similar to their 

already regulated 28W counterparts, 

DOE tentatively concluded that 

standards for these lamps would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 73 FR 13620, 

13630 (March 13, 2008) and 74 FR 

16920, 16928 (April 13, 2009). As 

explained in the April 2009 NOPR and 

as set forth below in section VII, DOE 

has now determined that standards for 

4-foot medium bipin lamps with a rated 

wattage at or above 25W, and below 

28W, would save significant amounts of 

energy and are technologically feasible 

and economically justified, and 

includes such standards in today’s rule. 

DOE has not, however, pursued 

standards for 4-foot medium bipin 

lamps with a rated wattage below 25W. 

The lack of existence of such lamps 

precludes DOE from assessing whether 

standards for them are technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

the inability to make such an 

assessment could also result in the 

adoption of standards that would reduce 

the utility of such a product or even 

preclude its development. 74 FR 16920, 

16929–30 (April 13, 2009). Therefore, in 

this final rule, DOE extends coverage to 

4-foot medium bipin lamps with a rated 

wattage greater than or equal to 25W 

and less than 28W. 

b. Two-Foot Medium Bipin, U-Shaped 

Lamps 

DOE initially decided not to consider 

standards for 2-foot U-shaped lamps less 

than 28W, based on its understanding 

that no such products are commercially 

available. NEMA provided information, 

however, that such lamps have been 

introduced at 25W. Therefore, 

consistent with its approach just 

described for 4-foot medium bipin 

lamps, DOE evaluated for standards 2- 

foot U-shaped lamps of 25W or more, 

but less than 28W. 74 FR 16920, 16929– 

30 (April 13, 2009). As set forth below 

in section VII, DOE has now determined 

that standards for these lamps would 

save significant amounts of energy and 

are technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and includes 

such standards in today’s rule. In 

addition, DOE has not pursued 

standards for 2-foot U-shaped lamps 

with a rated wattage below 25W, for the 

same reasons that it has declined to 

pursue standards for 4-foot medium 

bipin lamps with a rated wattage below 

25W. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE 

extends coverage to 2-foot U-shaped 

lamps with a rated wattage greater than 

or equal to 25W and less than 28W. 

c. Eight-Foot Recessed, Double-Contact 

Lamps 

As indicated above, DOE examined 8- 

foot recessed double-contact (RDC) 

rapid-start HO lamps, including those 

not defined in ANSI Standard C78.1– 

1991 as well as those defined in ANSI 

Standard C78.1–1991, but with other 

than 0.800 nominal amperes. These are 

T8 8-foot lamps, and neither is currently 

subject to standards. DOE concluded 

that these lamps serve or could serve as 

substitutes for GSFL currently subject to 

standards, and, therefore, coverage of 

these lamps would maximize energy 

savings from standards. DOE also 

tentatively concluded that energy 

conservation standards for these T8 

lamps would be: (1) Technologically 

feasible because they use technologies 

similar to the technologies used by their 

already-regulated T12 counterparts; and 

(2) economically justified because 

preliminary analysis indicated such 

standards would result in substantial 

economic savings. 73 FR 13620, 13630– 

31 (March 13, 2008) and 74 FR 16920, 

16928 (April 13, 2009). As set forth 

below in section VII, DOE has now 

determined that standards for these 

lamps would save significant amounts 

of energy and are technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

includes such standards in today’s rule. 

Therefore, in this final rule, DOE 

extends coverage to the following 8-foot 

recessed double contact, rapid start, HO 

lamps: (1) Ones other than those defined 

in ANSI Standard C78.1–1991; and (2) 

those defined in ANSI Standard C78.1– 

1991 with other than 0.800 nominal 

amperes. 

d. Eight-Foot Single Pin Slimline Lamps 

As with 8-foot recessed double 

contact, rapid start, HO lamps, DOE 

concluded that 8-foot, single pin, instant 

start, slimline lamps not included in 

ANSI Standard C78.3–1991, with a rated 

wattage greater than or equal to 52W, 

could serve as substitutes for GSFL 

currently subject to standards. 

Therefore, DOE tentatively concluded 

that regulation of these lamps has the 

potential to achieve substantial energy 

savings. DOE’s preliminary analysis also 

indicated that energy conservation 

standards for these 8-foot single pin 

lamps would be: (1) Technologically 

feasible because they use technologies 

similar to the technologies used by their 

already-regulated T12 counterparts; and 

(2) economically justified because 

preliminary analysis indicated such 

standards would result in substantial 

economic savings. 73 FR 13620, 13631– 

32 (March 13, 2008) and 74 FR 16920, 

16929 (April 13, 2009). As set forth 

below in section VII, DOE has now 

determined that standards for these 

lamps would save significant amounts 

of energy and are technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

includes such standards in today’s rule. 

Therefore, in this final rule, DOE 

extends coverage to 8-foot single pin 

instant start slimline lamps, with a rated 

wattage greater than or equal to 52W 

that are not defined in ANSI Standard 

C78.3–1991. 

e. Very High Output Straight-Shaped 

Lamps 

Although individual VHO T12 lamps 

consume relatively large amounts of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34091 

energy, they are commonly used in 

outdoor applications where highintensity discharge (HID) lamps are 

rapidly gaining market share, and 

shipments of VHO lamps are declining 

rapidly. Therefore, the total energy 

savings that would result from 

standards for these lamps would be 

small and would likely decrease over 

time. In response to the April 2009 

NOPR, DOE received no adverse 

comment regarding its decision to not 

cover VHO lamps. Accordingly, DOE 

has not pursued standards for VHO 

lamps and does not extend them 

coverage in this final rule. 73 FR 13620, 

13632 (March 13, 2008) and 74 FR 

16920, 16928 (April 13, 2009). As 

emphasized above, DOE will vigilantly 

monitor the market shares and other 

relevant information for these lamps 

and consider whether to extend 

coverage in a future rulemaking. 

f. T5 Lamps 

DOE initially decided not to consider 

standards for T5 lamps because it 

believed that standards for these lamps 

would have limited potential to result in 

energy savings. First, these lamps have 

a relatively small market share. Second, 

although T5 lamps can substitute for T8 

or T12 lamps, T5 lamps tend to have 

higher efficacies than T8s or T12s. 

Therefore, DOE inferred that a lack of 

standards for T5 lamps would be 

unlikely to undermine energy savings 

resulting from a T12 and T8 standard, 

even if the standard caused increased 

sales of T5 systems. 73 FR 13620, 13632 

(March 13, 2008). 

However, after receiving comments on 

this issue in response to the March 2008 

ANOPR, including comments 

advocating energy conservation 

standards for T5 lamps, DOE decided it 

should reconsider whether such 

standards are warranted. Specifically, 

DOE concluded that, absent standards 

for T5 lamps, less-efficient T5 lamps 

could enter the market and be 

substituted for T8 and T12 lamps that 

are subject to standards. Thus, a lack of 

standards for T5 lamps could 

potentially reduce the energy savings 

that could result from the standards for 

T8 and T12 lamps. Accordingly, in the 

NOPR, DOE tentatively concluded that 

regulation of T5 lamps has the potential 

to achieve substantial energy savings. 

Furthermore, DOE research indicated 

that: (1) The primary driver of T5 

market share growth is substitution for 

currently regulated 4-foot MBP lamps; 

(2) standard-output (approximately 

28W) and high-output (approximately 

54W) lamps are the highest volume T5 

miniature bipin lamps; and (3) reducedwattage versions of these lamps (26W 

and 51W, respectively) are available. 

Therefore, DOE evaluated for standards 

4-foot nominal, straight-shaped, T5 

miniature bipin standard output lamps 

with rated wattages ≥26W and 4-foot 

nominal, straight-shaped, T5 miniature 

bipin high output lamps with rated 

wattages ≥51W, as they present the 

greatest potential for energy savings. 

DOE also tentatively concluded that 

energy conservation standards for these 

T5 lamps would be: (1) Technologically 

feasible because higher-efficacy versions 

of some of these lamps are already 

present in the market; and (2) 

economically justified because 

preliminary analysis indicated such 

standards would result in substantial 

economic savings. 74 FR 16920, 16929 

(April 13, 2009). Both NEMA and 

ACEEE supported the extension of 

coverage to T5 lamps. (NEMA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 43; 

ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

38.4 at p. 44; NEMA, No. 81 at p. 7) 

Since the publication of the NOPR, 

DOE has learned that a 49W T5 

miniature bipin high-output lamp has 

been introduced to the market. As this 

lamp is very similar to a 51W T5 

miniature bipin high-output lamp, DOE 

concludes that standards for these 

lamps would be technologically feasible 

and economically justified for the 

reasons listed above. Therefore, as set 

forth in more detail in section VII, DOE 

has determined that standards for T5 

lamps would save significant amounts 

of energy and are technologically 

feasible and economically justified. 

Thus, in this final rule, DOE extends 

coverage to 4-foot T5, miniature bipin, 

straight-shaped, standard output lamps 

with rated wattage greater than or equal 

to 26W and 4-foot T5, miniature bipin, 

straight-shaped, high output lamps with 

rated wattage greater than or equal to 

49W. 

g. Various Other Fluorescent Lamps 

In addition to the GSFL already 

covered by standards and those just 

discussed, there exist straight-shaped 

and U-shaped fluorescent lamps that 

have, for example, alternate lengths, 

diameters, or bases, as well as 

fluorescent lamps with alternative 

shapes (e.g., circline lamps and pinbased compact fluorescent lamps (CFL)). 

In this rulemaking, DOE has not 

pursued standards for these additional 

fluorescent lamps. The GSFL already 

covered and those DOE included in this 

rulemaking represent a significant 

majority of the GSFL market, and, thus, 

the bulk of the potential energy savings 

from amended or new standards. 

Furthermore, there is limited potential 

for lamps with miscellaneous lengths 

and bases to grow in market share, given 

the constraints of fixture lengths and 

socket compatibility. 73 FR 13620, 

13632 (March 13, 2008) and 74 FR 

16920, 16928 (April 13, 2009). Given the 

relatively low shipments and limited 

potential for growth in shipments, DOE 

does not extend coverage to GSFL with 

alternate lengths, diameters, bases, or 

shapes. DOE again emphasizes that it 

will vigilantly monitor the market 

shares and other relevant information 

for these lamps and consider whether to 

extend coverage in a future rulemaking. 

Magnaray, a luminaire manufacturer, 

commented that the amended standards 

should not eliminate existing ‘‘twin T5’’ 

fluorescent lamps from the market. 

Magnaray stated that ‘‘twin T5’’ lamps 

have demonstrated significant energy 

savings relative to their replacements. 

The luminaire manufacturer further 

requested that DOE recommend these 

lamps for use in all outdoor lighting 

applications. (Magnaray, No. 58 at p. 1) 

DOE research indicates that ‘‘twin T5’’ 

lamps are actually high-lumen-output 

single-ended twin-tube T5 pin-based 

CFL. In general, these lamps are offered 

with wattages between 18W and 80W, 

CCTs between 3000K and 5000K, 

lengths between 9 and 22.6 inches, and 

CRIs of 82. As discussed above, based 

on their relatively low market-share and 

the low potential energy savings 

associated with their regulation, DOE is 

not extending coverage to pin-based 

CFL. DOE reiterates that it will 

vigilantly monitor the market shares and 

other relevant information for these 

lamps and consider whether to extend 

coverage in a future rulemaking. In 

addition, it should be noted that DOE 

does not endorse particular products or 

recommend that consumers adopt 

particular technologies in the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking. 

3. Summary of GSFL for Which DOE 

Has Adopted Standards 

DOE has determined that energy 

conservation standards are 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would result 

in significant energy savings, for all of 

the ‘‘additional’’ GSFL for which DOE 

proposed standards in the April 2009 

NOPR. Therefore, DOE is adopting 

standards today for the following 

additional GSFL: 

• 2-foot, medium bipin U-shaped 

lamps with a rated wattage greater than 

or equal to 25 and less than 28; 

• 4-foot, medium bipin lamps with a 

rated wattage greater than or equal to 25 

and less than 28; 

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

rated wattage greater than or equal to 26; 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34092 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

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

wattage greater than or equal to 49; 

• 8-foot recessed double contact, 

rapid start, HO lamps other than those 

defined in ANSI Standard C78.1–1991; 

• 8-foot recessed double contact, 

rapid start, HO lamps (other than 0.800 

nominal amperes) defined in ANSI 

Standard C78.1–1991; and 

• 8-foot single pin instant start 

slimline lamps, with a rated wattage 

greater than or equal to 52, not defined 

in ANSI Standard C78.3–1991. 

B. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Scope 

of Coverage 

The April 2009 NOPR proposed 

amended energy conservations 

standards for incandescent reflector 

lamps with a rated wattage from 40W to 

205W, other than those exempted from 

standards under 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(C). 

74 FR 16920, 16924–25, 16930–31, 

17017–18 (April 13, 2009) In response 

to the April 2009 NOPR, DOE received 

several comments regarding the 

proposed incandescent reflector lamp 

scope coverage. These comments are 

discussed below. 

1. Covered Wattage Range 

In response to the April 2009 NOPR, 

the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) 

expressed concern that the scope of 

coverage for IRL is too limited, 

specifically with regard to the proposed 

covered wattage range (i.e., 40W–205W). 

EEI suggested that manufacturers could 

easily produce lamps at 39W or 206W 

to circumvent energy conservation 

standards. Because IRL exist in the 

market at wattages as low as 35W and 

as high as 500W, EEI recommended that 

the covered wattage range for IRL be 

extended to include lamps as low as 

20W and as high as 505W. (EEI, No. 45 

at p. 2) 

In amending energy conservation 

standards for IRL, DOE is limited to the 

definition prescribed by EISA 2007, 

which defines IRL 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)) Given this definition, DOE does 

not have the authority to decrease the 

lower wattage limit of covered IRL 

below 40W. DOE does, however, have 

the authority to alter the upper limit of 

the wattage range for covered IRL. In 

response to EEI’s comment, DOE 

analyzed commercially-available 

product in manufacturer catalogs to 

assess the prevalence of products with 

wattages greater than 205W. Based on 

this research, DOE believes that IRL 

with rated wattages greater than 205W 

comprise a very small portion of the 

market and, therefore, do not represent 

substantial potential energy savings. For 

these reasons, DOE has decided, in this 

final rule, to adopt standards for IRL 

with a rated wattage greater than or 

equal to 40W and less than or equal to 

205W. 

2. Exempted Incandescent Reflector 

Lamps 

As discussed in more detail in the 

April 2009 NOPR, 74 FR 16920, 16930 

(April 13, 2009), section 332(b) of EISA 

2007 amended EPCA to expand its 

definition of ‘‘incandescent reflector 

lamp’’ to include lamps with a diameter 

between 2.25 and 2.75 inches, as well as 

ER, BR, BPAR, or similar bulb shapes 

(42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(C)(ii)) and also to 

exempt certain of these lamps from 

EPCA’s standards for IRL (42 U.S.C. 

6295(i)(1)(C)). As discussed in section 

II.B.2, DOE issued and posted on its 

Web site the January 2009 NOPR in 

which DOE adhered to its conclusion 

that these exemptions, read in 

conjunction with other language in 42 

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

6295(i)(3), precluded DOE from 

adopting energy conservation standards 

for lamps covered by the exemptions. 

DOE subsequently held a public 

meeting where stakeholders commented 

on the contents of the January 2009 

NOPR. 

At the February 3, 2009 NOPR public 

meeting, NEMA stated its agreement 

with DOE’s interpretation of the statute 

regarding the exempted IRL. (NEMA, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 

323) However, stakeholders presented 

comments disagreeing with DOE’s 

conclusion and urging DOE to set 

standards for the exempted lamps. 

Several commenters stated that 

exempted lamps comprise a substantial 

portion of the market and, therefore, 

represent significant potential energy 

savings. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 27–28; EEI, 

No. 45 at p. 3; Woolsey, No. 46 at p. 1) 

Furthermore, ASAP argued that DOE’s 

interpretation that these lamps are 

exempt from DOE regulation, does not 

accurately reflect what Congress 

intended when making these lamps 

covered products in EISA 2007. 

According to the commenter, because 

States are preempted from setting 

standards for covered products, these 

exempted IRL would remain beyond the 

reach of any energy conservation 

standards. Several stakeholders urged 

DOE to draft and publish a 

supplementary NOPR to address the 

exempted ER and BR lamps. (ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at 

pp. 33, 52–53, 322–323; Woolsey, No. 

46 at p. 2) 

After carefully considering the 

testimony of the February 3, 2009 NOPR 

public meeting and reexamining the 

ANOPR public comments on this issue, 

DOE has reexamined its authority under 

EPCA to amend standards for ER, BR, 

and small-diameter lamps and 

concluded that its earlier view may have 

been in error. As discussed in more 

detail in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE is 

reconsidering whether, under 42 U.S.C 

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

standards in paragraph (1) encompasses 

both the statutory levels and the 

exemptions to those standards. 

Regardless of the outcome of that 

decision, DOE has not considered such 

lamps as part of the present rulemaking 

because it had not conducted the 

requisite analyses to adopt appropriate 

standard levels. At the same time, DOE 

did not wish to delay the present 

rulemaking (and the accompanying 

energy savings to the Nation) for the 

sole reason of considering this subset of 

ER, BR, and small-diameter lamps. 

Therefore, as explained in the April 

2009 NOPR, DOE has decided to 

proceed with setting energy 

conservation standards for the lamps 

that are the subject of the present 

rulemaking and to commence a separate 

rulemaking for ER, BR, and smalldiameter lamps. 74 FR 16920, 16930–31 

(April 13, 2009). 

Following the publication of the April 

2009 NOPR, several stakeholders 

supported DOE’s decision to address the 

exempted lamps in a separate 

rulemaking and urged DOE to act 

quickly to set these new standards. 

(Earthjustice, No. 60 at p. 2; NEEP, No. 

61 at p. 5; Joint Comment, No. 62 at pp. 

2–3; ACEEE, No. 76 at p. 5; NRDC, No. 

82 at p. 4) Commenters encouraged DOE 

to establish energy conservation 

standards for the exempted lamps with 

the same effective date as those adopted 

in this rulemaking in order to minimize 

market distortions and potential shifting 

from regulated products to unregulated 

products. (EEI, No. 45 at p. 3; NEEP, No. 

61 at p. 5; EEI, No. 78 at p. 2) DOE will 

consider these comments in its separate 

rulemaking assessing energy 

conservation standards for the exempted 

ER, BR, and small diameter lamps. 

3. Museum Lighting 

DOE received a comment from The J 

Paul Getty Museum requesting that 

museum lighting, and particularly art 

museum lighting, be exempt from 

standards. The comment stated that HIR 

lamps do not provide the same quality 

of light as the halogen lamps that would 

be eliminated by the proposed standard. 

(The J Paul Getty Museum, No. 56 at p. 

1) In response, DOE is unaware of any 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34093 

specific light quality of halogen lamps 

that would necessitate their usage 

instead of halogen infrared reflector 

lamps for museum applications. In 

addition, the commenter did not 

provide any further details on the 

unique utility of current lamps in 

museum settings that could not be 

provided by substitute lamps that would 

meet the requirements of the energy 

conservation standards under 

consideration. Although the infrared 

reflector coating causes a reduction in 

the infrared region of the 

electromagnetic spectrum, these 

wavelengths of light are largely invisible 

to the human eye. Therefore, DOE does 

not believe that halogen lamps represent 

a distinct utility. In addition, given the 

identical nature of halogen PAR lamps 

used in museum settings and nonmuseum settings, it would be 

potentially easy for any consumer to 

purchase and install a lamp meant for 

museum use. Accordingly, DOE is 

concerned that failure to regulate this 

type of lamp could significantly 

undermine the energy savings potential 

of the IRL standard. In light of this 

concern and the lack of information to 

substantiate a unique utility of halogen 

IRL, DOE has decided not to create an 

exemption from IRL standards for 

museum lighting. 

C. Amended Definitions 

1. ‘‘Rated Wattage’’ 

To implement the expanded scope of 

EPCA’s coverage of GSFL and IRL, and 

of standards adopted for GSIL in EISA 

2007, DOE proposed to revise its 

definitions of ‘‘rated wattage’’ and 

‘‘colored fluorescent lamp.’’ 74 FR 

16920, 16931–32 (April 13, 2009). As to 

‘‘rated wattage,’’ one element of EPCA’s 

definitions for both ‘‘fluorescent lamp’’ 

and ‘‘incandescent reflector lamp’’ is a 

lamp’s rated wattage. (42 U.S.C. 

6291(30)(A), (C)(ii), and (F)) Also, EPCA 

prescribes maximum rated wattages as 

part of its energy conservation standards 

for GSIL. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)) Although 

EPCA does not define the term ‘‘rated 

wattage,’’ DOE’s regulations do, but the 

current DOE definition covers only 4- 

foot medium bipin T8, T10, and T12 

fluorescent lamps. 10 CFR 430.2. 

Therefore, DOE proposed a revised 

and updated definition of ‘‘rated 

wattage.’’ This definition included 

references to the current versions of 

applicable ANSI standards, clarified and 

improved the definition, and applied it 

to those lamps for which rated wattage 

is a key characteristic but to which 

DOE’s current definition does not apply. 

74 FR 16920, 16931 (April 13, 2009). 

DOE did not receive any comments in 

response to this proposed change. 

However, because ‘‘electrical power’’ is 

appropriately defined in paragraph 2.8 

or Appendix R of Subpart B, DOE note 

that it has decided to replace the term 

‘‘wattage’’ in parts (1)(ii) and (1)(iii) of 

the definition of ‘‘rated wattage’’ with 

‘‘electrical power.’’ Therefore, for the 

reasons explained above and in the 

April 2009 NOPR, DOE adopts the 

definition of ‘‘rated wattage’’ as set out 

in the regulatory text of this final rule. 

2. ‘‘Colored Fluorescent Lamp’’ 

With respect to the definition of 

‘‘colored fluorescent lamp,’’ DOE first 

notes that EPCA defines general service 

fluorescent lamps as fluorescent lamps 

‘‘which can be used to satisfy the 

majority of fluorescent [lighting] 

applications,’’ but which are not 

designed and marketed for certain 

specifically listed ‘‘nongeneral lighting 

applications,’’ including ‘‘colored 

fluorescent lamps.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6291(30)(B)) As with ‘‘rated wattage,’’ 

EPCA does not define the term ‘‘colored 

fluorescent lamp,’’ but DOE’s 

regulations do. The DOE regulations 

currently define the term as ‘‘a 

fluorescent lamp designated and 

marketed as a colored lamp’’ and having 

a CRI less than 40 or a CCT less than 

2500 K or greater than 6600 K. 10 CFR 

430.2. Because lamps meeting this 

definition are not GSFL under EPCA, 

they are not covered by the standards 

applicable to GSFL. 

After becoming aware of a lamp on 

the European market that is intended for 

general illumination applications but 

has a CCT of 17000 K and might meet 

DOE’s definition of ‘‘colored fluorescent 

lamp,’’ DOE became concerned that 

some new products with general service 

applications might be excluded from the 

coverage of standards applicable to 

GSFL. 73 FR 13620, 13634 (March 13, 

2008). To avoid this possibility, DOE 

considered adding the following phrase 

to its definition of ‘‘colored fluorescent 

lamp’’: ‘‘* * * and not designed or 

marketed for general illumination 

applications.’’ Id. 

Following publication of the March 

2008 ANOPR, DOE obtained 

information indicating that, instead, it 

should amend the definition of ‘‘colored 

fluorescent lamp’’ both to: (1) Exclude 

from the definition, and thereby place 

under energy conservation standards, 

lamps with CCTs from 6600 K to 7000 

K; and (2) include in the definition, and 

thereby place outside the coverage of 

standards, all lamps with a CCT greater 

than 7000 K (i.e., regardless of how the 

lamp is designated and marketed). 

Although lamps with CCTs greater than 

6600 K and less than or equal to 7000 

K are not prevalent in the market, such 

lamps are commercially available and 

becoming increasingly popular. 

Furthermore, manufacturers would 

likely be able to produce a lamp at 7000 

K using the same materials as a 6500 K 

lamp (a commonly sold lamp). Thus, 

DOE tentatively concluded that covering 

such lamps would maintain the 

coverage under DOE’s energy 

conservation standards of GSFL serving 

general application purposes, and that 

the technological similarity between 

6500 K and 7000 K lamps makes it 

possible to establish technologically 

feasible efficacy levels for 7000 K lamps. 

However, very few lamps with a CCT 

greater than 7000 K exist in the market, 

and the inherently ‘‘blue’’ color of these 

high-CCT lamps appears to prevent their 

widespread adoption as substitutes for 

standard CCT lamps (e.g., 4100 K). In 

addition, the materials used in the 

manufacture of such lamps, as well as 

the design trade-offs in developing 

them, would differ from those 

applicable to current products serving 

this market. Thus, DOE tentatively 

concluded that it could not determine 

whether a particular standard level 

would be technologically feasible for 

lamps with a higher CCT, and that these 

lamps would not be expected to be a 

potential loophole to standards it was 

considering in this rulemaking. For 

these reasons, which DOE discussed in 

greater detail in the April 2009 NOPR, 

DOE proposed to modify the definition 

of ‘‘colored fluorescent lamp’’ by raising 

the upper CCT limit for lamps excluded 

from that term from 6600 K to 7000 K, 

and including in that term all lamps 

(regardless how the lamp is designated 

and marketed) with a CCT greater than 

7000 K. 74 FR 16920, 16931–32 (April 

13, 2009). 

Both EEI and NEMA agreed with the 

proposed definition of ‘‘colored 

fluorescent lamp.’’ (EEI, No. 45 at p. 2, 

NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

38.4 at p. 46–47; NEMA, No. 81 at p. 7) 

However, ACEEE pointed out that at an 

earlier stage of the rulemaking process, 

NEMA had identified an 8000 K lamp 

and claimed that lamps at high CCT 

values were capturing an increasing 

market share of general service 

applications. ACEEE argued that, if this 

is true, lamps with a CCT up through 

8000 K should be included in coverage. 

(ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

38.4 at p. 48). NEMA responded that it 

is not aware of an 8000 K lamp gaining 

market share in the general service 

lighting market because such a lamp 

would be too blue and not suitable for 

general service applications. (NEMA, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34094 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at 

pp. 49–50) 

ACEEE also suggested that DOE 

should reinsert the phrase ‘‘and not 

designed or marketed for general 

illumination applications’’ in the 

definition of ‘‘colored fluorescent lamp’’ 

to ensure that only specialty lamps are 

excluded from the definition of ‘‘general 

service fluorescent lamp.’’ (ACEEE, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at 

pp. 48–49; ACEEE, No. 76 at p. 4) In 

response, DOE agrees that the intention 

of the exemption for colored fluorescent 

lamps is to exclude only specialty lamps 

from standards. DOE believes that the 

amended definition of ‘‘colored 

fluorescent lamp’’ should not become a 

loophole for fluorescent lamps that are 

used in general service applications, 

and, therefore, should be subject to 

energy conservation standards. 

However, DOE also maintains that there 

are enough lamps available with CCTs 

greater than 7000 K to determine 

technologically feasible energy 

conservation standards. In addition, 

DOE believes that the inherently ‘‘blue’’ 

color of these lamps may prevent 

widespread adoption as substitutes for 

standard CCT lamps (e.g., 4100 K). 

Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is 

modifying the definition of ‘‘colored 

fluorescent lamp’’ as follows. DOE has 

decided to incorporate the phrase ‘‘and 

not designed or marketed for general 

illumination applications’’ into the 

definition of ‘‘colored fluorescent 

lamp.’’ This phrase will apply to those 

lamps with CCTs greater than 7000 K, 

as well as lamps with a CRI less than 40 

and lamps with a CCT under 2500 K. 

However, because DOE believes that 

there are insufficient data to determine 

whether amended standards for lamps 

with CCTs greater than 7000 K would be 

technologically feasible, DOE is 

modifying the range of CCTs for which 

it is adopting standards. As a result, 

lamps referred to as possessing high 

CCTs in this standard-setting 

rulemaking are now being classified as 

those with a CCT greater than 4500 K 

and less than or equal to 7000 K (rather 

than simply greater than 4500 K). 

DOE is implementing these changes 

in this manner because of the antibacksliding provision in EPCA. Because 

lamps with CCTs greater than 7000K 

that are not designated and marketed as 

colored lamps are currently subject to 

energy conservation standards, 

exempting all lamps with a CCT above 

7000 K through inclusion in the 

definition of ‘‘colored fluorescent lamp’’ 

would prescribe a standard which 

impermissibly ‘‘decreases the minimum 

required energy efficiency, of a covered 

product.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6295 (o)(1)) Thus, 

if lamps with CCTs greater than 7000 K 

are used in general service applications, 

they will not be covered by the 

standards adopted by this final rule, 

although they will continue to be 

subject to the existing energy 

conservation standards (which have not 

been eliminated, despite being 

superseded in terms of efficacy levels 

for most—but not all, as demonstrated 

here—of those lamps upon the effective 

date of the updated GSFL standards). In 

conclusion, DOE adopts the following 

definition for ‘‘colored fluorescent 

lamp’’ as set out in the regulatory text 

of this final rule. 

D. Off Mode and Standby Mode Energy 

Consumption Standards 

Section 310(3) of EISA 2007 amended 

EPCA to require 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)) Although the final 

rule in this standards rulemaking is 

scheduled for publication by June 2009 

(i.e., before this statutory deadline), 

DOE nonetheless did a preliminary 

analysis of the potential for energy 

savings associated with the regulation of 

standby mode and off mode energy use 

in covered lamps. DOE tentatively 

determined that current technologies for 

the GSFL and IRL that are the subjects 

of this rulemaking do not use a standby 

mode or off mode, so it is neither 

feasible nor necessary to incorporate 

energy use in these modes into the 

energy conservation standards for GSFL 

and IRL. Therefore, DOE did not 

propose amendments to the standards to 

address lamp operation in such modes. 

73 FR 13620, 13627 (March 13, 2008); 

74 FR 16920, 16932–33 (April 13, 2009). 

DOE did not receive any comments 

regarding this subject, so DOE 

concludes that standby mode and off 

mode are not applicable to these 

products. Therefore, in this final rule, 

DOE is not adopting provisions to 

address lamp operation in off mode or 

standby mode as part of the energy 

conservation standards that are the 

subject of this rulemaking. 

E. Color Rendering Index Standards for 

General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

EPCA specifies minimum levels of 

both lumens per watt and CRI that GSFL 

must meet. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)) 

However, EPCA authorizes DOE to 

consider and adopt only energy 

conservation standards that consist of 

energy performance requirements. (42 

U.S.C. 6291(6)) In the March 2008 

ANOPR, commenters suggested that it 

may be necessary for DOE to amend the 

existing CRI standards to prevent the 

possible emergence of loopholes in the 

product class structure and standards 

levels. In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

concluded that it does not have the 

authority to change the CRI standard 

because CRI is not a measure of energy 

consumption or efficacy, but rather a 

measure of the color quality of the light. 

74 FR 16920, 16933 (April 13, 2009). 

In written comments, Earthjustice 

argued that DOE has the authority to 

amend EPCA’s Color Rendering Index 

(CRI) for GSFL, stating that DOE ignored 

the context of the duties that Congress 

imposed in 42 U.S.C. § 6295(i)(3). 

Earthjustice correctly noted that 

Congress included a table specifying 

both lamp efficacy and CRI standards 

for GSFL. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(B)). The 

commenter also correctly stated that 

Congress provided that all GSFL ‘‘shall 

meet or exceed the [specified] lamp 

efficacy and CRI standards’’ (42 U.S.C. 

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

‘‘determine if the standards in 

paragraph (1) should be amended.’’ (42 

U.S.C. 6295(i)(3)). From there, 

Earthjustice took the position that 

Congress did not intend to require DOE 

to assess only the ‘‘energy conservation 

standards’’ established in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(i)(1), but instead to review all 

‘‘standards’’ established in that 

paragraph, which include both lamp 

efficacy and CRI standards. 

(Earthjustice, No. 60 at pp. 3–4) The 

Green Lighting Campaign also argued 

that DOE should place restrictions on 

the CRI of covered GSFL because CRI 

can be used to enhance a lamp’s visual 

acuity, thereby enabling substitution of 

lower-wattage lamps in a given lamp 

application without sacrificing utility. 

Therefore, the commenter argued that 

CRI affects energy efficiency and that 

DOE should screen out lamps with a 

CRI below 80. (Green Lighting 

Campaign, No. 74 at p. 2, 4) 

Furthermore, Earthjustice stated that 

the relevant discussion in the preamble 

of DOE’s April 2009 NOPR did not 

clarify whether DOE believes that 

amendment of the CRI standards is 

foreclosed by EPCA’s plain language 

(which Earthjustice disputed for the 

reasons above), or that is DOE’s 

interpretation of an ‘‘allegedly 

ambiguous provision’’ (which 

Earthjustice asserted would be arbitrary 

and capricious). Earthjustice also 

commented that DOE’s rationale on this 

point in the April 2009 NOPR 

explanation cannot be reconciled with 

the purposes of the statute and the 

intent of Congress, which enacted EPCA 

to ‘‘conserve energy supplies through 

energy conservation programs’’ and 

‘‘provide for improved energy efficiency 

of * * * consumer products.’’ 42 U.S.C. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34095 

8 ‘‘Uniform Test Method for Measuring Average 

Lamp Efficiency (LE) and Color Rendering Index 

(CRI) of Electric Lamps.’’ 

9Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures 

for General Service Fluorescent Lamps, 

Incandescent Reflector Lamps, and General Service 

Incandescent Lamps; Docket No. EERE–2007–BT– 

TP–0013; RIN number 1904–AB72. 

6201(4) and (5). Finally, Earthjustice 

argued that DOE must consider 

amending EPCA’s CRI standards if an 

efficacy-only standard is not sufficient 

to capture all technologically feasible 

and economically justified energy 

savings. (Earthjustice, No. 60 at pp. 3– 

4) 

In response, DOE disagrees with the 

Green Lighting Campaign and 

Earthjustice’s interpretation of the 

relevant statutory language. Despite the 

overarching energy-savings purposes of 

EPCA, Congress promulgated a highly 

detailed statute (both initially and 

through subsequent amendments) with 

numerous provisions specifying (or 

restricting) DOE’s authority. In general, 

Congress did not provide DOE 

unfettered discretion to set standards, 

but instead established detailed criteria, 

definitions, and other limitations on 

DOE’s authority. Consequently, when 

DOE faces specific provisions which 

limit its authority, it seems clear that 

Congress did not intend the general 

energy-savings provisions of EPCA to 

override such limitations. Instead, DOE 

interprets its mandate as to maximize 

energy savings within the confines of its 

statutory authority. With that said, DOE 

continues to believe that it does not 

have the authority to regulate CRI 

standards for the reasons discussed in 

the NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 16933 (April 

13, 2009). That is, the language in the 

statute does not provide DOE with the 

authority to amend the CRI standard 

because it is not an energy performance 

standard. In implementing the amended 

standards rulemaking required under 42 

U.S.C. 6295(i)(3), DOE must abide by 

the criteria for prescribing new or 

amended standards set forth in 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o). In relevant part, 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) provides that any 

new or amended ‘‘energy conservation 

standard’’ must be designed to achieve 

the maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. 

More specifically, as discussed in the 

NOPR, according to 42 U.S.C. 6291(6), 

‘‘energy conservation standard’’ means 

either: (1) A performance standard 

which prescribes a minimum level of 

energy efficiency or a maximum 

quantity of energy use; or (2) a design 

requirement (only for specifically 

enumerated products). Although CRI is 

a performance requirement, it is not an 

energy performance requirement within 

the meaning of the term ‘‘energy 

conservation standard.’’ Because, in the 

case of GSFL, DOE has the authority to 

regulate only energy conservation 

standards (i.e., energy performance 

requirements), DOE is not amending the 

existing minimum CRI requirements in 

this final rule. 

Even if DOE did have authority to 

amend the minimum CRI requirements, 

DOE does not believe any modification 

would have impacted the potential 

energy savings of this final rule. CRI 

does not affect energy consumption or 

efficacy and, therefore, would not affect 

any of the results of DOE’s analysis that 

are summarized in section VII. 

IV. General Discussion 

A. Test Procedures 

DOE’s test procedures for fluorescent 

and incandescent lamps are set forth at 

10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix 

R.8 These test procedures provide 

detailed instructions for measuring 

GSFL and IRL performance, as well as 

performance attributes of GSIL, largely 

by incorporating several industry 

standards. As explained in the April 

2009 NOPR (74 FR 16920, 16933 (April 

13, 2009)), DOE published a test 

procedure NOPR that proposed to 

update the current test procedure’s 

references to industry standards for 

fluorescent and incandescent lamps, as 

well as to propose adoption of test 

procedure amendments to address 

lamps to which coverage was extended 

by EISA 2007 or to which DOE was 

considering extending coverage through 

rulemaking. 73 FR 13465, 13467–68 

(March 13, 2008)(the test procedure 

NOPR). The test procedure NOPR also 

proposed the following: (1) A small 

number of definitional and procedural 

modifications to the test procedure to 

accommodate technological migrations 

in the GSFL market and approaches 

DOE has considered in this standards 

rulemaking; (2) revision of the reporting 

requirements for GSFL, such that all 

covered lamp efficacies would be 

reported with an accuracy to the tenths 

decimal place; and (3) adoption of a 

testing and calculation method for 

measuring the CCT of fluorescent and 

incandescent lamps. Id. at 13472–74. 

The March 2008 ANOPR also contains 

a detailed discussion of these proposals 

and related matters. 73 FR 13620, 

13627–28 (March 13, 2008). 

In response to the test procedure 

NOPR, NEMA commented that it 

strongly opposed establishing test 

procedures for lamps to which coverage 

has not yet been extended by the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking. 

NEMA was concerned that specifying 

mandatory test conditions prior to 

inclusion of coverage would 

inadvertently prevent new, highefficient lamp designs from entering the 

market. (NEMA, No. 25 at p. 6–8) 9 In 

response, in the June 2009 test 

procedure Final Rule previously 

published (hereafter the test procedure 

Final Rule)), DOE agreed with NEMA’s 

suggestion and proceeded to finalize all 

other aspects of the lamps test 

procedure amendments but deferred 

consideration of test procedures for 

potentially new covered products until 

DOE establishes, by final rule, the lamps 

to which it is extending energy 

conservation standards coverage. 

Therefore, today’s final rule 

simultaneously adopts both energy 

conservation standards and test 

procedures for these ‘‘additional’’ GSFL. 

In setting test procedures for these 

additional GSFL, DOE is also 

responding to the public comments on 

that topic submitted in response to the 

March 2008 test procedure NOPR, as 

discussed below. 

As discussed in section III.A, DOE has 

decided to adopted standards for the 

following additional GSFL: (1) 2-foot Ushaped; (2) 4-foot MBP; (3) 8-foot SP 

slimline; (4) 8-foot RDC HO; (5) 4-foot 

MiniBP SO; and (6) 4-foot MiniBP HO 

lamps. For the additional 2-foot Ushaped and 4-foot MBP lamps, 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart B, appendix R already 

contains adequate test procedures 

(either through existing test procedures 

or those newly adopted in the test 

procedure final rule). Therefore, in this 

final rule, DOE is not adopting new test 

procedures for those lamps. However, 

for the added 8-foot SP slimline, 8-foot 

RDC HO, 4-foot MiniBP SO, and 4-foot 

MiniBP HO lamps, DOE has determined 

that several new provisions need to be 

added to the existing test procedures for 

GSFL. 

These provisions pertain to the 

adoption of reference ballast settings for 

lamps not listed in ANSI C78.81–2005 

nor in ANSI C78.901–2005, as proposed 

in the test procedure NOPR. In response 

to that test procedure proposal, NEMA 

stated that instituting generic test 

conditions, particularly reference ballast 

settings, without knowing the specific 

GSFL to which the conditions may 

apply could have unexpected 

consequences. In particular, NEMA 

argued that such test procedures could 

constrain innovation by affecting the 

introduction of new lamps into the 

market. NEMA also committed to 

developing standardized test conditions 

that DOE could consider for several 

covered lamp types for which no test 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34096 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

10Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures 

for General Service Fluorescent Lamps, 

Incandescent Reflector Lamps, and General Service 

Incandescent Lamps; Docket No. EERE–2007–BT– 

TP–0013; RIN number 1904–AB72. 

11 DOE notes that it did not eliminate higherefficiency fill gases from further consideration as a 

technology under the screening analysis, because 

that technology may be appropriate for low-wattage 

lamp applications. 

conditions currently exist. (NEMA, No. 

25 at p. 6–8) 10

DOE does not agree that imposing test 

conditions for future covered products 

would limit innovation in the lighting 

industry. DOE maintains a test 

procedure waiver process specifically 

for this reason. Under 10 CFR 430.27, 

DOE’s regulations state, ‘‘Any interested 

person may submit a petition to waive 

for a particular basic model any 

requirements of § 430.23, or of any 

appendix to this subpart, upon the 

grounds that the basic model contains 

one or more design characteristics 

which either prevent testing of the basic 

model according to the prescribed test 

procedures, or the prescribed test 

procedures may evaluate the basic 

model in a manner so unrepresentative 

of its true energy consumption 

characteristics, or water consumption 

characteristics (in the case of faucets, 

showerheads, water closets, and urinals) 

as to provide materially inaccurate 

comparative data.’’ (10 CFR 

430.27(a)(1)) This waiver process exists 

to avoid constraining innovation in the 

industry. Thus, DOE believes it is not 

preventing the introduction of future 

products into the market by specifying 

generic test conditions in this final rule. 

While DOE appreciates NEMA’s offer 

to develop additional standardized test 

procedure provisions, the organization 

did not set a timeframe for developing 

the new test conditions, and DOE 

believes that this final rule needs to 

establish test conditions for all lamps 

subject to energy conservation 

standards. In addition, DOE believes 

that the test conditions set forth in the 

March 2008 NOPR are appropriate for 

most commercially-available lamps. 

DOE arrived at the ballast settings for 

these lamps by determining the 

appropriate lamp replacement that 

exists in the relevant industry standard 

and using the corresponding reference 

ballast settings for all lamps that fall 

into that category. However, if NEMA 

supplies test conditions for industry 

standards, DOE will consider 

incorporating them into its test 

procedure regulations in a subsequent 

rulemaking. 

Thus, in this final rule, DOE is 

adopting the following reference ballast 

settings for those additional GSFL for 

which it is setting standards, as 

proposed in the test procedure NOPR: 

For any 8-foot SP slimline lamp not 

listed in the updated ANSI C78.81– 

2005, the lamp should be tested using 

the following reference ballast settings: 

T12 lamps: 625 volts, 0.425 amps, and 

1280 ohms. 

T8 lamps: 625 volts, 0.260 amps, and 

1960 ohms. 

For any 8-foot RDC HO lamp not 

listed in the updated ANSI C78.81– 

2005, the lamp should be tested using 

the following reference ballast settings: 

T12 lamps: 400 volts, 0.800 amps, and 

415 ohms. & 

T8 lamps: 450 volts, 0.395 amps, and 

595 ohms. 

For any 4-foot MiniBP standard 

output or high output lamp that is not 

listed in ANSI C78.81–2005, the lamp 

should be tested using the following 

reference ballast settings: 

Standard Output: 329 volts, 0.170 amps, 

and 950 ohms. 

High Output: 235 volts, 0.460 amps, and 

255 ohms. 

B. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

As stated above, any standards that 

DOE establishes for GSFL and IRL must 

be technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A) and (o)(3)(B)) DOE 

considers a design option to be 

technologically feasible if it is in use by 

the respective industry or if research has 

progressed to the development of a 

working prototype. ‘‘Technologies 

incorporated in commercial products or 

in working prototypes will be 

considered technologically feasible.’’ 10 

CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 

section 4(a)(4)(i). 

This final rule considers the same 

design options as those evaluated in the 

April 2009 NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 16933– 

34 (April 13, 2009) As discussed in 

section VI.B.2.c, DOE additionally 

considers integrally-ballasted low 

voltage IRL as a design option to 

improve IRL efficacy. (See the final rule 

TSD accompanying this notice, chapter 

3.) Except for trial standard level (TSL) 

1 for IRL, products are commercially 

available in the market at all of the TSLs 

evaluated for today’s rule. As to TSL1 

for IRL, DOE used a design option (i.e., 

higher-efficiency gas fills) to model the 

performance of lamps that would meet 

this TSL, and received input from 

manufacturers to verify that such a 

design option is technologically 

feasible. Therefore, DOE determined 

that all of the efficacy levels evaluated 

in this notice are technologically 

feasible. 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

As required under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(1), in developing the April 2009 

NOPR, DOE identified the efficacy 

levels that would achieve the maximum 

improvements in energy efficiency that 

are technologically feasible (max-tech 

levels) for GSFL and IRL. 74 FR 16920, 

16933–35 (April 13, 2009). (See chapter 

5 of the TSD) 

For GSFL, DOE considered five TSLs 

in the April 2009 NOPR, with TSL5 

being the most stringent level for which 

DOE performed full analyses. 74 FR 

16920, 16979–82 (April 13, 2009). It is 

noted that DOE also considered the 

potential for a standard level beyond 

TSL5 that would require GSFL to use a 

higher-efficiency gas fill composition, 

which would have been the maximum 

technologically feasible level. Although 

more-efficient fill gases (often including 

higher molecular weight gases) are 

appropriate for and are currently used 

in some lamp applications, DOE is also 

aware employing this technology can 

cause lamp instability resulting in 

striations or flickering in some 

circumstances. DOE’s research indicated 

that a potential standard level that 

would require the use of higherefficiency fill gases would significantly 

reduce (or in some cases eliminate) the 

utility and performance of the covered 

GSFL, DOE concluded on this basis that 

a level with such an adverse impact on 

product utility would not be 

economically justified.11 (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) and (3)(B)) Having 

made this determination, there was no 

need or benefits to performing 

additional analyses relevant to the other 

statutory criteria. (See section I.A.2 for 

additional detail.) Consequently, TSL5 

represents the most-efficient level 

analyzed for GSFL. 

For IRL, as explained in the April 

2009 NOPR, DOE believes that the 

maximum technologically feasible 

efficacy level incorporates the highestefficiency technologically feasible 

reflector, halogen infrared coating, and 

filament design. Id. Combining all three 

of these high-efficiency technologies 

simultaneously results in the maximum 

technologically feasible level. However, 

this level is dependent on the use of a 

silver reflector, which is a proprietary 

technology. Because DOE is unaware of 

any alternate technology pathways to 

achieve this efficacy level, DOE did not 

consider it in its analysis. 

Instead, in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

based the highest efficacy level analyzed 

for IRL on a commercially-available IRL 

which employs a silver reflector, an 

improved (but not most efficient) IR 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34097 

coating, and a filament design that 

results in a lifetime of 4,200 hours. 

Although this commercially-available 

lamp uses silver technology, DOE 

believes that there are alternate 

pathways to achieve this level. A 

combination of redesigning the filament 

to achieve higher temperature operation 

(and thus reducing lifetime to 3,000 

hours), employing other non-proprietary 

high-efficiency reflectors, and applying 

a higher-efficiency IR coating has the 

potential to result in an IRL that meets 

an equivalent efficacy level (for more 

information regarding these 

technologies, see chapter 3 of the TSD). 

Therefore, in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

concluded that TSL5 is the maximum 

technologically feasible level for IRL 

that is not dependent on the use of a 

proprietary technology. Id. 

In response to the April 2009 NOPR, 

DOE received several comments on the 

efficiency levels analyzed and the 

maximum technologically feasible 

levels. For further discussion of these 

comments see section VI.B. For today’s 

final rule, the max-tech levels are 

provided in Table IV.1 and Table IV.2 

below. 

TABLE IV.1—MAX-TECH LEVELS FOR GSFL 

Lamp type CCT 

Max-tech 

efficacy 

lm/W 

4-foot medium bipin .................................................................... ≤4,500K ...................................................................................... 93 

>4,500K and ≤7,000K ................................................................ 92 

2-foot U-shaped .......................................................................... ≤4,500K ...................................................................................... 87 

>4,500K and ≤7,000K ................................................................ 85 

8-foot single pin slimline ............................................................. ≤4,500K ...................................................................................... 98 

>4,500K and ≤7,000K ................................................................ 94 

8-foot recessed double contact HO ............................................ ≤4,500K ...................................................................................... 95 

>4,500K and ≤7,000K ................................................................ 91 

4-foot T5 miniature bipin SO ...................................................... ≤4,500K ...................................................................................... 90 

>4,500K and ≤7,000K ................................................................ 85 

4-foot T5 miniature bipin HO ...................................................... ≤4,500K ...................................................................................... 76 

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

TABLE IV.2—MAX-TECH LEVELS FOR IRL 

Lamp wattage Lamp type Diameter 

(in inches) Voltage 

Max-tech 

efficacy 

lm/W 

40W–205W ..................................................... Standard–spectrum ........................................ >2.5 ≥125V 

<125V 

7.4P0.27

6.4P0.27

≤2.5 ≥125V 6.2P0.27

<125V 5.4P0.27

40W–205W ..................................................... Modified-spectrum .......................................... >2.5 ≥125V 

<125V 

6.3P0.27

5.4P0.27

≤2.5 ≥125V 5.3P0.27

<125V 4.6P0.27

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. 

C. Energy Savings 

DOE forecasted energy savings in its 

national impact analysis (NIA) through 

the use of an NIA spreadsheet tool, as 

discussed in the April 2009 NOPR. 74 

FR 16920, 16935, 16958–72 (April 13, 

2009). 

One of the criteria that governs DOE’s 

adoption of standards for covered 

products is that the standard must result 

in ‘‘significant conservation of energy.’’ 

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

does not define the term ‘‘significant,’’ 

a U.S. Court of Appeals, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. 

Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. 

Cir. 1985), indicated that Congress 

intended ‘‘significant’’ energy savings in 

this context to be savings that were not 

‘‘genuinely trivial.’’ DOE’s estimates of 

the energy savings for energy 

conservation standards at each of the 

TSLs considered for GSFL and IRL for 

today’s rule indicate that the energy 

savings each would achieve are 

nontrivial. Therefore, DOE considers 

these savings ‘‘significant’’ within the 

meaning of Section 325 of EPCA. 

D. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

As noted earlier, EPCA provides 

seven factors to evaluate in determining 

whether an energy conservation 

standard for covered products 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 evaluating 

efficiency standards for GSFL and IRL. 

a. Economic Impact on Consumers and 

Manufacturers 

DOE considered the economic impact 

of potential standards on consumers and 

manufacturers of GSFL and IRL. For 

consumers, DOE measured the 

economic impact on consumers as the 

change in installed cost and life-cycle 

operating costs (i.e., the LCC). (See 

sections V.C and VII.C.1.a, and chapter 

8 of the TSD accompanying this notice.) 

DOE investigated the impacts on 

manufacturers through the manufacturer 

impact analysis (MIA). (See section 

VII.C.2, and chapter 13 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice.) The MIA is 

discussed in detail in the April 2009 

NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 16972–77 (April 

13, 2009). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34098 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

b. Life-Cycle Costs 

DOE considered life-cycle costs of 

GSFL and IRL, as discussed in the April 

2009 NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 16950–58 

(April 13, 2009). DOE calculated the 

sum of the purchase price and the 

operating expense—discounted over the 

lifetime of the equipment—to estimate 

the range in LCC benefits that 

consumers would expect to achieve due 

to standards. 

c. Energy Savings 

Although significant conservation of 

energy is a separate statutory 

requirement for adopting an energy 

conservation standard, EPCA also 

requires DOE, in determining the 

economic justification of a proposed 

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 in the 

April 2009 NOPR (74 FR 16920, 16936 

(April 13, 2009)), for today’s final rule 

DOE used the NIA spreadsheet results 

in its consideration of total projected 

savings that are directly attributable to 

the standard levels DOE considered. 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

In considering standard levels, DOE 

sought to avoid new standards for GSFL 

and IRL that would lessen the utility or 

performance of such products. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)); 74 FR 

16920, 16936 (April 13, 2009)). 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

DOE considers any lessening of 

competition that is likely to result from 

standards. Accordingly, as discussed in 

the April 2009 NOPR (74 FR 16920, 

16936 (April 13, 2009)) and as required 

under EPCA, DOE requested that the 

Attorney General transmit to the 

Secretary a written determination of the 

impact, if any, of any lessening of 

competition likely to result from the 

standards proposed in the April 2009 

NOPR, together with an analysis of the 

nature and extent of such impact. (42 

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

Note also that the National Impact 

Analysis does not consider the 

possibility of lessened competition 

effects, and so, depending on their 

magnitude, such effects may negatively 

impact the Net Present Value of the 

standards. 

To assist the Attorney General in 

making such a determination, DOE 

provided the Department of Justice 

(DOJ) with copies of the April 2009 

NOPR and the TSD for review. The 

Attorney General’s response is 

discussed in section VII.C.5 below, and 

is reprinted at the end of this rule. For 

IRLs, DOJ concluded that the proposed 

TSL 4 could adversely affect 

competition. DOJ requested that DOE 

consider the possibility of new 

technology for IRLs as it settles on 

standards in this field (DOJ, No. 77 at 

pp. 1–2). Although DOJ did not evaluate 

the impacts on competition of TSL 4 for 

GSFL, DOE believes that TSL 4 does not 

raise competitive issues. 

f. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy 

In considering standards for GSFL 

and IRL, the Secretary must consider the 

need of the Nation to conserve energy. 

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

Secretary recognizes that energy 

conservation benefits the Nation in 

several important ways. The nonmonetary benefits of standards are likely 

to be reflected in improvements to the 

security and reliability of the Nation’s 

energy system. As discussed in the 

April 2009 NOPR and in section VII.C.6 

of this final rule, DOE has considered 

these factors in considering whether to 

adopt standards for GSFL and IRL. 74 

FR 16920, 16936 (April 13, 2009). 

g. Other Factors 

The Secretary of Energy, in 

determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, considers any 

other factors that the Secretary deems to 

be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) In adopting today’s 

standards, the Secretary considered the 

potential for GSFL and IRL standards to 

adversely affect low-income consumers, 

institutions of religious worship, 

historical facilities, institutions that 

serve low-income populations, and 

consumers of T12 electronic ballasts. In 

considering these subgroups, DOE 

analyzed variations on electricity prices, 

operating hours, discount rates, and 

baseline lamps. 74 FR 16920, 16936 

(April 13, 2009). The impact on these 

subgroups is summarized in section 

VII.C.1.b. 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

Section 325(o)(2)(B)(iii) of EPCA 

states that there is a rebuttable 

presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified if the increased installed 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, as calculated under the 

applicable DOE test procedure. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) DOE’s LCC and 

payback period (PBP) analyses generate 

values that calculate the payback period 

for consumers of potential energy 

conservation standards, which includes, 

but is not limited to, the three-year 

payback period contemplated under the 

rebuttable presumption test discussed 

above. However, DOE routinely 

conducts a full economic analysis that 

considers the full range of impacts, 

including those to the consumer, 

manufacturer, Nation, and environment, 

as required under 42 U.S.C. 

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

analysis serve as the basis for DOE to 

definitively evaluate the economic 

justification for a potential standard 

level (thereby supporting or rebutting 

the results of any preliminary 

determination of economic 

justification). 

V. Methodology and Discussion of 

Comments on Methodology 

DOE used several analytical tools that 

it developed previously and adapted for 

use in this rulemaking. One is a 

spreadsheet that calculates LCC and 

PBP. Another tool calculates national 

energy savings and national NPV that 

would result from the adoption of 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

also used the Government Regulatory 

Impact Model (GRIM), along with other 

methods, in its MIA to determine the 

impacts of standards on manufacturers 

in light of other cumulative regulatory 

requirements. Finally, DOE developed 

an approach using the National Energy 

Modeling System (NEMS) to estimate 

impacts of standards for GSFL and IRL 

on utilities and the environment. The 

April 2009 NOPR discusses each of 

these analytical tools in detail. 74 FR 

16920, 16958, 16972, 16978–79, 16982 

(April 13, 2009). 

As a basis for this final rule, DOE has 

continued to use the spreadsheets and 

approaches explained in the April 2009 

NOPR. DOE used the same general 

methodology as applied in the NOPR, 

but revised some of the assumptions 

and inputs for the final rule in response 

to public comments. The following 

paragraphs discuss these revisions. 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

When beginning an energy 

conservation standards rulemaking, 

DOE develops information that provides 

an overall picture of the market for the 

products concerned, including the 

purpose of the products, the industry 

structure, and market characteristics. 

This activity includes both quantitative 

and qualitative assessments based 

primarily on publicly available 

information. DOE presented various 

subjects in the market and technology 

assessment for this rulemaking. (See 

chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD.) These 

include product definitions, product 

classes, manufacturers, quantities and 

types of products sold and offered for 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34099 

sale, retail market trends, and regulatory 

and nonregulatory programs. As 

discussed below, commenters raised a 

variety of issues related to the market 

and technology assessment, to which 

DOE responds in the following sections. 

1. Product Classes 

In general, in evaluating and 

establishing energy conservation 

standards, DOE divides covered 

products into classes by the type of 

energy used, capacity, or other 

performance-related features that affect 

efficiency, and factors such as the utility 

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

6295(q)) 

a. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to establish product classes for 

GSFL based on the following three 

attributes that have differential utility 

and affect efficacy: (1) Physical 

constraints of lamps (i.e., lamp shape 

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

standard versus high output); and (3) 

correlated color temperature. 74 FR 

16920, 16936 (April 13, 2009). Based on 

these criteria, DOE proposed to separate 

coverage into six lamp types: (1) 4-foot 

medium bipin; (2) 2-foot U-shaped; (3) 

8-foot single pin slimline; (4) 8-foot 

recessed double contact high output; (5) 

4-foot miniature bipin T5 standard 

output; and (6) 4-foot miniature bipin 

T5 high output. DOE also proposed to 

establish separate product classes for 

those lamps with CCT less than or equal 

to 4,500 kelvin (K) and lamps with CCT 

greater than 4,500 K. In total, therefore, 

DOE proposed 12 product classes for 

GSFL. In general stakeholders expressed 

overall agreement with the GSFL 

product class structure proposed in the 

April 2009 NOPR. However, DOE did 

receive several comments requesting 

additional product classes for specific 

lamps or lamp types, as discussed 

below. 

i. Modified-Spectrum Fluorescent 

Lamps 

In response to the April 2009 NOPR, 

GE commented that it is currently 

researching and developing a 4-foot 

MBP modified-spectrum fluorescent 

lamp that imitates the color quality of 

modified-spectrum incandescent 

lighting. Although not yet 

commercially-available, GE expects to 

release such a product before 2012, the 

effective date of the energy conservation 

standard that is being established by 

this final rule. Expecting that these 

lamps may not be able to meet 

minimum efficacy requirements as 

amended by this rulemaking, GE 

recommended that DOE either set 

separate lower efficacy standards for 

‘‘modified-spectrum fluorescent lamps’’ 

or exempt these lamps from standards 

altogether. (GE, No. 80 at pp. 3–6) 

In response, DOE believes that it does 

not have the authority to exempt 

modified spectrum fluorescent lamps 

from standards. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(1), DOE cannot prescribe an 

amended standard which ‘‘decreases the 

minimum required energy efficiency, of 

a covered product.’’ Although no such 

product currently exists, DOE notes that 

if they did, modified-spectrum 

fluorescent lamps fall under the 

definition of ‘‘general service 

fluorescent lamp,’’ so they would 

already be subject to the statutory 

minimum efficacy requirements. 

Therefore, if DOE were to exempt these 

lamps from any standards, this would 

constitute backsliding from the 

minimum efficacy requirements, which 

is impermissible, as noted above. 

With regard to setting lower minimum 

efficacy requirements for modifiedspectrum fluorescent lamps, DOE 

generally sets separate efficiency 

standards for products deemed to be in 

separate product classes. While these 

lamps may in the future provide a 

distinct utility to consumers (a basis on 

which product classes may be 

established under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)), at 

this time, DOE has no evidence that this 

utility in fact exists or is even required 

of the general service fluorescent 

market, because there is no such 

product yet developed. Therefore, in 

this final rule, DOE is not establishing 

a separate product class for modifiedspectrum fluorescent lamps. However, 

DOE notes that if the company 

successfully develops its modifiedspectrum fluorescent lamp and believes 

that it warrants exemption from DOE’s 

amended standards, it may be possible 

for GE to seek exception relief from 

DOE’s Office of Hearings and Appeals 

(OHA) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 1003. 

i. 25 Watt 4-Foot MBP Lamps 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

established one product class for 4-foot 

MBP lamps (of a single CCT category) 

that spanned the full range of covered 

lamp wattages (i.e., greater than or equal 

to 25W). The effects of doing this were 

such that at TSL5, as considered in the 

NOPR, the 25W 4-foot MBP T8 lamp 

was expected to be eliminated from the 

market, as it would not meet the 

minimum efficacy requirements. In 

response to the April 2009 NORP, the 

California Stakeholders and ACEEE 

suggested DOE should establish a 

separate product class for the 25W 4- 

foot T8 MBP because it represents a 

significant energy-savings opportunity. 

While DOE recognizes that the 

availability of the 25W 4-foot T8 MBP 

lamp provides additional energy savings 

opportunities to consumers, DOE does 

not believe that this alone is a basis to 

establish a separate product class for 

this lamp. As noted above, DOE 

establishes product classes only when a 

product type either: (1) Consumes a 

different type of energy, or (2) has a 

capacity or other performance-related 

feature which justifies a higher or lower 

standard level. In making such a 

determination, DOE considers whether 

there is a differential utility which 

affects efficacy. To DOE’s knowledge, 

the 25W 4-foot MBP lamp does not 

provide any additional utility over that 

which its 32W full-wattage counterpart 

provides. Therefore, DOE has not 

established a different product classes 

for 25W lamps. 

ii. Summary of GSFL Product Classes 

Because DOE received no other 

comments on the GSFL product classes 

proposed in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

is not making any changes in this final 

rule related to GSFL product classes. 

Table V.1 summarizes the GSFL product 

classes for this final rule. 

TABLE V.1—FINAL RULE PRODUCT

CLASSES FOR GSFL 

Lamp type CCT 

4-Foot Medium Bipin ................ ≤4500 K 

>4500 K 

2-Foot U-Shaped ...................... ≤4500 K 

>4500 K 

8-Foot Single Pin Slimline ........ ≤4500 K 

>4500 K 

8-Foot RDC HO ........................ ≤4500 K 

>4500 K 

4-Foot Miniature Bipin SO ........ ≤4500 K 

>4500 K 

4-Foot Miniature Bipin HO ........ ≤4500 K 

>4500 K 

b. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

For incandescent reflector lamps, in 

the April 2009 NOPR, DOE proposed to 

base its product class structure on: (1) 

Lamp spectrum (modified versus 

standard spectrum); (2) lamp diameter 

(greater than 2.5 inches or less than or 

equal to 2.5 inches); and (3) rated 

voltage (less than 125V or greater than 

or equal to 125V). DOE received several 

comments on these product classes. The 

following sections summarize and 

address those public comments. 

i. Modified-Spectrum Lamps 

Modified-spectrum lamps provide a 

unique performance-related feature to 

consumers, in that they offer a different 

spectrum of light from the typical 

incandescent lamp. These lamps offer 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34100 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

benefits such as ensuring better color 

discrimination and often appearing 

more similar to natural daylight, 

possibly resulting in psychological 

benefits. In addition to providing a 

unique performance feature, DOE also 

understands that the technologies that 

modify the spectral emission from these 

lamps also decrease their efficacy, 

because a portion of the light emission 

is absorbed by the coating. Therefore, in 

the April 2009 NOPR, DOE proposed to 

establish a separate product class for 

modified-spectrum lamps based on their 

unique performance feature and the 

impact of this performance feature on 

product efficacy. 74 FR 16920, 16938– 

39 (April 13, 2009). 

NEMA supported DOE’s proposal for 

separate product classes based on 

modified spectrum. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 60; NEMA, No. 

81 at p. 12) Conversely, ASAP, ACEEE, 

and the California Stakeholders 

commented that separate product 

classes based on spectrum are 

unnecessary because existing 

technologies such as LEDs and 

phosphor-based lamps (e.g., CFLs) can 

deliver the same utility to consumers 

that modified-spectrum IRL offer. ASAP 

stated that DOE should evaluate the 

unique utility of a product rather than 

the technology providing it. (ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4, at 

pp. 68–69; California Stakeholders, No. 

63 at pp. 2, 25) 

In response, DOE agrees that other 

technologies could produce modified 

spectrum light. However, DOE reiterates 

the point it made in the NOPR that the 

governing statutory provision directs 

DOE to maintain performance-related 

features for a covered product type. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) If DOE were to 

regulate modified-spectrum lamps 

within the same product class as 

standard-spectrum lamps, this could 

result in an energy conservation 

standard that would eliminate the 

modified-spectrum utility from the IRL 

market. Furthermore, DOE believes 

some consumers may find a unique 

utility in modified-spectrum IRL that 

does not exist in CFL or LED lamps that 

emit modified spectra. For example, 

modified-spectrum IRL have a higher 

CRI than many of their potential 

substitutes (e.g., CFL), thereby providing 

a different, and in some cases a 

preferable, quality of light. In addition, 

DOE cannot confirm that a full range of 

lumen outputs are currently 

commercially available from LED 

reflector lamps. This could potentially 

eliminate the modified spectrum utility 

for some consumers requiring specific 

lumen packages (e.g., high-lumen 

lamps). 

PG&E, NRDC, ASAP, and the 

California Stakeholders also commented 

that no efficacy allowance is necessary 

for modified-spectrum lamps for two 

main reasons. First, they argued that 

incandescent reflector technology that 

results in modified-spectrum efficacies 

greater that the highest standardspectrum standard level (TSL5) already 

exists. They demonstrated these 

efficacies in prototypes utilizing 

advanced IR coatings and silver 

reflectors. Second, the stakeholders 

argued that there are other means 

(beyond the use of absorptive elements 

within the glass cover) to produce 

modified-spectrum lamps. They 

suggested that reflective coatings, 

similar to the infrared ones that already 

exist, could, in principle, be used to 

create a modified spectrum in a much 

more efficient way. (California 

Stakeholders, No. 63 at pp. 2, 25; PG&E, 

NRDC, ASAP, No. 59 at p. 15–16; 

NRDC, No. 82 at pp. 2, 4) 

DOE reiterates that it establishes 

product classes based on whether a 

given product has unique performance 

features that affect the efficacy of the 

product, not on whether it is 

technologically feasible for the product 

to meet another product class’s efficacy 

levels. Therefore, the absolute efficacy 

of a given modified-spectrum IRL does 

not play a role in whether DOE should 

or should not establish a distinct 

product class. Then once it is 

determined that a separate class is 

appropriate under the statute, an 

appropriate level is set based upon 

examination of lamps within that class, 

rather than a comparison to different 

types of lamps. What is relevant is 

whether there is a change in efficacy 

that is caused by a unique performance 

feature. DOE maintains that at this time 

modified spectrum IRL cannot achieve 

an equivalent maximum technologically 

feasible level as standard-spectrum IRL. 

To this point, the stakeholders 

themselves acknowledge in their 

comments that lenses used to modify 

the spectrum of IRL result in at least a 

10 percent decrease in efficacy as 

compared to standard-spectrum lamps. 

(PG&E, NRDC, ASAP, No. 59 at p. 2) 

Although the stakeholders have 

demonstrated that modified-spectrum 

IRL might potentially be able to achieve 

efficacies exceeding that of the highest 

efficacy level analyzed for standardspectrum lamps, DOE believes that there 

is considerable uncertainty surrounding 

the efficacies of the prototypes 

provided. Therefore, DOE is not 

establishing minimum efficacy 

requirements based solely on these 

prototype efficacies. DOE further 

addresses its consideration of these 

prototype efficacies in section VI.B.2. 

On the stakeholders’ second point, 

DOE agrees that, in principle, there may 

be other means of producing modifiedspectrum lamps. However, at present, 

DOE is unaware of any commerciallyavailable IRL or working IRL prototype 

using the alternative methods suggested 

by stakeholders. For all of the above 

reasons, DOE has decided to establish a 

separate product class for modifiedspectrum incandescent reflector lamps. 

Also related to modified-spectrum 

IRL, Tailored Lighting, a specialty 

lighting company, commented that it 

produces specialty lamps that alter the 

spectrum, differently than modifiedspectrum lamps, which the commenter 

claims better simulates daylight. Due to 

the different spectra of light that are 

filtered in Tailored Lighting’s lamps 

relative to modified-spectrum lamps, 

Tailored Lighting argued that their 

product would not qualify under the 

statutory definition of ‘‘modified 

spectrum.’’ Therefore, Tailored Lighting 

recommended that DOE should either 

specifically exempt their product from 

regulation or amend the definition of 

‘‘modified spectrum’’ so as to include 

their products, thereby allowing them to 

have reduced minimum efficacy 

requirements. (Tailored Lighting, No. 73 

at p. 11) Eiko Ltd, a manufacturer of 

Tailored Lighting’s products supported 

the same amendments to the definition 

of ‘‘modified spectrum.’’ (Eiko, No. 79 at 

p. 1) 

While DOE acknowledges that many 

of Tailored Lighting’s products may not 

fall under the definition of ‘‘modified 

spectrum,’’ DOE notes that ‘‘modified 

spectrum’’ is a statutory definition, 

defined by EISA 2007 for incandescent 

lamps, which includes both general 

service incandescent lamps and 

incandescent reflector lamps. (42 U.S.C. 

6291(30)(W); 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(F)) 

Therefore, DOE lacks the authority to 

amend the definition of ‘‘modified 

spectrum.’’ In addition, adopting 

Tailored Lighting’s recommended 

amendment would not only affect 

minimum efficacy requirements for IRL, 

but would also result in an amendment 

to the general service incandescent lamp 

standards prescribed by Congress. For 

these reasons, DOE is leaving the 

definition of ‘‘modified spectrum’’ 

unchanged from that presented in the 

April 2009 NOPR. 

In addition, DOE notes that according 

to the comment, even though Tailored 

Lighting also sells 12-volt MR–16 lamps 

with these special daylight qualities, 

these lamps do not fall under the 

definition of ‘‘incandescent reflector 

lamp.’’ Tailored Lighting requested an 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34101 

exemption (or lowered minimum 

efficacy requirement) for its forthcoming 

PAR lamp, that would fall under the 

definition of ‘‘incandescent reflector 

lamp’’ and is currently under 

development. (Tailored Lighting, No. 73 

at p. 4)) However, according to 

interviews and Tailored Lighting’s Web 

site, this lamp is not yet for sale. 

In response, DOE generally sets 

separate efficiency standards for 

products deemed to be in separate 

product classes. While PAR-shaped 

Tailor Lighting lamps may in the future 

provide a distinct utility to consumers 

(a basis on which product classes are 

established), at this time, because there 

is no product yet developed, DOE has 

no evidence that this utility in fact 

exists or is even required of the 

incandescent reflector lamp (or PARshaped) market. Therefore, in this final 

rule, DOE is not establishing a separate 

product class for Tailored Lighting’s 

products. However, DOE notes that if 

Tailored Lighting successfully develops 

its PAR lamp and believes that it 

warrants exemption from DOE’s 

amended standards, it may be possible 

for Tailored Lighting to seek exception 

relief from DOE’s OHA pursuant to 10 

CFR Part 1003. 

ii. Lamp Diameter 

As mentioned above, DOE also 

proposed separate product classes for 

smaller-diameter lamps (i.e., lamps with 

a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 

inches). Such lamps provide a distinct 

utility (such as the ability to be installed 

in smaller fixtures) which generally 

results in lower efficacy because they 

have an inherently lower optical 

efficiency than larger-diameter lamps of 

similar filament size. Both NEMA and 

the California Stakeholders supported 

DOE’s proposal to establish a separate 

product class for small-diameter lamps. 

(NEMA, No. 81 at p. 7, p. 12; GE 

Lighting, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

38.4 at p. 60; California Stakeholders, 

No. 63 at p. 22) Because DOE received 

no other comments on this issue, DOE 

continues to set separate product classes 

for lamps of diameter less than or equal 

to 2.5 inches. 

iii. Voltage 

Current DOE test procedures provide 

for lamps rated at 130 volts (V) to be 

tested at 130 V and for lamps rated at 

120 V to be tested at 120 V. However, 

DOE is aware that a large number of 

consumers actually operate 130 V lamps 

at 120 V, which results in longer 

lifetime but lower efficacy. With a single 

efficacy level for lamps rated at each 

voltage, this situation would effectively 

lead to a lower efficacy requirement for 

these 130 V lamps that are run at 120 

V, compared to 120 V lamps run at 120 

V. These 130V lamps would not require 

the same level of technology as 120 Vrated lamps to meet the same standard, 

and, thus, they would be cheaper to 

produce. Therefore, setting higher 

standards for IRL without accounting for 

voltage differences could result in 

increased migration to the 130 V lamps 

and possible lost energy savings. For 

these reasons, in the April 2009 NOPR, 

DOE proposed to set separate standards 

for 130 V lamps. Specifically, DOE 

proposed to establish two separate 

product classes: (1) Lamps with a rated 

voltage less than 125 V, and (2) lamps 

with a rated voltage greater than or 

equal to 125 V. 74 FR 16920, 16940 

(April 13, 2009). DOE also requested 

comment on the alternative approach of 

having all IRL be tested at 120 V, the 

most common application voltage in the 

market. Id. 

Philips commented that setting a 130 

V-lamp efficacy level that was 15 

percent higher than the level for 120 V 

lamps, as DOE proposed in the NOPR, 

would drive 130 V lamps from the 

market because such a level would be 

technologically infeasible. In addition, 

Philips and GE stated that it is not 

uncommon for consumers to run lamps 

at 130 V in certain regions of the 

country. Therefore, NEMA and Philips 

stated, with 130 V lamps gone from the 

marketplace, some consumers may be 

forced to run 120 V lamps at 130 V, 

which could cut lamp lifetime in half 

and cause a loss of utility for these 

consumers. For those reasons, 

manufacturers argued, there should be 

no separate product class for voltage. 

Instead, manufacturers argued that DOE 

should test IRL at their rated voltages 

and subject the lamps to the same 

standard. Supporting this idea, GE 

noted that even if one operates a 130 V 

lamp at 120 V, power is reduced 

proportionally, meaning there would be 

lower energy consumption. (GE and 

Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

38.4 at pp. 61–62, 67; NEMA, No. 81 at 

pp. 4, 7–8) 

Conversely, the California 

Stakeholders, EEI and ACEEE argued 

that 130 V lines are very rare. EEI stated 

that many utilities must follow 

agreements to maintain voltages in the 

residential sector within a 5 percent 

range of 120 V (114 V to 126 V) and 

agreed with DOE’s approach. The 

California Stakeholders commented that 

utilities are trending toward lower line 

voltage to minimize transmission losses. 

In addition, they stated that FTC 

labeling requirements already require 

manufacturers to provide power and 

light output for 120 V, even if the lamps 

are designed to be run at 130 V. 

Therefore, the California Stakeholders 

argued, all lamps should be regulated 

based on testing at 120 V. (ACEEE and 

EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 

at pp. 63–64, 66; EEI, No. 45 at p. 3; 

California Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 25– 

26) 

GE argued that while utilities do face 

line voltage regulation, there are cases 

in which the voltage is higher than that 

prescribed in ANSI C–84.1, ‘‘American 

National Standard for Electric Power 

Systems and Equipment-Voltage Ratings 

(60 Hertz),’’ (the source of the 

prescribed voltage range that EEI 

referenced in the above comment). 

Therefore, the 130 V lamps have utility 

for consumers in these cases. (GE, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 

67) 

In response, DOE remains concerned 

that the operation of 130 V lamps at 120 

V has the potential to significantly affect 

energy savings. As discussed above, 

when operated under 120 V conditions, 

lamps rated at 130 V and in compliance 

with existing IRL efficacy standards are 

generally less efficacious than lamps 

using equivalent technology rated at 120 

V. Because of this inherent difference in 

efficacy, it may be less costly to 

manufacture a lamp rated and tested at 

130 V that complies with a standard 

than a similar 120 V lamp complying 

with the same standard. If DOE does not 

establish a separate product class and 

standard for lamps rated at 130 V, more 

consumers may purchase 130 V lamps 

because they may be less expensive, as 

they would require less costly 

technology. When consumers operate 

these lamps at 120 V, in order to obtain 

sufficient light output, they may migrate 

to higher wattages and use more energy 

than standards-compliant 120 V lamps. 

DOE also believes, as commenters 

pointed out, that 130 V conditions in 

the residential sector are very rare. 

Indeed, in many cases such sustained 

voltages would violate electrical codes. 

As NEMA commented earlier, 130 V 

lamps ‘‘are almost always used by 

customers to achieve ‘double life’ by 

operating them at 120 V, resulting in 

performance below 1992 EPACT 

levels.’’ (NEMA, No. 21 at p. 16) DOE 

acknowledges that in very rare cases, 

some consumers with 130 V power may 

be forced to realize shorter lifetimes. 

However, based on stakeholder 

comments and research into electrical 

codes, DOE does not believe the rare 

instances of consumers with 130 V 

power experiencing shortened lifetimes 

offsets the benefit in energy savings 

from closing this potential loophole. In 

addition, as discussed in the April 2009 

NOPR, because DOE considers lifetime 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34102 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

an economic issue rather than a utility 

issue, DOE does not believe it is 

eliminating any unique utility of feature 

from the market by setting increased 

efficacy requirements for lamps rated 

greater than or equal to 125 V. 74 FR 

16920, 16939 (April 13, 2009) 

Finally, stakeholders have not 

provided any compelling arguments for 

why DOE should amend the test 

procedure to test all lamps at 120 V 

rather than set higher efficacy standards 

for these lamps. Therefore, in this final 

rule DOE is maintaining separate 

product classes for lamps with rated 

voltages less than 125 V and lamps with 

rated voltages greater than or equal to 

125 V. 

iv. IRL Summary 

In summary, DOE is not making any 

changes in this final rule related to IRL 

product classes from those proposed in 

the April 2009 NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 

17027 (April 13, 2009). Table V.2 

summarizes the IRL product classes for 

this final rule. 

TABLE V.2—FINAL RULE PRODUCT

CLASSES FOR IRL 

Spectrum 

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 

B. Engineering Analysis 

For each product class, the 

engineering analysis identifies potential, 

increasing efficacy levels above the level 

of the baseline model. Those 

technologies not eliminated in the 

screening analysis (design options) are 

inputs to this process. Design options 

consist of discrete technologies (e.g., 

infrared reflective coatings, rare-earth 

phosphor mixes). As detailed in the 

April 2009 NOPR, to ensure that 

efficacy levels analyzed are 

technologically feasible, DOE 

concentrated its efforts in the 

engineering analysis on developing 

product efficacy levels associated with 

‘‘lamp designs,’’ based upon 

commercially-available lamps that 

incorporate a range of design options. 74 

FR 16920, 16941 (April 13, 2009). 

However, when necessary, DOE 

supplemented commercially-available 

product information with an 

examination of the incremental costs 

and improved performance attributable 

to discrete technologies so that a 

substitute lamp at each efficacy level 

would be available for each baseline 

lamp. 

In energy conservation standard 

rulemakings for other products, DOE 

often develops cost-efficiency 

relationships in the engineering 

analysis. However, for this rulemaking, 

DOE derived efficacy levels in the 

engineering analysis and end-user 

prices in the product price 

determination. By combining the results 

of the engineering analysis and the 

product price determination, DOE 

derived typical inputs for use in the 

LCC and NIA. See chapter 7 of the TSD 

for further details on the product price 

determination. 

1. Approach 

For the final rule, DOE is using the 

same methodology for the engineering 

analysis that was detailed in the April 

2009 NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 16941–47 

(April 13, 2009). The following is a 

summary of the steps taken in the 

engineering analysis: 

• Step 1: Select Representative 

Product Classes 

• Step 2: Select Baseline Lamps 

• Step 3: Identify Lamp or Lamp-andBallast Designs 

• Step 4: Develop Efficacy Levels. 

A more detailed discussion of the 

methodology DOE followed to perform 

the engineering analysis can be found in 

the engineering analysis chapter of the 

TSD (chapter 5). 

2. Representative Product Classes 

As discussed in section V.A.1 of this 

notice, DOE is establishing twelve 

product classes for GSFL and eight 

product classes for IRL. As detailed in 

the April 2009 NOPR, DOE did not 

analyze each and every product class. 

74 FR 16920, 16941–42 (April 13, 2009). 

Instead, DOE selected certain product 

classes to analyze, and then scaled its 

analytical findings for those 

representative product classes to other 

product classes that were not analyzed. 

While DOE received several stakeholder 

comments regarding methods of scaling 

to product classes not analyzed 

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

not receive objections to the decision to 

scale to certain product classes or the 

representative product classes proposed 

in the April 2009 NOPR. Id. at 16941– 

42. Therefore, for this final rule, DOE 

analyzed the same product classes 

proposed for direct analysis in the April 

2009 NOPR. 

For GSFL, the analyzed product 

classes included 4-foot medium bipin, 

8-foot single pin slimline, 8-foot 

recessed double-contact high output, 4- 

foot MiniBP standard output, and 4-foot 

MiniBP high output GSFL product 

classes, all with CCTs less than or equal 

to 4,500K. DOE did not explicitly 

analyze U-shaped lamps, but instead 

scaled the results of the 4-foot medium 

bipin class analysis, as discussed in 

section V.B.5.a. For IRL, the 

representative product class DOE 

analyzed was IRL with standard 

spectrum, voltage less than 125 V, and 

diameter greater than 2.5 inches. For 

further information on representative 

product classes, see chapter 5 of the 

TSD. 

3. Baseline Models 

Once DOE identified the 

representative product classes for 

analysis, DOE selected the 

representative units for analysis (i.e., 

baseline lamps) from within each 

product class. These representative 

units are generally what DOE believes to 

be the most common, least efficacious 

lamps in their respective product 

classes. For further discussion on 

baseline lamps and lamp-and-ballast 

systems chosen for analysis, see the 

April 2009 NOPR (74 FR 16920, 16942– 

45 (April 13, 2009)) and Chapter 5 of the 

TSD. 

In general, DOE decided to maintain 

the baseline models proposed in the 

April 2009 NOPR. However, DOE did 

receive a comment on its selection of 

the baseline model for 4-foot MiniBP 

lamps, as discussed and responded to 

below. In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

developed model T5 halophosphor 

lamps as the baselines for the 4-foot 

MiniBP SO and 4-foot MiniBP HO 

product classes. To create these model 

T5 lamps, DOE used efficacy data from 

short halophosphor fluorescent T5 

lamps currently available and 

developed a relationship between length 

and efficacy. DOE validated this 

relationship by comparing it to previous 

industry research and efficacies of other 

halophosphor lamps. DOE then used 

this relationship to determine the 

efficacies of a halophosphor 4-foot 

miniature bipin standard output lamp 

and a halophosphor 4-foot 

halophosphor T5 miniature bipin HO 

lamp. The resulting baseline efficacies 

for 4-foot MiniBP SO and 4-foot MiniBP 

HO lamps were 86.0 lm/W and 76.6 lm/ 

W. 74 FR 16920, 16943 (April 13, 2009) 

In response to the April 2009 NOPR, 

NEMA and GE commented that baseline 

efficacies and efficacy levels for 4-foot 

MiniBP lamps should reflect testing at 

an ambient temperature of 25 °C rather 

than 35 °C, the temperature at which 

standards for 4-foot MiniBP lamps in 

the April 2009 NOPR were based. GE 

also stated that manufacturers test 4-foot 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34103 

12 DOE used rated wattages listed in ANSI 

C78.81–2005 to determine lamp efficacies. DOE 

proposed a definition of ‘‘rated wattage’’ in section 

III.C.1 that referred to an ANSI standard to prevent 

manufacturers from circumventing standards by 

rating lamps at artificially low wattages. 

MiniBP lamps at 25 °C and then use a 

relative measurement to estimate 

performance at 35 °C. This additional 

information is provided in catalogs 

because many T5 lamps are operated in 

higher-temperature environments. (GE, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at 

pp. 72–73, 76–78, NEMA, No. 81 at p. 

3, 7, 8, 9, 22) 

DOE has confirmed that test 

procedures for 4-foot MiniBP lamps in 

fact specify that the test should be 

performed at 25 °C. While DOE agrees 

that the minimum efficacy standards 

(and therefore efficacy levels) should be 

based on this testing condition, DOE 

believes that the efficacies and lumen 

outputs of lamps analyzed in the 

engineering analysis (and thus LCC and 

NIA) should reflect typical operating 

conditions. It is DOE’s understanding 

that 4-foot MiniBP lamps most often 

operate at 35 °C. Therefore DOE bases 

all lamp efficacies and lumen outputs 

used in the engineering, LCC, and 

national impacts analyses on this 

operating condition. DOE discusses its 

approach to establishing 4-foot MiniBP 

efficacy levels based on testing at 25 °C 

in section V.B.4.b. 

NEMA also commented that a more 

accurate and straightforward approach 

to modeling the 4-foot MiniBP 

halophosphor baseline lamp efficacies 

would be to base it on the ratio of 

halophosphor to triphosphor lamp 

efficacies in 4-foot T8 MBP lamps (0.78). 

(NEMA, No. 81 at p. 9) DOE believes 

that NEMA’s suggested approach is 

valid. However, when using efficacies of 

commercially-available 4-foot MBP 

halophosphor lamps (77.9 lm/W) and 

triphosphor lamps (95.4 lm/W), DOE 

calculated an efficacy ratio of 0.82. 

Applying this ratio to 35 °C catalog 

lamp efficacies results in baseline 

efficacies of 4-foot MiniBP SO and 4- 

foot MiniBP HO lamps of 85.5 lm/W 

and 76.1 lm/W. Because these efficacies 

are within an acceptable margin of 

uncertainty relative to the baseline 

efficacies used in the April 2009 NOPR, 

DOE has not changed its 4-foot MiniBP 

baseline lamps. 

For more information about these and 

other baseline lamps, see chapter 5 and 

appendix 5B of the TSD. 

4. Efficacy Levels 

a. GSFL Compliance Reports 

For the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE 

developed candidate standards levels 

for GSFL by dividing initial lumen 

output by the ANSI rated wattages of 

commercially-available lamps, thereby 

resulting in rated lamp efficacies.12 74 

FR 16920, 16945 (April 13, 2009). In 

response to the potential GSFL efficacy 

levels presented in the March 2008 

ANOPR, NEMA commented on several 

reasons why the association believes 

that the efficacy levels need to be 

revised, including (1) the 

appropriateness of using ANSI rated 

wattages in the calculation of lumens 

per watt; (2) consideration of variability 

in production of GSFL; (3) 

manufacturing process limitations 

related to specialty products; (4) 

consideration of adjustments to 

photometry calibrations; and (5) the 

appropriateness of establishing efficacy 

levels to the nearest tenth of a lumen 

per watt. 74 FR 16920, 16945–46 (April 

13, 2009). 

After considering NEMA’s comments, 

DOE agreed that tolerances incorporated 

into ANSI rated wattages and variability 

in production of GSFL warranted 

changes to the efficacy levels presented 

in the March 2008 ANOPR. Therefore, 

in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE revised 

the efficacy levels for GSFL by using 

lamp efficacy values submitted to DOE 

over the past 10 years for the purpose 

of compliance with existing energy 

conservation standards. Using 

compliance reports as a basis for 

efficacy standards allowed DOE to more 

accurately characterize the tested 

performance of GSFL, by accounting for 

the measured wattage effects and 

wattage and lumen output variability. 

74 FR 16920, 16946–47 (April 13, 2009). 

DOE received several comments on its 

proposed efficacy levels in the NOPR. 

NEMA commented that the range of 

efficacy levels considered was 

appropriate. (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 21) 

Both ACEEE and NEMA supported 

DOE’s usage of compliance reports to 

establish efficacy levels. However, 

NEMA commented that it has additional 

data on variability that has been 

observed in lamp production. (ACEEE, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 

79–80; NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 89–90) 

NEMA recommended a slight lowering 

of certain GSFL efficacy levels so that an 

assessment of multiple lamps in a 

product line would find that the lamps 

were in conformance when tested under 

the DOE GSFL test procedure. (NEMA, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at 

pp. 90–91) NEMA also claimed that 

required adjustments to photometry 

facilities used for NIST and NVLAP 

testing over time have resulted in a 

reduction of reported lumens for some 

products, which DOE did not account 

for in the April 2009 NOPR. NEMA 

therefore advised DOE to use only 

‘‘sufficiently current’’ compliance data 

to determine efficacy levels. (NEMA, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at 

pp. 75–76; NEMA, No. 81 at p.10–11) To 

account for all of these factors, NEMA 

stated that DOE should adopt the 

efficacy levels NEMA recommended in 

response to the March 2008 ANOPR. 

These levels recommended by NEMA 

achieve the desired technology goals as 

outlined by DOE. (NEMA, No. 81 at pp. 

1–2, 10–11, 23) ACEEE opposed a 

further downward adjustment of the 

efficiency levels, as it would allow lessefficacious products to remain on the 

market. (ACEEE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 80) 

While DOE is aware that 

manufacturers may have additional data 

on production variability, NEMA has 

not provided such data to DOE. 

Therefore, DOE has maintained its 

approach (as presented in the April 

2009 NOPR) to develop GSFL efficacy 

levels. Additionally, DOE believes that 

by using the compliance reports it is 

accounting for variability in production 

as it exists today, for the reasons that 

follow. First, the product efficacy 

reported for compliance purposes is 

related to the lower limit of the 95- 

percent confidence interval. As 

explained in DOE’s May 1997 lamps test 

procedure final rule, this interval 

represents variation over the whole 

population of production, not only the 

sample size. 62 FR 29222, 29230 (May 

29, 1997). In addition, regarding any 

changes in calibration requirements that 

may have occurred that could affect 

reported lamp efficacy, DOE has 

reevaluated its efficacy levels based on 

the latest compliance reports, many of 

which were submitted to DOE after the 

NOPR analysis had been completed. 

Following the same methodology as 

presented in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

compared the efficacy values for each 

product class to all available 

compliance report data and assessed 

whether the April 2009 NOPR levels 

achieved the technology goals outlined 

in chapter 5 of the TSD. For 4-foot MBP 

lamps, DOE determined that the efficacy 

levels proposed in the April 2009 NOPR 

must be revised to accurately represent 

those goals. For 4-foot MBP lamps with 

CCTs less than or equal to 4500K, DOE 

adjusted the efficacy values because 

new compliance reports: (1) Provided 

recent data for an existing basic model; 

(2) provided data for a new basic model; 

or (3) provided 12-month average 

production data whereas only initial 

data had been previously reported. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34104 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

NEMA also did not believe it was 

necessary to raise EL3 for 4-foot MBP 

lamps from their recommended 83 

lumens per watt to 84 lumens per watt 

as proposed in the April 2009 NOPR. 

NEMA stated that this increase was not 

required to achieve the technology goal 

specified for TSL3 and, furthermore, 

would have significant consequences for 

the residential consumer because it 

eliminated nearly all T12 lamps. 

(NEMA, No. 81 at p. 2) 

In response, DOE reassessed its 

efficacy levels based compliance report 

data from 2008 and 2009. As a result of 

this analysis, DOE determined that the 

efficacy values for 4-foot MBP low CCT 

EL3 and EL5 required adjustments. DOE 

also does not believe that the value for 

EL3 will have significant consequences 

for the residential consumer. See section 

V.C.8 for a discussion of this topic. 

For 8-foot SP slimline lamps and 8- 

foot RDC HO lamps, DOE analyzed 

recent compliance reports and 

determined that not enough data existed 

in those reports to maintain all of the 

levels proposed in the April 2009 

NOPR. Therefore, DOE modified ELs 1, 

2, and 5 for 8-foot SP Slimline lamps 

and EL2 for 8-foot RDC HO lamps to 

reflect the levels that NEMA 

recommended. The revised efficacy 

levels are shown in section VII.A.1. 

b. 4-Foot MiniBP Efficacy Levels 

As discussed in the April 2009 NOPR, 

DOE established efficacy levels for 4- 

foot MiniBP SO and 4-foot MiniBP HO 

lamps based on catalog rated efficacies. 

74 FR 16920, 16947 (April 13, 2009). 

Then, in order to account for 

manufacturer variation, DOE used the 

average reductions in efficacy values 

due to manufacturer variation 

calculated for the highest-efficacy 4-foot 

T8 medium bipin lamps, and applied 

those same reductions to the 4-foot 

miniature bipin rated efficacy values. 

DOE was unable to directly use 4-foot 

MiniBP lamp compliance data because 

these products have not been regulated 

in the past. 

As mentioned earlier, NEMA and GE 

commented that efficacy levels for these 

4-foot MiniBP lamps should reflect 

testing at an ambient temperature of 25 

°C rather than 35 °C, the temperature at 

which standards for 4-foot MiniBP 

lamps in the April 2009 NOPR were 

based. (NEMA, No. 81 at pp. 3, 7, 8, 9, 

22; GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

38.4 at pp. 72–73) ACEEE agreed that 4- 

foot MiniBP lamps should be tested at 

25 °C. (ACEEE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 79) As stated 

earlier, DOE agrees that 4-foot MiniBP 

efficacy levels should be based on 

testing at 25 °C and notes that based on 

catalog data, efficacies at 25 °C are 10 

percent lower than efficacies at 35 °C. 

Therefore, in this final rule, DOE has 

revised the efficacy levels for the 4-foot 

MiniBP product classes accordingly. 

In addition, NEMA commented that 

reductions applied to the 4-foot MiniBP 

efficacy levels in the April 2009 NOPR 

were insufficient to fully account for 

variability in production. (NEMA, No. 

81 at pp. 3, 9, 22) NEMA recommended 

that DOE adopt 86 lm/W and 76 lm/W 

as EL1 for the 4-foot MiniBP SO and HO 

product classes, respectively. DOE 

recognizes that because it does not have 

compliance report information for 4-foot 

MiniBP lamps, it may not be able to 

accurately assess the manufacturing 

tolerance required for these lamps. 

Based on DOE’s calculations, NEMA’s 

recommended efficacy levels represent 

manufacturer tolerances within the 

range required by other lamp types. 

Therefore, in this final rule, DOE has 

revised EL1 for 4-foot MiniBP SO and 

HO lamps to be 86 lm/W and 76 lm/W 

respectively. For consistency with those 

allowed manufacturer tolerances DOE 

has also revised EL2 for 4-foot MiniBP 

SO lamps to be 90 lm/W. For the 

purposes of comparison, DOE estimates 

that 4-foot MiniBP SO and HO 

halophosphor lamps would have 

efficacies of 77 lm/W and 69 lm/W 

when tested at 25 °C. See Chapter 5 of 

the TSD for further detail on 4-foot 

MiniBP efficacy levels. 

c. IRL Manufacturing Variability 

For incandescent reflector lamps, in 

the April 2009 NOPR, DOE established 

efficacy levels based on commerciallyavailable and prototype IRL 

technologies. 73 FR 16920, 16944 (April 

13, 2009). In response to those efficacy 

levels, Philips commented that DOE did 

not account for manufacturing 

variability when developing the efficacy 

levels for incandescent reflector lamps 

and stressed the importance of 

accounting for this variability when 

setting minimum efficacy standards. 

(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

38.4 at p. 102–103) Similarly, the 

International Association of Lighting 

Designers (IALD) wrote that there are 

currently IRL on the market that meet 

TSL4 but only by very small amounts; 

these products could be eliminated if 

TSL4 is not carefully set. (IALD, No. 71 

at p. 2) Philips also wrote that it is in 

support of TSL4 for IRL once it is 

lowered to account for manufacturing 

variability. (Philips, No. 75 at pp. 1–2) 

DOE supports the consideration of 

manufacturing variability in the 

development of efficacy requirements. 

In response, DOE examined IRL 

compliance reports submitted by 

manufacturers and discovered that 

reported efficacies of IRL do in fact vary 

from the catalog efficacies. Similar to 

GSFL, the efficacy reported for IRL 

product compliance is related to the 

lower limit of the 95-percent confidence 

interval. 62 FR 29222, 29230 (May 29, 

1997). Therefore, in some cases, given 

significant variability in production, the 

reported efficacy of IRL may be lower 

than the long-term mean efficacy 

presented in lamp catalogs. The 

compliance reports also indicated that 

different efficacy levels (or technologies) 

require different efficacy reductions. 

Thus, similar to the approach taken in 

developing revised GSFL efficacy levels, 

DOE used IRL compliance report data to 

adjust the efficacy levels presented in 

the April 2009 NOPR downward to 

better reflect the observed efficacies of 

commercially-available lamps that 

feature the described technologies of 

each EL as discussed in chapter 5 of the 

TSD. Table VII.2 shows the final rule 

coefficients A in the equation A*P∧0.27, 

which represents the efficacy level 

requirement for IRL. P is the rated 

wattage of the lamp. See chapter 5 of the 

TSD for further detail on the compliance 

reports used in the analysis. 

5. Scaling to Product Classes Not 

Analyzed 

a. 2-Foot U-Shaped Lamps 

For the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

developed efficacy levels for 2-foot Ushaped GSFL by assessing the catalog 

efficacies of U-shaped lamps that utilize 

the same design options used for the 4- 

foot medium bipin GSFL lamps that 

DOE analyzed. 74 FR 16920, 16948 

(April 13, 2009). To develop the April 

2009 NOPR ELs for U-shaped lamps 

while taking into account 

manufacturing variability, DOE assessed 

compliance reports of U-shaped lamps. 

Where U-shaped lamp compliance 

report data was unavailable, DOE 

augmented its assessment of 

manufacturing variability with 

compliance report data for 4-foot 

medium bipin lamps due to the 

technological similarities between Ushaped and 4-foot medium bipin lamps. 

In the April 2009 NOPR, the maximum 

reduction in efficacy requirements for 

U-shaped lamps in comparison with the 

4-foot medium bipin ELs was 7.7 

percent at EL1 (the 4-foot medium bipin 

EL1 requirement of 78 lm/W vs. the Ushaped EL1 requirement of 72 lm/W). 

At the public meeting, GE commented 

that it is in general agreement with the 

approach that DOE used to develop the 

efficacy levels for 2-foot U-shaped 

lamps for the April 2009 NOPR. (GE, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34105 

119–120) GE indicated, however, that 

the reduction in efficacy for U-shaped 

lamps compared to 4-foot medium bipin 

lamps should be approximately 8 

percent, as the production of the bend 

in U-shaped lamps adds additional 

manufacturing variability. (GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 123– 

124) In writing, NEMA then commented 

that the assumptions that DOE used to 

develop U-shaped lamp reduction 

factors were incorrect; NEMA proposed 

that DOE set EL3 at 76 lm/W for Ushaped lamps with CCTs less than or 

equal to 4500K and 71 lm/W for Ushaped lamps with CCTs greater than 

4500K. NEMA warned that an EL3 

efficacy requirement higher than these 

would remove all T12 U-shaped lamps 

from the market and that the setting of 

EL4 or higher as a standard would 

negatively impact competition; 

according to comment, the setting of 

EL5 would eliminate from the market all 

energy-efficient U-shaped lamps that 

feature a 6-inch spacing and the ability 

to fit into 2x2-foot luminaires. (NEMA, 

No. 81 at pp. 2–3, 11) 

In response, DOE grouped U-shaped 

lamp compliance data sent to DOE in 

2007 and 2008 into efficacy levels based 

on the design options featured in the 4- 

foot medium bipin lamps that DOE 

analyzed for the April 2009 NOPR, as 

follows: 700-series U-shaped 40W T12 

lamps were grouped into EL1, and 800- 

series U-shaped 32W T8 lamps were 

grouped into either EL3, EL4, or EL5 

based on catalog efficacy. DOE did not 

have any compliance reports from 2007 

and 2008 for U-shaped 34W T12 lamps. 

DOE found that it did not have enough 

data at ELs 1 through 5 to confidently 

assess the manufacturing variability of 

U-shaped lamps on the market. For EL1 

through EL3, DOE thus selected the 

levels proposed by NEMA in response 

to the March 2008 ANOPR. (NEMA, No. 

26 at p. 7) For EL4 and EL5, NEMA did 

not propose levels for U-shaped lamps. 

Thus, DOE used NEMA’s suggested 8- 

percent value as a scaling factor from 

the linear 4-foot medium bipin efficacy 

levels. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 123–124). 

The efficacy levels for low-CCT Ushaped lamps for this final rule are 

shown in chapter 5 of the TSD. 

DOE notes that two manufacturers 

currently produce U-shaped lamps that 

meet the EL4 proposed in the April 

2009 NOPR and retained by DOE in this 

final rule. DOE acknowledges that 

currently, only one manufacturer 

produces U-shaped lamps that meet 

EL5. DOE is not aware of technological 

barriers or legal barriers (such as the 

utilization of a proprietary technology 

by this manufacturer) that would 

prevent other manufacturers from 

producing U-shaped lamps at EL5. For 

this reason, DOE is using 87 lm/W as 

the EL5 efficacy level requirement for Ushaped lamps in this final rule. 

b. Lamps With Higher CCTs 

Because DOE received a number of 

comments related to its determination of 

efficacy levels based on compliance 

reports, DOE decided to reevaluate its 

efficacy levels at higher CCT levels 

using the latest compliance report data. 

For 4-foot MBP lamps with CCTs greater 

than 4500K, DOE discovered that the 

efficacy values proposed in the April 

2009 NOPR required significant revision 

to achieve the technology goals outlined 

in chapter 5 of the TSD. Therefore, to 

determine efficacy values for these 

lamps, DOE employed the same 

methodology as was used to determine 

efficacy values for 4-foot MBP lamps 

with CCTs less than or equal to 4500K. 

Thus, as summarized in section V.B.4.a, 

DOE selected commercially available 

lamps for each efficacy level that 

represented that level’s desired 

technology goal. These revised efficacy 

levels are supported by data contained 

in compliance reports submitted in 

2008. The updated efficacy values for 

these lamps are shown in chapter 5 of 

the TSD. 

DOE also compared NEMA’s 

proposed efficacy levels for 8-foot lamps 

against its proposed efficacy levels in 

the April 2009 NOPR. For 8-foot SP 

Slimline lamps with CCTs greater than 

4500 K, efficacy levels 1, 2, and 5 were 

higher than those levels proposed by 

NEMA. For 8-foot RDC HO lamps with 

high CCTs, only efficacy level 2 was 

greater than what NEMA proposed. DOE 

analyzed recent compliance reports 

submitted and determined that not 

enough data existed in those reports to 

maintain the levels proposed in the 

April 2009 NOPR for these lamps. 

Therefore, DOE modified ELs 1, 2, and 

5 for 8-foot SP Slimline lamps and EL2 

for 8-foot RDC HO lamps to reflect the 

levels that NEMA proposed. The revised 

efficacy levels are shown in section 

VII.A.1. 

For U-shaped lamps, NEMA proposed 

that DOE set EL1, EL2, and EL3 at 65, 

67, and 71 lm/W, respectively, for Ushaped lamps with CCTs greater than 

4500K. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 7; NEMA, 

No. 81 at p. 2) DOE did not have enough 

recent compliance report data for Ushaped lamps with CCTs above 4500K 

to accurately assess the manufacturing 

variability of U-shaped lamps on the 

market. For this reason, DOE adopted 

NEMA’s proposed requirements for this 

final rule. NEMA did not propose 

efficacy level requirements at EL4 and 

EL5. To develop requirements at these 

levels for U-shaped lamps with CCTs 

above 4500K, DOE used NEMA’s 

suggested 8-percent value as a scaling 

factor and applied the factor to the highCCT linear 4-foot medium bipin efficacy 

levels. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 123–124). 

The efficacy levels for high-CCT Ushaped lamps for the April 2009 NOPR 

and for this final rule are shown in 

section VII.A.1. 

c. Modified Spectrum IRL 

DOE received a number of comments 

on the reduction factor that DOE 

applied to the standard-spectrum IRL 

efficacy levels in order to develop 

efficacy levels for the modifiedspectrum IRL product class. At the 

public meeting, NEMA commented that 

industry uses an efficacy reduction of 20 

to 25 percent for modified-spectrum IRL 

(in comparison with standard-spectrum 

IRL of otherwise identical 

characteristics) and that the typical 

efficacy reduction is closer to 20 percent 

than 25 percent. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 128–129) 

After publication of the April 2009 

NOPR, however, NEMA commented in 

writing that DOE’s April 2009 NOPR 

analysis was based only on 50W 

modified-spectrum lamps and that DOE 

should choose a reduction factor of 25 

percent for the modified-spectrum IRL 

product class in order to retain a 

diversity of modified-spectrum products 

on the market. (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 12) 

On the other hand, PG&E, ASAP, 

ACEEE, and NRDC commented in 

writing that if DOE does retain a 

modified-spectrum IRL product class for 

the final rule, the class should feature 

an efficacy reduction of no greater than 

10 percent from the standard-spectrum 

IRL efficacy requirements so that 

manufacturers cannot produce 

modified-spectrum IRL using 

technologies that are cheaper than 

technologies that would be needed to 

produced a standard-spectrum IRL of 

the same efficacy level, creating a 

loophole. (PG&E, ASAP, NRDC, No. 59 

at p. 1–2; NRDC, No. 82 at pp. 2, 4–5; 

ACEEE, No. 76 at p. 5) DOE generally 

does not believe that a modifiedspectrum IRL product class will be 

utilized by manufacturers as a loophole 

that ultimately undermines energy 

savings. This is because DOE expects 

that designers of modified-spectrum IRL 

will likely utilize the same design 

options featured in standard-spectrum 

IRL that meet a particular efficacy 

requirement (such as improved HIR 

technologies at EL4). Thus, in response 

to the comments of EEI, PG&E, ASAP, 

and NRDC, DOE expects modifiedVerDate Nov<24>2008 18:42 Jul 13, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14JYR2.SGM 14JYR2

jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34106 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

spectrum IRL to have a similar cost as 

standard-spectrum IRL that comply with 

standards, minimizing migration to 

modified-spectrum IRL on a first-cost 

basis. In addition, modified-spectrum 

IRL are of lower lumen output than 

standard-spectrum IRL that otherwise 

have the same characteristics 

(particularly rated wattage) due to the 

subtractive filtering that is employed for 

spectrum modification. Consumers 

replacing standard-spectrum IRL with 

modified-spectrum IRL of the same 

rated wattage are likely to experience 

lower light levels, further discouraging 

migration. 

DOE acknowledges, however, that 

some manufacturers may attempt to 

produce modified-spectrum IRL using 

cheaper technologies if the efficacy 

reduction for modified-spectrum IRL 

permits this to occur. For the April 2009 

NOPR, DOE analyzed two modifiedspectrum IRL and found an average 

efficacy reduction of approximately 19 

percent, in general support of NEMA’s 

comment concerning a 20 to 25 percent 

efficacy reduction utilized by industry. 

PG&E commented, however, that DOE 

should analyze more than two modifiedspectrum IRL in order to determine an 

appropriate efficacy reduction for the 

product class. (PG&E, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 132–133) 

PG&E, ASAP, and NRDC commented in 

writing that it tested commerciallyavailable modified-spectrum cover 

glasses with a variety of commerciallyavailable IRL burner/reflector 

assemblies and found that one assembly 

produced a MacAdam step shift of more 

than six MacAdam steps, which is more 

than necessary to meet the modifiedspectrum definition requirement of a 

four-MacAdam-step shift. The interested 

parties suggested that a smaller 

MacAdam-step shift would enable a 

more-efficacious lamp that still provides 

modified-spectrum utility. (PG&E, 

ASAP, NRDC, No. 59 at p. 2) 

DOE supports the notion that 

additional information could enable a 

more accurate determination of the 

average efficacy reduction featured by 

modified-spectrum lamps and prevent a 

possible loophole. DOE also agrees that 

greater MacAdam-step shifts inherently 

reduce lamp efficacy by greater 

amounts, as more subtractive filtering is 

necessary to produce a larger shift in 

color point; the setting of a standard that 

can be met by commercially-available 

technologies that produce color points 

near the four-MacAdam-step boundary 

would thus preserve modified-spectrum 

utility on the IRL market while reducing 

the chance of a loophole. However, DOE 

was unable to find more modifiedspectrum lamps on the market than 

those already found and utilized for the 

April 2009 NOPR analysis. Thus, to 

assess the impact of varying degrees of 

spectrum modification through 

neodymium (which DOE found to be the 

most common method of modifying IRL 

spectra) in IRL cover glasses, DOE 

developed a model that correlated cover 

glass neodymium concentration with 

cover glass light output reduction and 

MacAdam-step shift in color point. 

Increasing neodymium concentrations 

produce greater light output reduction. 

DOE found that a 15-percent light 

output reduction correlated with a 

MacAdam-step shift slightly greater 

than four steps. To validate the model, 

DOE then obtained five commerciallyavailable HIR IRL capsules and then 

assembled reflector lamps utilizing the 

capsules in combination with either 

standard-spectrum or modifiedspectrum commercially-available IRL 

cover glasses and reflectors. DOE then 

tested the lamps with the two cover 

glass types and determined their 

efficacies. The reduction in efficacy 

between the standard-spectrum and 

modified-spectrum lamps utilizing the 

five commercially-available HIR 

capsules obtained by DOE, averaged 

across the lamps, was approximately 16 

percent. DOE believes that this value is 

in line with the output of the 

neodymium concentration model that it 

developed for the analysis. DOE also 

believes that manufacturers will be able 

to vary the neodymium concentration 

for cover glasses associated with a 

variety of lamp shapes such that 

modified-spectrum utility is preserved 

while standards are met. Thus, DOE is 

implementing a 15-percent reduction in 

efficacy levels for the modifiedspectrum IRL product class in this final 

rule. 

While PG&E, ASAP, and NRDC 

mentioned that no more than a 10 

percent reduction would be necessary 

for a modified-spectrum product class, 

DOE believes that this value is specific 

to the IRL featuring prototype (not 

commercially-available) technologies 

that these interested parties tested with 

a modified-spectrum cover glass. In 

writing, the three interested parties 

acknowledged that commerciallyavailable IRL burner/reflector 

assemblies tested with the same cover 

glass did not meet the modifiedspectrum definition. (PG&E, ASAP, 

NRDC, Appendix 1, No. 63 at pp. 11– 

12) Because PG&E, ASAP, and NRDC 

did not indicate the filament 

temperature of the prototype IRL nor 

specify color point data, DOE could not 

determine the color of the IRL lumen 

output when operated with either the 

standard-spectrum or the modifiedspectrum glasses. Thus, DOE has 

insufficient data to determine whether a 

10-percent efficacy reduction could be 

achieved by manufacturers producing 

currently-available modified-spectrum 

lamps or if such a reduction would 

instead eliminate currently-available 

modified-spectrum lamps from the 

market. For this reason, DOE has chosen 

to use an efficacy reduction of 15 

percent for the modified-spectrum IRL 

product class in this final rule, based on 

commercially-available IRL 

technologies. 

d. Small Diameter IRL 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

recognized that the size of smalldiameter (PAR20) lamps vs. PAR30 and 

PAR38 lamps provides a specific utility 

to consumers (e.g. the ability to fit into 

smaller fixtures) but also results in an 

inherent efficacy reduction. Thus, DOE 

established a separate product class for 

small-diameter lamps in order to 

preserve the small-diameter utility in 

the IRL marketplace in the face of 

standards. 74 FR 16920, 16939 (April 

13, 2009). Based on a comparison 

between the efficacies of commerciallyavailable PAR20 lamps and their PAR30 

and PAR38 counterparts, DOE selected 

an efficacy reduction factor of 12 

percent vs. the large-diameter IRL 

product class and utilized this factor to 

develop the efficacy levels for the smalldiameter IRL product class. 

DOE received a number of comments 

on its choice of a 12-percent efficacy 

reduction factor for the small-diameter 

IRL product class. The California 

Stakeholders expressed that a 12- 

percent factor adequately describes the 

observed efficacy differences due to 

optics between PAR20 and largerdiameter lamps; the California 

Stakeholders also warned DOE that the 

selection of a larger reduction factor 

would allow small-diameter IRL to meet 

DOE’s standards using less-efficient 

components, undermining DOE’s energy 

savings goals. (California Stakeholders, 

No. 63 at pp. 2, 22) NEMA and GE, on 

the other hand, commented that the 12- 

percent reduction factor is inappropriate 

for the product class because 75W and 

50W PAR20 lamps utilize single-ended 

halogen burner technologies and a 

double-ended burner (which is more 

efficacious than a single-ended burner) 

will not fit into a PAR20 lamp, thus 

eliminating PAR20 lamps from the 

market in the face of a TSL4 or TSL5 

standard. (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 7, pp. 12– 

13; GE, No. 80 at p. 6–7; GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 60– 

61) Philips acknowledged that a 12- 

percent factor describes the observed 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34107 

efficacy differences between PAR20 

lamps and larger-diameter lamps, but 

the interested party concurred with GE 

and NEMA concerning technical 

limitations that prevent double-ended 

burners from being installed into PAR20 

lamps. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 135–136, p. 

138) NEMA also commented that the 

smaller envelope featured on smalldiameter lamps limits heat dissipation, 

which would cause such lamps to run 

hotter and increase the susceptibility to 

early failure if the highest-efficacy 

halogen IR burners were installed. 

(NEMA, No. 81 at p. 13) In writing, 

NEMA recommended that DOE employ 

a reduction factor of 15 percent to 25 

percent from the large-diameter efficacy 

levels for small-diameter lamps; the 

range represents the range of efficacies 

observed across small-diameter lamps 

on the market (considering a variety of 

manufacturers). (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 4) 

The California Stakeholders then 

commented in writing that PAR20 

lamps will be able to accommodate 

double-ended burners by utilizing bent 

burner leads or cover glasses with a 

greater bulge and thus reach TSL5, as 

illustrated by two sources: A Philips 

MR16 lamp (which has a smaller 

diameter than a PAR20 lamp) on the 

European market that features a doubleended burner and bulged cover glass, 

and drawings from a lighting company 

that show the potential for a doubleended burner with a bent lead to be 

fitted into a PAR20 without a bulged 

cover glass. (California Stakeholders, 

No. 63 at pp. 22–24) 

Based on comments, DOE 

acknowledges that the installation of 

double-ended burners into smalldiameter lamps could be problematic. 

DOE notes that the outer dimensions of 

a PAR20 lamp, including the shape of 

the bulge, are dictated by ANSI 

Standard C78.21 (most recently updated 

in 2003). DOE notes that it is unaware 

of any standard dictating the inner 

dimensions of a PAR20 lamp, nor is 

DOE aware of a standard dictating the 

dimensions of double-ended burners. 

Thus, DOE believes that some technical 

innovations may make the installation 

of a double-ended burner into a PAR20 

lamp feasible. Interested parties did not 

provide additional data to DOE 

indicating the efficacy impacts of 

bending the lead of a double-ended 

burner so that it can be installed into a 

PAR20 lamp, however; DOE also could 

not obtain other data addressing these 

impacts. Also, DOE believes that 

manufacturers would not be able to 

position a double-ended burner at the 

optimum position for maximum efficacy 

in a PAR20 lamp due to the lamp’s 

reduced size; thus, DOE believes that a 

greater reduction factor than 12 percent 

is warranted for PAR20 lamps at EL4 

and EL5 even if a double-ended burner 

could be fitted into a PAR20 lamp. 

DOE acknowledges the Philips MR16 

lamp that features a double-ended 

burner and also acknowledges that the 

MR16 format is smaller than the PAR20 

format. The MR16 format, however, is a 

low-voltage format, and low-voltage 

lamps have different inherent 

characteristics than lamps designed for 

line-voltage operation. DOE thus does 

not believe that it can make 

assumptions about line-voltage smalldiameter lamp designs by assessing lowvoltage lamps. The California 

Stakeholders provided information 

showing a prototype low-voltage lamp 

with integrated transformer that can 

meet the April 2009 NOPR level of EL5 

for IRL, but this interested party did not 

provide details about the lifetime of the 

lamp or the impacts of the transformer 

on efficacy. (CA Stakeholders, 

Appendix 4, No. 63 at pp. 1–5) While 

DOE is aware of low-voltage PAR20 

lamps utilizing integrated transformers 

for direct connection to line-voltage 

sources, DOE does not have the data 

required to assess the impacts of such 

transformers on IRL efficacy; DOE thus 

could not confidently develop an 

efficacy level based on an IRL with an 

integrated transformer. See section 

VI.B.2.c for a further discussion of the 

integrated-transformer IRL design 

option. Because DOE cannot assess the 

effects of bent burner leads on lamp 

efficacy, acknowledges that doubleended burners cannot be optimally 

positioned in PAR20 lamps, cannot 

make design assumptions for linevoltage lamps based on low-voltage 

lamps, and cannot assess the impacts of 

an integrated transformer on lamp 

efficacy, DOE is revising its PAR20 EL4 

and EL5 efficacy requirements in this 

final rule so that PAR20 lamps will not 

require double-ended burners to meet a 

standard established at EL4 or EL5. 

In order to determine the efficacy 

reduction that would result from using 

a single-ended burner instead of a 

double-ended burner in a lamp, DOE 

obtained a commercially-available 

single-ended HIR capsule and measured 

the location and dimensions of the lead 

wire inside of the capsule, which 

prevents a certain amount of energy 

from reaching the capsule wall and 

being reflected back to the capsule 

filament. (A double-ended burner 

features a lead wire outside of the 

capsule, where it does not interfere with 

the reflectance of energy from the 

capsule wall back to the capsule 

filament.) DOE then created a model to 

determine the efficacy impacts of the 

lead wire’s presence inside of the 

capsule. DOE also simulated 

manufacturing variability by modeling 

the effects of changing the capsule 

dimensions and lead wire positioning. 

With the resulting data from the model, 

DOE determined the reduction in 

efficacy that results from the presence of 

the lead wire inside of a single-ended 

HIR capsule in comparison with a 

double-ended capsule, which features 

an external lead wire. This reduction 

was determined to be approximately 

3.5 percent. For EL4 and EL5, DOE is 

thus changing the reduction factor for 

small-diameter lamps from the April 

2009 NOPR value of 12 percent to the 

value of 15.5 percent for this final rule. 

This is within the reduction factor range 

proposed by NEMA for small-diameter 

IRL. (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 4) The smalldiameter IRL reduction factors in the 

April 2009 NOPR and in this final rule 

are shown in Table V.3. 74 FR 16920, 

16950 (April 13, 2009). 

TABLE V.3—SMALL-DIAMETER IRL REDUCTION FACTORS IN THE APRIL

2009 NOPR AND IN THIS FINAL

RULE

Efficacy level NOPR Final rule 

EL1 ................... 12% 12% 

EL2 ................... 12% 12% 

EL3 ................... 12% 12% 

EL4 ................... 12% 15.5% 

EL5 ................... 12% 15.5% 

Concerning heat dissipation, DOE 

acknowledges that the smaller size 

of a PAR20 in comparison with largerdiameter lamps limits heat dissipation, 

which would cause a given filament to 

operate at a higher temperature if 

simply transplanted from a largerdiameter lamp to a PAR20 lamp without 

any other changes. DOE notes, however, 

that HIR R20 lamps currently exist on 

the market, thus proving that high 

temperature-HIR technology in smalldiameter lamps is technologically 

feasible. In addition, in its research, 

DOE found no ANSI standard that 

indicated a required seal temperature. In 

fact on product specifications, DOE 

found that commercially-available 

lamps have a variety of seal 

temperatures. In consideration of all of 

these factors, DOE believes that the 15.5 

percent reduction for EL4 and EL5 is 

appropriate for small-diameter lamps. 

e. IRL With Rated Voltages Greater Than 

or Equal to 125 Volts 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

proposed that covered IRL with rated 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34108 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

13Monte Carlo simulations model uncertainty by 

utilizing probability distributions instead of single 

values for certain inputs and variables. 

14Fuller, Sieglinde K. and Stephen R. Peterson, 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Handbook 135 (1996 Edition); Life-Cycle Costing 

Manual for the Federal Energy Management 

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

Federal Energy Management Program, Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Conservation and Renewable 

Energy) (Feb. 1996). Available at: http:// 

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

voltages greater than or equal to 125V 

must be 15 percent more efficacious 

than covered IRL with rated voltages 

less than 125V. At the public meeting, 

DOE received numerous comments on 

this proposal. NEMA commented that 

the proposed standard for 130V would 

not be technically feasible to achieve; 

130V IRL are less efficacious than 120V 

IRL so that lifetime is preserved, and the 

effective elimination of 130V IRL would 

reduce utility for certain regions of the 

country with line voltages near 130V 

(since 120V IRL operated at 130V have 

reduced lifetimes). (NEMA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 60– 

62, 66–67, 139–140) NEMA instead 

requested the elimination of a 130V IRL 

product class and the development of 

standards based strictly upon lamps’ 

rated voltages. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 61–62, 67; 

NEMA, No. 81 at pp. 7, 24) On the other 

hand, EEI commented in writing on its 

support of higher efficacy standards for 

lamps with rated voltages higher than 

125V, while ACEEE commented at the 

public meeting that many 130V IRL are 

used on 120V lines as longer-life lamps. 

(EEI, No. 39 at p. 3; ACEEE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 65– 

66) Philips acknowledged that 130V IRL 

lose 15 percent in efficacy when 

operated at 120V but commented that 

there were other ways apart from 

separate product classes to prevent the 

usage of 130V IRL on 120V lines. 

(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

38.4 at pp. 62, 139–140) 

DOE shares ACEEE’s concern that 

without a more-stringent 130V IRL 

product class, 130V IRL that meet a 

particular IRL efficacy requirement will 

be purchased and used on 120V lines as 

longer-life lamps that no longer meet the 

efficacy requirement. While DOE agrees 

with NEMA’s comment that 130V lamps 

use less power than their rated power 

when operated at 120V, DOE also 

supports NEMA’s comments that 130V 

lamps are less efficacious than 120V 

lamps. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 67; NEMA, No. 

81 at p. 13) Specifically, a 130V lamp 

with a specific rated power, rated lumen 

output, efficacy, and rated lifetime will 

have lower power consumption, lower 

lumen output, lower efficacy, and 

longer lifetime when operated at 120V. 

By maintaining a separate product class 

for 130V IRL with a 15 percent increase 

in stringency relative to 120V IRL 

standards, DOE ensures that 130V IRL 

operated on 120V lines will be as 

efficacious during operation as 120V 

IRL that comply with standards. DOE 

acknowledges that designers of 130V 

IRL may have to make certain tradeoffs 

to meet the efficacy requirements, but 

DOE also believes that there are a 

number of ways to make compliant 

130V IRL (such as by adjusting lamp 

lifetime). Therefore, DOE has kept the 

130V IRL product class and its 

associated 15-percent stringency 

increase for the Final Rule. 

In writing, EEI also asked for 

clarification that the efficacy 

requirements shown in the April 2009 

NOPR for IRL with rated voltages greater 

than or equal to 125V apply when the 

IRL are tested at 120V. (EEI, No. 39 at 

p. 3) In response, DOE notes that IRL 

must be tested for compliance according 

to the test procedure in section 4.3 of 

Appendix R to Subpart B of 10 CFR 430, 

which states in part that ‘‘[l]amps shall 

be operated at the rated voltage.’’ Thus, 

IRL rated at 130V should be operated at 

130V during the efficacy measurement 

process. DOE believes that IRL operated 

at 130V are generally 15 percent more 

efficacious than when they are operated 

at 120V; thus, retaining a separate 

product class for 130V IRL, with a 15- 

percent increase over 120V IRL 

standards, allows DOE to take into 

account the efficacy reduction that 130V 

IRL will experience when operated at 

120V. 

C. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

This section describes the LCC and 

payback period analyses and the 

spreadsheet model DOE used for 

analyzing the economic impacts of 

possible standards on individual 

consumers. Details of the spreadsheet 

model, and of all the inputs to the LCC 

and PBP analyses, are contained in 

chapter 8 and appendix 8A of the TSD. 

DOE conducted the LCC and PBP 

analyses using a spreadsheet model 

developed in Microsoft Excel. When 

combined with Crystal Ball (a 

commercially-available software 

program), the LCC and PBP model 

generates a Monte Carlo simulation 13 to 

perform the analysis by incorporating 

uncertainty and variability 

considerations. For further details on 

the LCC and PBP Monte Carlo 

simulations, see the TSD appendix 8B, 

in which probable ranges of LCC results 

are presented. 

The LCC analysis estimates the 

impact of a standard on consumers by 

calculating the net cost of a lamp (or 

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

conservation standard is in effect) and 

under a standards-case scenario (in 

which the proposed energy conservation 

regulation is applied). As part of the 

LCC and PBP analyses, DOE developed 

data that it used to establish product 

prices, sales taxes, installation costs, 

disposal costs, operating hours, product 

energy consumption, energy prices, 

product lifetime, and discount rates. 

As discussed in the April 2009 NOPR, 

the life-cycle cost of a particular lamp 

design is a function of the total installed 

cost (which includes manufacturer 

selling price, sales taxes, distribution 

chain mark-ups, and any installation 

cost), operating expenses (due to 

purchases of energy as well as repair 

and maintenance costs), product 

lifetime, and discount rate. 74 FR 16920, 

16950 (April 13, 2009). DOE also 

incorporated a residual value 

calculation to account for any remaining 

lifetime of lamps (or ballasts) at the end 

of the analysis period. 74 FR 16920, 

16950 (April 13, 2009). The residual 

value is an estimate of the product’s 

value to the consumer at the end of the 

life-cycle cost analysis period, which 

embodies the assumption that a lamp 

system continues to function beyond the 

end of the analysis period. DOE 

calculates the residual value by linearly 

prorating the product’s initial cost 

consistent with the methodology 

described in the Life-Cycle Costing 

Manual for the Federal Energy 

Management Program.14

DOE also calculates a payback period 

for each standards-case lamp or lampand-ballast system. The payback period 

is the change in total installed cost of 

the more-efficient product compared to 

the baseline product, divided by the 

change in annual operating cost of that 

product compared to the baseline 

product. Stated more simply, the 

payback period is the time period for 

which a consumer must operate a moreefficient product to recoup the assumed 

increased total installed cost (compared 

to the baseline product) through savings 

from reduced operating costs. DOE 

expresses this period in years. 

In addition, in the April 2009 NOPR 

and in today’s final rule, DOE analyzes 

five types of events that would prompt 

a consumer to purchase a fluorescent 

lamp. These events account for the 

various economic impacts incurred by 

consumers depending upon the 

situations under which they are 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34109 

purchasing a lamp., Described in detail 

in the April 2009 NOPR, these events 

are: Lamp Failure (Event I), StandardsInduced Retrofit (Event II), Ballast 

Failure (Event III), Ballast Retrofit 

(Event IV), and New Construction and 

Renovation (Event V). 74 FR 16920, 

16958 (April 13, 2009). Although 

described primarily in the context of 

GSFL, lamp purchase events can be 

applied to IRL as well. However, 

considering that IRL are generally not 

used with a ballast, the only lamp 

purchase events applicable to IRL are 

lamp failure (Event I) and new 

construction and renovation (Event V). 

Table V.4 summarizes the approach 

and data that DOE used to derive the 

inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations 

for the April 2009 NOPR and the 

changes made for today’s final rule. The 

following sections discuss the 

comments DOE received regarding its 

presentation of the LCC and PBP 

analyses in the April 2009 NOPR and 

the responses and changes DOE made to 

these analyses as a result. 

TABLE V.4—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE NOPR AND FINAL RULE LCC ANALYSES

Inputs April 2009 NOPR 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. Discounts were also applied to develop a price for ballasts.

No change. 

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

four large States from data provided by the Sales Tax Clearinghouse.2

Updated the sales tax using the latest information from the Sales Tax Clearinghouse.3

Updated population estimates using 2008 

U.S. Census Bureau data.4

Installation Cost ............. Derived costs using the RS Means Electrical Cost Data, 2007 5 to 

obtain average labor times for installation, as well as labor rates 

for electricians and helpers based on wage rates, benefits, and 

training costs. For GSFL, included 2.5 minutes of installation time 

to the new construction, major retrofit, and renovation events in the 

commercial and industrial sectors to capture the time needed to install luminaire disconnects.

No change. 

Disposal Cost ................ GSFL: Included a recycling cost of 10 cents per linear foot in the 

commercial and industrial sectors.

No change. 

IRL: Not included.

Annual Operating Hours Determined operating hours by associating building-type-specific operating hours data with regional distributions of various building 

types using the 2002 U.S. Lighting Market Characterization 6 and 

the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) 2003 Commercial 

Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS),7 2001 Residential 

Energy Consumption Survey,8 and 2002 Manufacturing Energy 

Consumption Survey.9

Updated the regional distribution of residential 

buildings using the 2005 Residential Energy 

Consumption Survey.10

Product Energy Consumption Rate.Determined lamp input power (or lamp-and-ballast system input 

power for GSFL) based on published manufacturer literature. Used 

a linear fit of GSFL system power on several different ballasts with 

varying ballast factors in order to derive GSFL system power for all 

of the ballasts used in the analysis.

No change. 

Electricity Prices ............ Price: Based on EIA’s 2006 Form EIA–861 data.11 Updated with EIA’s 2007 Form EIA–861.12

Variability: Regional energy prices determined for 13 regions.

Electricity Price Trends Forecasted with EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2008.13 Updated with EIA’s April 2009 AEO2009, 

which includes the impacts of the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of February 2009.14

Lifetime .......................... Commercial and industrial sector ballast lifetime based on average 

ballast life of 49,054 from 2000 Ballast Rule; 15 developed separate 

ballast lifetime estimate for the residential sector using measured 

life reports. Lamp lifetime based on published manufacturer literature where available. DOE assumed a lamp operating time of 3 

hours per start. Where manufacturer literature was not available, 

DOE derived lamp lifetimes as part of the engineering analysis.

DOE added residential sector GSFL LCC 

analysis scenarios where a consumer preserves the lamp during a fixture replacement and installs the preserved lamp on a 

new fixture. The analysis periods for these 

scenarios are based on the full lifetime of 

the baseline lamp. 

Residential GSFL: 4-foot medium bipin lamp lifetime is dependent on 

the fixture lifetime (i.e., for average residential lamp operating 

hours, the fixture reaches end of life before the lamp reaches end 

of life, and, thus, the lamp is retired before it fails.) 

Discount Rate ................ Residential: Approach based on the finance cost of raising funds to 

purchase lamps either through the financial cost of any debt incurred to purchase product or the opportunity cost of any equity 

used to purchase equipment, based on the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances data 16 for 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 

2001, and 2004.

For the residential sector, included data from 

the 2007 Survey of Consumer Finances 

and the Cost of Savings Index dataset covering 1984 to 2008.24

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,17 Damodaran Online,18

Ibbotson’s Associates,19 the 2007 Value Line Investment survey,20

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A–94,21

2008 State and local bond interest rates,22 and the U.S. Bureau of 

Economic Analysis.23


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34110 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V.4—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE NOPR AND FINAL RULE LCC ANALYSES— 

Continued 

Inputs April 2009 NOPR Changes for the final rule 

Analysis Period ............. Commercial and industrial GSFL: Based on the longest baseline 

lamp life in a product class divided by the annual operating hours 

of that lamp.

No change. 

Residential GSFL: Based on the useful lifetime of the baseline lamp.

Lamp Purchasing 

Events.

Commercial and industrial sectors: DOE assessed five events: lamp 

failure, standards-induced retrofit, ballast failure (GSFL only), ballast retrofit (GSFL only), and new construction/renovation.

No change. 

Residential sector: DOE assessed three events: lamp failure, ballast 

failure (GSFL only), and new construction/renovation.

1 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table Containing History of CPI–U U.S. All Items Indexes and Annual Percent Changes from 1913 to 

Present (Last accessed Feb. 20, 2009). Available at: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt. 2The four large States are New York, California, Texas, and Florida. 

3Sales Tax Clearinghouse, Aggregate State Tax Rates (2009) (Last accessed Feb. 20, 2009). Available at: http://thestc.com/STrates.stm. The 

February 20, 2009 material from this Web site is available in Docket # EE–2006–STD–0131. For more information, contact Brenda Edwards at 

(202) 586–2945. 4 U.S. Census Bureau, Population change: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 (NST–EST2008–popchg2000–2008). Last accessed February 20, 

2009. Available at: http://www.census.gov/popest/states/files/NST-EST2008-popchg2000-2008.csv. 5 R. S. Means Company, Inc., 2007 RS Means Electrical Cost Data (2007). 6 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Final 

Report: U.S. Lighting Market Characterization, Volume I: National Lighting Inventory and Energy Consumption Estimate (2002). Available at: 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/info/documents/pdfs/lmc_vol1_final.pdf. 7 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey: Micro-level data, file 2 

Building Activities, Special Measures of Size, and Multi-building Facilities (2003). Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/public_use.html. 

8 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey: File 1: Housing Unit Characteristic 

(2006). Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/publicuse2001.html. 9 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey, Table 1.4: Number of Establishments by First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel) (2002). Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/mecs2002/data02/ 

shelltables.html. 10 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey: File 1: Housing Unit Characteristics 

(2008). Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recspubuse05/datafiles/RECS05file1.csv. 11 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Form EIA–861 for 2006 (2006). Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/ 

electricity/page/eia861.html. 12 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Form EIA–861 for 2007 (2007). Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/ 

electricity/page/eia861.html. 13 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2008 with Projections to 2030 (June 2008). Available 

at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo08/index.html. 

14 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, An Updated Annual Energy Outlook 2009 Reference Case Reflecting Provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and Recent Changes in the Economic Outlook (April 2009). Available at: http:// 

www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/stimulus/index.html. 15 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Building Research and Standards, Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer Products: Fluorescent Lamps Ballast Final Rule (Sept. 2000). Available at: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/gs_fluorescent_0100_r.html. 16The Federal Reserve Board, Survey of Consumer Finances. Available at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/PUBS/oss/oss2/scfindex.html. 17 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (2003). Available at: http:// 

www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/. 18 Damodaran Online, The Data Page: Historical Returns on Stocks, Bonds, and Bills—United States (2006) (Last accessed Sept. 12, 2007). 

Available at: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/∼adamodar. The September 12, 2007 material from this Web site is available in Docket # EE–2006– 

STD–0131. For more information, contact Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945. 19 Ibbotson’s Associates, Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation, Valuation Edition, 2001 Yearbook (2001). 20Value Line, Value Line Investment Survey (2007). Available at: http://www.valueline.com. 21 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Circular No. A–94 Appendix C (2008). Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a094/ 

a094.html. 22Federal Reserve Board, Statistics: Releases and Historical Data—Selected Interest Rates—State and Local Bonds (2008). Available at: 

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data/Monthly/H15_SL_Y20.txt. 23 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Table 1.1.9 Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product (2008). Available at: http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=N. 24 Mortgage-X, Mortgage Information Service. Cost of Savings Index (COSI), Index History. 2009. Last accessed, February 25, 2009. http:// 

mortgage-x.com/general/indexes/default.asp. 

1. Consumer Product Price 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE used a 

variety of sources to develop consumer 

equipment prices, including lamp and 

ballast prices in manufacturers’ 

suggested retail price lists (‘‘blue 

books’’), State procurement contracts, 

large electrical supply distributors, 

hardware and home improvement 

stores, Internet retailers, and other 

similar sources. DOE then developed 

low, medium, and high prices based on 

its findings. 74 FR 16920, 16952 (April 

13, 2009). 

At the public meeting, Philips 

commented that DOE’s estimated costs 

of IRL in the residential sector reported 

in the proposed rule appear too low in 

comparison with the costs of 

commercial IRL. (Philips, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 179– 

181) In response, DOE notes that the 

costs of all commercial IRL in the LCC 

and PBP analyses include $1.10 to 

account for the labor cost of a fourminute installation time at a labor rate 

of $16.55 per hour. (Using the consumer 

price index for 2008, the labor rate for 

this final rule was inflated to 2008 

dollars, as compared to the April 2009 

NOPR value of $15.94 per hour in 2007 

dollars.) Conversely, DOE assumes that 

consumers in the residential sector will 

replace their own lamps and, therefore, 

does not model labor costs for IRL in the 

residential sector; this difference in 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34111 

15Sales Tax Clearinghouse, ‘‘Aggregate State Tax 

Rates’’ (2009) (Last accessed February 20, 2009). 

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

February 20, 2009, material from this Web site is 

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

information, contact Brenda Edwards at (202) 586 

2945. 

16U.S. Census Bureau, ‘‘Population Change: April 

1, 2000 to July 1, 2008’’ (July 2008). Available at: 

http://www.census.gov/popest/states/files/NSTEST2008-popchg2000-2008.csv. 

17U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

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

Market Characterization. Volume I: National 

Lighting Inventory and Energy Consumption 

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

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

18U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Agency, ‘‘Commercial Building Energy 

Consumption Survey: Micro-Level Data, File 2 

Building Activities, Special Measures of Size, and 

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

www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/public_use.html. 

19U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration, Residential Energy Consumption 

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

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

recs2001/publicuse2001.html. 

20U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Agency, ‘‘Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, Table 1.4: Number of Establishments by 

First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and 

Nonfuel) (2002).’’ Available at: www.eia.doe.gov/ 

emeu/mecs/mecs2002/data02/shelltables.html. 

21U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration, Residential Energy Consumption 

Survey: File 1: Housing Unit Characteristic (2009). 

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

recspubuse05/pubuse05.html. 

22U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration, Form EIA–861 for 2007 (2007). 

Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/ 

electricity/page/eia861.html. 

23U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration, An Updated Annual Energy 

Outlook 2009 Reference Case Reflecting Provisions 

of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

and Recent Changes in the Economic Outlook 

(April 2009). Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/ 

oiaf/servicerpt/stimulus/index.html. 

24U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2009 with 

Projections to 2030 (March 2009). Available at: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/. 

25U.S. Department of Energy. Chapter 8: LifeCycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses. Available 

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

appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/ 

ch_8_lamps_standards_nopr_tsd.pdf. 

methodology contributes to the relative 

price difference between commercial 

and residential IRL. In addition, DOE 

acknowledges that lamps sold through 

various distribution chains may have 

differing end-user prices. For this 

reason, DOE conducts the LCC analysis 

on the high and low lamp prices as 

sensitivities, DOE believes that the 

sources and methodologies used to 

develop IRL prices for the April 2009 

NOPR reflect the variety of IRL prices 

encountered by consumers in the 

residential and commercial sectors. The 

results of the IRL price sensitivities 

analysis can be found in Appendix 8B 

of the TSD. 

Philips also commented that the 

incremental price differential for moreefficacious IRL appears too small. 

(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

38.4 at pp. 179–181) Additionally 

NEMA and Philips stated that the prices 

of IRL will be uncertain due to expected 

capacity constraints in 2012. (NEMA, 

Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

38.4 at pp. 286–287) 

DOE recognizes that the imposition of 

a standard will commoditize higherefficacy IRL that may be sold today as 

premium products at higher markups 

(from manufacturing costs to end-user 

prices) than lower-efficacy IRL. Prices of 

IRL in DOE’s analysis are meant to 

reflect commoditization of these higherefficacy products in the face of 

standards. DOE assessed discounts 

between blue book prices and end-user 

prices of currently-available lowerefficacy IRL to obtain information about 

how commoditization affects IRL price. 

DOE took this information into account 

during the development of prices for the 

IRL that comply with each EL shown in 

today’s final rule. Furthermore, 

although DOE recognizes that there may 

be uncertainty regarding future IRL 

prices, interested parties did not 

provide additional data to DOE as 

would cast doubt on its overall pricing 

methodology or as would support an 

alternative methodology. For these 

reasons, DOE has not changed the April 

2009 NOPR IRL methodologies or prices 

for this final rule. For further 

information on the development of IRL 

prices, see chapter 7 of the final rule 

TSD. 

2. Sales Tax 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

obtained State and local sales tax data 

from the Sales Tax Clearinghouse. 

(April 2009 NOPR TSD chapter 7) The 

data represented weighted averages that 

include county and city rates. DOE used 

the data to compute populationweighted average tax values for each 

Census division and four large States 

(New York, California, Texas, and 

Florida). For the final rule, DOE 

retained this methodology and used 

updated sales tax data from the Sales 

Tax Clearinghouse 15 and updated 

population estimates from the U.S. 

Census Bureau.16

3. Annual Operating Hours 

As discussed in the April 2009 NOPR, 

DOE developed annual operating hours 

for IRL and GSFL by combining 

building type-specific operating hours 

data from the 2002 U.S. Lighting Market 

Characterization (LMC) 17 with data in 

the 2003 Commercial Building Energy 

Consumption Survey (CBECS),18 the 

2001 Residential Energy Consumption 

Survey (RECS),19 and the 2002 

Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey (MECS),20 which describe the 

probability that a particular building 

type exists in a particular region. 74 FR 

16920, 16954–55 (April 13, 2009). For 

this final rule, DOE updated the 

residential annual operating hours 

estimates using the 2005 RECS.21

Residential-sector average operating 

hours changed from 789 to 791 hours 

per year for GSFL and from 884 hours 

per year in the April 2009 NOPR to 889 

hours per year for this final rule for IRL. 

DOE did not receive any further 

comments on residential-sector 

operating hours. For further details on 

the annual operating hours used in the 

analyses, see chapter 6 of the TSD. 

4. Electricity Prices and Electricity Price 

Trends 

As explained in the April 2009 NOPR, 

DOE determined energy prices by 

deriving regional average prices for 13 

geographic areas consisting of the nine 

U.S. Census divisions, with four large 

States (New York, Florida, Texas, and 

California) treated separately. 74 FR 

16920, 16955–56 (April 13, 2009). For 

the April 2009 NOPR, DOE derived 

electricity prices based on data from the 

2006 publication of EIA Form 861. Id. 

At the public meeting, ACEEE 

commented that DOE should use the 

latest available electricity prices and 

electricity price trends in its analysis for 

the final rule. (ACEEE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 154–155) 

DOE agrees with ACEEE and has 

updated the related electricity price and 

electricity price trend sources for the 

final rule analysis. For electricity price 

data, the analysis now utilizes EIA’s 

Form 861 electricity price data from the 

year 2007.22 DOE obtained electricity 

price trend data from EIA’s latest 

AEO2009,23 which was published in 

April 2009 and is a special update of the 

March 2009 AEO2009 (the initial release 

of EIA’s AEO2009) 24 that includes the 

impacts of the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of February 

2009 (Pub. L. 111–5). To project 

electricity prices to the end of the LCC 

analysis period, DOE used the reference 

economic growth projection in the April 

AEO2009. As done for the April 2009 

NOPR, DOE used the price trend 

average rate of change during 2020– 

2030 to estimate the price trends after 

2030. See chapter 8 of the April 2009 

NOPR TSD 25 as well as chapter 8 of the 

final rule TSD. The spreadsheet tools 

and LCC sensitivity scenarios featured 

in the April 2009 NOPR also included 

high-economic-growth and loweconomic-growth electricity price trend 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34112 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

26U.S. Department of Energy. April 2009 NOPR 

Technical Support Document. Chapter 4. Life-Cycle 

Costs and Payback Periods. Available at: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/chap4.pdf. 

27 GDS Associates, Inc., Engineers and 

Consultants, Measure Life Report: Residential and 

Commercial/Industrial Lighting and HVAC 

Measures (The New England State Program 

Working Group) (2007). 

28Economic Research Associates, Inc., and 

Quantec, LLC, Revised/Updated EULs Based On 

Retention And Persistence Studies Results 

(Southern California Edison) (2005). 

29U.S. Department of Energy. Chapter 4. LifeCycle Costs and Payback Periods. Available at: 

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

appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/chap4.pdf. 

cases from EIA. The April 2009 

AEO2009 did not include these cases, 

however. To generate them, DOE 

utilized the difference between the 

reference economic-growth case and the 

high- and low-economic-growth cases in 

the March 2009 AEO2009 as scaling 

factors to produce high- and loweconomic-growth estimates for the 

spreadsheet tools and LCC sensitivity 

scenarios addressed in this final rule. 

The results of DOE’s analysis using 

the reference economic-growth 

projections are presented in this notice, 

with a full set of results displayed in 

chapter 8 of the TSD. DOE also presents 

LCC and PBP results for the loweconomic-growth and high-economicgrowth cases from AEO2009 in 

appendix 8B of the final rule TSD. 

5. Ballast Lifetime 

For the April 2009 NOPR, DOE used 

a commercial and industrial sector 

ballast lifetime of approximately 50,000 

hours, which is the average ballast life 

used in the 2000 final rule for 

fluorescent lamp ballasts (2000 Ballast 

Rule).26 65 FR 56740 (Sept. 19, 2000). In 

the primary commercial sector LCC and 

PBP analysis, this is equivalent to a 

lifetime of approximately 14.2 years 

(based on an average of 3,435 operating 

hours per year in the commercial 

sector). 

At the public meeting, Lutron 

Electronics agreed that a ballast lifetime 

of 50,000 hours is common, and a 14.2 

year lifetime is appropriate for a ballast 

that is operated approximately 3,500 

hours per year. However, Lutron 

Electronics also commented that the 

ballast service life (in years) will change 

as operating hours change. (Lutron 

Electronics, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 38.4 at pp. 152–153) DOE agrees 

with Lutron Electronics and verifies that 

in its commercial and industrial LCC 

analyses, for the Monte Carlo 

simulations (that analyze a distribution 

of operating hours) and for the 

consumer subgroup analyses, DOE 

varies ballast service life as operating 

hours change. 

For the residential sector LCC and 

PBP analysis in the April 2009 NOPR, 

DOE used a ballast lifetime of 15 years, 

based on measure life reports that 

discuss ballast lifetime in terms of 

years.27 28 74 FR 16920, 16959 (April 13, 

2009). In other words, DOE assumed 

that a ballast installed in the residential 

sector would remain in place for an 

average of 15 years, regardless of its 

annual operating hours. The measure 

life reports, published in 2005 and 2007, 

incorporate both magnetic and 

electronic ballasts. DOE used the 

measure life reports because DOE 

believes they best capture the true 

service life of ballasts in the residential 

sector. 

At the NOPR public meeting, ACEEE 

stated that in 2005, the vast majority of 

ballasts were magnetic, suggesting that 

the measure life that DOE assumed may 

not be appropriate. ACEEE also 

commented that the ballast lifetimes, 

when expressed in hours (15 years in 

place is equivalent to 11,869 hours of 

life based on average residential GSFL 

operating hours), appeared too low for 

the residential sector. (ACEEE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 154, 

169–170) In response, DOE notes that it 

did not receive any data that indicate 

the measure life of electronic ballasts 

differs from magnetic ballasts. Thus, 

DOE does not believe there is a 

difference in the lifetimes of the two 

ballast types that is substantial enough 

to affect the results of the analyses. 

First, it is worth noting that the 2000 

Ballast Rule assumes no difference 

between the two ballast lifetimes.29

Second, manufacturer product literature 

does not generally suggest or market a 

difference in lifetimes between magnetic 

and electronic ballasts. Third, in 

interviews, manufacturers mentioned 

that there was no substantial difference 

in reliability (a proxy for service life) 

between magnetic and electronic 

ballasts. Finally, DOE understands that 

most ballasts are rated for longer 

lifetimes (in hours) than the lifetimes 

that DOE used in its analyses. DOE 

reiterates, however, that the measure life 

reports estimate the lifetimes of actual 

ballasts in the field, accounting for not 

only ballast failure at its rated life, but 

also premature failure, fixture removal, 

and replacement during renovation. For 

all of these reasons, DOE continues to 

use the measure life reports to 

determine ballast service life in the 

residential sector. 

6. Lamp Lifetime 

When possible, for the April 2009 

NOPR, DOE used manufacturer 

literature to determine lamp lifetimes. 

74 FR 16920, 16956–57 (April 13, 2009). 

When published manufacturer literature 

was not available—as was the case for 

some IRL—DOE derived lamp lifetimes 

as part of the engineering analysis. DOE 

also considered the impact of group relamping practices on GSFL lifetimes in 

the commercial and industrial sectors in 

this final rule. 74 FR 16920, 16954 

(April 13, 2009). For details, see chapter 

5 of the final rule TSD. 

For GSFL, DOE based its lamp 

lifetimes on lamp start cycles of 3 hours 

per start. At the public meeting, 

Southern California Edison commented 

that residential GSFL may experience 

much shorter start cycles than 3 hours 

per start, thereby lowering their 

lifetimes from rated values. (Southern 

California Edison, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 166–167) 

DOE acknowledges that some 

residential GSFL may indeed experience 

shorter start cycles than 3 hours per 

start, thereby reducing lamp lifetime 

due to increased electrode degradation. 

Research indicated to DOE that the 

effective lifetimes of lamps operated at 

start cycles other than 3 hours per start 

is highly variable and depends directly 

on the lamp type as well as the type of 

ballast (i.e., program start, instant start, 

or rapid start) to which the lamp is 

connected. Southern California Edison 

did not provide data to illustrate the 

expected lifetimes of any of the 

residential GSFL (either base-case or 

standards-case) featured on any of the 

ballasts that DOE presents in the LCC 

analysis, nor did it provide data 

indicating the prevalence of various 

start cycles in the residential sector. In 

response to these comments, DOE 

conducted research but was unable to 

find data sources for the residential 

sector that specified any of this 

information. For this reason, DOE has 

chosen to maintain the usage of rated 

lamp lifetimes based on 3 hour start 

cycles for this final rule. 

7. Discount Rates 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE derived 

residential discount rates by identifying 

all possible debt or asset classes that 

might be used to purchase replacement 

products, including household assets 

that might be affected indirectly. DOE 

estimated the average proportions of the 

various debt and equity classes in the 

average U.S. household equity and debt 

portfolios using data from the Survey of 

Consumer Finances (SCF) sources from 

1989 to 2004. DOE used the mean share 

of each class across the six sample years 

as a basis for estimating the effective 

financing rate for replacement 

equipment. DOE estimated interest or 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34113 

return rates associated with each type of 

equity and debt using SCF data and 

other sources. The mean real effective 

rate across the classes of household debt 

and equity, weighted by the shares of 

each class, was 5.6 percent for the April 

2009 NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 16957 (April 

13, 2009). For this final rule, DOE 

updated the sources used to compute 

the discount rate in the residential 

sector. The analysis now features data 

from the 2007 Survey of Consumer 

Finances and the Cost of Savings Index 

dataset covering 1984 to 2008. Based on 

these updates, the residential sector 

average discount rate for the final rule 

is 4.8 percent. 

For the commercial sector and 

industrial sector, DOE derived the 

discount rate from the cost of capital of 

publicly-traded firms in the sectors that 

purchase lamps, as done for the April 

2009 NOPR 74 FR 16920, 16957 (April 

13, 2009). Because DOE received no 

comments on its commercial and 

industrial sector discount rates and all 

sources used remain the most current 

sources available, for this final rule, 

DOE has continued to use discount rates 

of 7.0 percent and 7.6 percent for the 

commercial and industrial sectors, 

respectively. 

8. Residential Fluorescent Lamp 

Analysis 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

produced a residential sector GSFL lifecycle cost and payback period analysis 

based upon measure life reports that 

indicated an average residential GSFL 

fixture lifetime of 15 years. 74 FR 16920, 

16956 (April 13, 2009). Under average 

operating hours (791 hours per year), 

DOE determined that a 4-foot MBP lamp 

would live approximately 19 years. In 

the April 2009 NOPR LCC analysis, DOE 

assumed that consumers would discard 

their lamps during fixture replacement, 

effectively ending the life of the lamps, 

thus resulting in no lamp-only 

replacements in the residential sector 

under average operating hours. The 2.5- 

year analysis period used by DOE for 

the residential GSFL lamp failure events 

represented DOE’s belief that under 

high operating hours (1,210 hours per 

year), if a baseline lamp and fixture 

were purchased at the same time, the 

baseline lamp would fail after 

approximately 12.5 years and the fixture 

would be replaced 2.5 years after the 

lamp failure (for a total fixture life of 15 

years). Thus, after a lamp failure, the 

replacement lamp would have 2.5 years 

in which to operate before the fixture is 

replaced. DOE’s analysis period for 

calculating the LCC savings for 

residential consumers responding to a 

lamp failure was therefore 2.5 years. 

Both Southern California Edison and 

the California Stakeholders commented 

that the 2.5-year analysis period utilized 

by DOE in the NOPR to model the 

residential GSFL lamp failure events is 

too short and that the energy savings 

should be considered over the full life 

of the replacement lamp, in other words 

12.5 years. In their suggested revisions 

to the LCC analysis, the stakeholders 

imply that upon fixture replacement, 

consumers will retain their previouslyinstalled replacement lamp and reinstall 

it on a new fixture. According to the 

comments, analyzing such a scenario 

under high operating hours results in 

significant life-cycle cost savings for the 

residential lamp failure event when 

consumers are forced to retrofit their 

T12 systems with T8 systems. (Southern 

California Edison, No. 53 at p. 1–7; 

California Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 9) 

DOE acknowledges that in the 

residential sector, consumers may 

choose to preserve a lamp instead of 

discarding it upon fixture replacement, 

though in its research, DOE was unable 

to determine which situation was more 

likely. DOE recognizes that retaining a 

lamp beyond the fixture or ballast life 

would extend the useful lamp life, and, 

thus, the analysis period. Modeling this 

scenario would take into account 

operating cost savings over a longer 

period of time and additional 

equipment costs to the consumer, who 

in the base case is replacing their T12 

lamp and will need to purchase a new 

ballast at some point in the future. 

Therefore, for this final rule, DOE has 

analyzed an additional scenario in the 

residential sector LCC analysis 

modeling this preservation of lamp 

behavior. This analysis shows that some 

residential consumers with T12 systems 

do in fact obtain LCC savings when 

forced to retrofit their T12 ballast with 

a T8 system. However, DOE also notes 

that the results of this analysis are 

highly dependent on the remaining 

years of lifetime left on the T12 ballast 

when the lamp is replaced. DOE 

presents the LCC results for this 

additional scenario in section VII.C.1.a 

of this final rule as well as in chapter 

8 and appendix 8B of the TSD. 

In contrast to Southern California 

Edison and the California Stakeholders 

who implied that DOE’s analysis 

understated the consumer economic 

savings to the residential sector of 

retrofitting from a T12 to T8 system, GE 

commented that such a retrofit presents 

a best-case estimate of a 50-year payback 

period, and, therefore, is not 

economically justified. (GE, No. 80 at 

pp. 1–3; GE, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 38 at p. 81) 

While DOE acknowledges that the 

standards presented in this final rule 

place some burden on some residential 

T12 GSFL users, DOE believes that the 

LCC analysis performed for this final 

rule accurately reflects this burden. DOE 

notes that as discussed below, payback 

period calculations do not account for 

expenses incurred by consumers who 

purchase new fixtures in the middle of 

the analysis period. In addition, DOE 

notes that the assumptions of electricity 

prices, labor rates, system energy 

savings, and operating hours that GE 

used to produce the payback estimate in 

its written comment do not align with 

the inputs that DOE presented in the 

April 2009 NOPR and updated for this 

final rule. DOE recognizes that there 

may be some variability in these inputs, 

but believes that DOE estimates 

represent those experienced for the 

average consumer. In addition, DOE 

notes that it did not receive specific 

adverse comments on these inputs 

themselves. 

9. Rebuttable Payback Period 

Presumption 

The payback period (PBP) is the 

amount of time it takes a consumer to 

recoup the assumed incremental costs of 

a more-efficient product through lower 

operating costs. In the April 2009 NOPR 

and today’s final rule, DOE used a 

‘‘simple’’ PBP, so named because the 

PBP does not take into account other 

changes in operating expenses over time 

or the time value of money. 74 FR 

16920, 16957–58 (April 13, 2009). As 

inputs to the PBP analysis, DOE used 

the total installed cost of the product to 

the consumer for each efficacy level, as 

well as the first year annual operating 

costs for each efficacy level. The 

calculation requires the same inputs as 

the LCC, except for energy price trends 

and discount rates; only energy prices 

for the year the standard takes effect 

(2012 in this case) are needed. 

At the public meeting, Earthjustice 

commented that there is a presumption 

that an energy conservation standard is 

economically justified if the payback 

period of products that comply with the 

standard is less than three years. 

(Earthjustice, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 38.4 at pp. 186–187) Earthjustice 

further stated that DOE did not calculate 

a rebuttable presumption payback 

period for each trial standard level 

presented in the April 2009 NOPR and 

that DOE cannot ignore the rebuttable 

presumption payback period out of 

preference for the seven-factor test 

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

ACEEE similarly commented in writing 

that ‘‘[a] higher burden of proof is 

required to overcome the rebuttable 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34114 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

presumption.’’ (Earthjustice, No. 60 at p. 

6; ACEEE, No. 76 at p. 6) DOE is aware 

of the rebuttable presumption payback 

period test in 42 U.S.C 6295(o)(B)(iii), 

which states that ‘‘[i]f 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, there shall be 

a rebuttable presumption that such 

standard level is economically 

justified.’’ While DOE acknowledges 

that the rebuttable presumption payback 

period computation can have value, 

DOE emphasizes that the presumption 

is rebuttable, specifically because DOE 

is required by law to consider the 

specific criteria in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i) when prescribing new 

standards, such as impacts on utility, 

competition, and the Nation as a whole. 

Thus, DOE’s analyses of these criteria 

serve to either support or rebut any 

initial determination that a standard is 

economically justified based on the 

rebuttable payback period presumption. 

There is no statutory provision that 

requires DOE to emphasize the 

rebuttable presumption payback period 

test over the specific criteria that must 

be considered according to 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i); thus, DOE disagrees 

that ‘‘[a] higher burden of proof is 

required to overcome the rebuttable 

presumption.’’ There is also no statutory 

requirement for DOE to present a single 

rebuttable presumption payback period 

for each trial standard level. DOE has 

conducted the full set of economic 

analyses required by 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(B)(i) for this final rule. The 

results of this analysis serve as the basis 

for DOE to definitively evaluate the 

economic justification for a potential 

standard level. 

The payback periods shown in 

chapter 8 and appendix 8B of the final 

rule TSD are ‘‘simple payback periods’’ 

computed using the same methodology 

that would be utilized to compute 

payback periods for a rebuttable 

presumption payback period test; DOE’s 

seven-factor analysis serves to confirm 

or rebut any assumption of economic 

justification based on payback periods 

that are shorter than three years. DOE 

stresses, however, that there are several 

factors for which the LCC analysis 

accounts, but the payback period 

analysis does not. For example, the LCC 

analysis includes financing effects and 

utilizes energy costs that vary over time. 

In addition, DOE notes that the simple 

payback period values computed for 

some lamp purchase events and 

scenarios do not fully express the 

equipment costs experienced by 

consumers in these scenarios. Payback 

period calculations take into account 

only the installed costs incurred at the 

very beginning of the analysis period. 

Thus, the calculation excludes the 

economic impacts of any additional 

costs (e.g., a new ballast purchase, 

recycling costs) that may be incurred in 

the middle or at the end of the analysis 

period. For these reasons, DOE believes 

that the LCC analysis and other analyses 

performed for this final rule serve as a 

higher-fidelity assessment of economic 

impacts than the computation of 

payback periods alone. In other words, 

the LCC results serve to support or rebut 

the results of the PBP analysis. 

Therefore, DOE is continuing to utilize 

these higher-fidelity analyses as a 

definitive evaluation of the economic 

impacts of the standards presented and 

chosen in this final rule. 

D. National Impact Analysis—National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

Analysis 

DOE’s NIA assesses the national 

energy savings (NES) and the national 

net present value (NPV) of total 

customer costs and savings that would 

be expected to result from new 

standards at specific efficacy levels. 

For the final rule analysis, DOE used 

the same spreadsheet model (with 

updated inputs as discussed below) 

described and used in the NOPR to 

calculate the NES and NPV based on the 

annual energy consumption and total 

installed cost data employed in the LCC 

analysis. 74 FR 16920, 16958–71 (April 

13, 2009). DOE forecasts energy savings, 

energy cost savings, equipment costs, 

and NPV for each product class from 

2012 through 2042. The forecasts 

provide annual and cumulative values 

for all four output parameters. DOE also 

examines impact sensitivities by 

analyzing various lamp shipment 

scenarios (such as Roll-up and Shift). 

To arrive at these output parameters, 

DOE first develops a base-case forecast 

for each analyzed lamp type. This 

forecast characterizes energy use and 

consumer costs (lamp purchase and 

operation) in the absence of new or 

revised energy conservation standards. 

To evaluate the impacts of such 

standards on these lamps, DOE 

compares this base-case projection with 

projections characterizing the market if 

DOE were to promulgate new or 

amended standards (i.e., the standards 

case). In characterizing the base and 

standards cases, DOE considers 

historical shipments, its shipment 

projections, emerging technologies, the 

mix of efficacies sold in the absence of 

any new standards, and how that mix 

might change over time. Inputs and 

issues associated with the NIA and any 

changes made in this final rule are 

discussed in more detail immediately 

below. 

1. Overview of NIA Changes in This 

Notice 

Based on the comments it received 

regarding the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

made a number of changes to the NIA. 

Table V.5 summarizes the approach and 

data DOE used to derive the inputs to 

the NES and NPV analyses for the April 

2009 NOPR, as well as the changes it 

made for this final rule in response to 

comments and updated information. As 

demonstrated by the table, DOE changed 

several inputs due to the availability of 

updated sources. For example, DOE 

updated projected electricity prices 

from EIA’s AEO2008 estimates to 

AEO2009. In addition, DOE calculated 

new annual marginal site-to-source 

conversion factors based on the version 

of the National Energy Modeling System 

(NEMS) that corresponds to AEO2009. 

Following the table, DOE details 

additional inputs and changes, and 

summarizes and responds to each of the 

NIA-related comments it received at the 

public meeting and in written 

comments. See TSD chapters 10 and 11 

for further details. 

TABLE V.5—APPROACH AND DATA USED TO DERIVE THE INPUTS TO THE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND NET PRESENT

VALUE ANALYSES

Inputs April 2009 NOPR description Changes for the final rule 

Shipments ............................ Annual shipments from shipments model ....................... See Table V.6 and Table V.7. 

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

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


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34115 

TABLE V.5—APPROACH AND DATA USED TO DERIVE THE INPUTS TO THE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND NET PRESENT

VALUE ANALYSES—Continued 

Inputs April 2009 NOPR description Changes for the final rule 

Unit energy consumption 

(kWh/yr).

Established in the energy-use characterization, TSD 

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

sector.

Residential operating hours updated based on RECS 

2005 (from RECS 2001). 

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

chapter 7 and the LCC analysis, chapter 8, by lampand-ballast designs.

No change. 

Electricity price forecast ....... Based on AEO2008 forecasts (to 2030) and an extrapolation for beyond 2030. (See TSD chapter 8).Updated for AEO2009 (used version informed by impacts of the American Reinvestment and Recovery 

Act). 

Energy site-to-source conversion.Conversion varies yearly and was generated by DOE/ 

EIA’s NEMS program (a time-series conversion factor; includes electric generation, transmission, and 

distribution losses).

Updated for AEO2009 (used version informed by impacts of the American Reinvestment and Recovery 

Act). 

Conversion factors for beyond 2030 are held constant.

HVAC interaction savings .... 6.25% of total energy savings in all sectors ................... No change. 

Rebound effect ..................... 1% of total energy savings in the commercial and industrial sectors.No change. 

8.5% of total energy savings in the residential sector.

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

Present year ......................... Future costs and savings are discounted to 2007 ......... Future costs and savings are discounted to 2009. 

2. Shipments Analysis 

Lamp shipments are an important 

input to the NIA. In the April 2009 

NOPR, DOE explained how it developed 

separate shipment models for GSFL and 

IRL. 74 FR 16920, 16959–70 (April 13, 

2009). In general, to forecast shipments 

for these two categories of lamps, DOE 

followed a four-step process. First, DOE 

used 2001-to-2005 historical shipment 

data from NEMA and other publiclyavailable sources to estimate the total 

historical shipments (i.e., NEMA 

member and non-NEMA member 

shipments) of each lamp type analyzed. 

Second, based on these historical 

shipments and the average service 

lifetime of each lamp type, DOE 

calculated the installed stock of lamps 

for each lamp type in 2005. Third, by 

modeling lamp purchasing events, and 

applying growth rate, replacement rate, 

and emerging technologies penetration 

rate assumptions, DOE developed 

annual shipment projections from 2006 

to 2042. (NEMA had not provided 

publically-available data for years after 

2005). Specifically, DOE modeled lamp 

(and ballast for GSFL) shipments based 

on four lamp-purchasing market events: 

(1) New construction; (2) ballast failure 

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

(4) standards-induced retrofit (for the 

standards case). DOE also calibrated its 

shipments model to reflect confidential 

shipment data provided by NEMA for 

2006 and 2007. Finally, because the 

shipments of lamp designs and lampand-ballast designs (for GSFL) often 

depend on their properties (e.g., ballast 

factor and efficacy), DOE developed 

base-case and standards-case marketshare matrices as another model input. 

The market-share matrices characterize 

the efficacy, power rating, light output, 

and lifetime of the lamp and lamp-andballast designs. The matrices input the 

percentage market share of each design 

into the shipment model. DOE used 

these market-share matrices to forecast 

lamp stock and shipments, taking into 

account each design’s respective 

lifetime. 

Table V.6 and Table V.7 summarize 

the approach and data DOE used for 

GSFL and IRL, respectively, to derive 

the inputs to the shipments analysis for 

the April 2009 NOPR, as well as the 

changes DOE made for the final rule. A 

discussion of comments DOE received 

on these inputs and of the changes 

implemented for the final rule follows. 

TABLE V.6—APPROACH AND DATA USED TO DERIVE THE INPUTS TO GSFL SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS

Inputs 2009 NOPR description Changes for the final rule 

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

(except for T5 lamps; see NOPR TSD chapter 10). 

Assumed NEMA data represented 90 percent of 

GSFL shipments. Calibrated 2006–2007 forecasted 

shipments based on confidential historical shipment 

data NEMA provided for those years. 

No change. 

Lamp inventory .................... Calculated stock in 2005. Then used growth, emerging 

technologies, and shipment assumptions to establish 

lamp inventory from 2006 to 2042. 

No change. 

Growth .................................. Based commercial and residential growth on AEO2008 

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

per new home. For the industrial sector, projected 

floor space growth using the 2002 Manufacturer Energy Consumption Survey (MECS 2002). 

Updated commercial and residential growth for 

AEO2009 (used version informed by impacts of the 

American Reinvestment and Recovery Act). 

Base-case scenarios ............ Developed two base-case scenarios, one of which 

modeled the market penetration of LEDs based on 

projected payback period. 

Updated LED prices and performance projections for 

DOE’s Solid State Lighting Research and Development Multi-Year Program Plan FY’09–FY’15. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34116 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

30National Economic Accounts, Bureau of 

Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce 

(Last accessed on Feb. 28, 2009). Available at: 

http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/Index.asp. 

TABLE V.6—APPROACH AND DATA USED TO DERIVE THE INPUTS TO GSFL SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS—Continued 

Inputs 2009 NOPR description Changes for the final rule 

Market-share matrices ......... Developed product distributions based on comments, 

interviews, and catalog research. Matrices apportion 

a share of shipments for each lamp-and-ballast design option. 

Revised product distributions based on comments, 

NEMA survey data and further research. 

Standards-case scenarios ... Considered two sets of scenarios to characterize consumer behavior in response to standards: the Shift 

and Roll-up scenarios and the High and Market Segment-Based Lighting Expertise scenarios. 

No change 

TABLE V.7—APPROACH AND DATA USED TO DERIVE THE INPUTS TO IRL SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS

Inputs 2009 NOPR description Changes for the final rule 

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

Assumed NEMA data represented 85 percent of IRL 

shipments. Calibrated 2006–2007 projected shipments based on confidential historical shipment data 

NEMA provided for those years. 

Received additional historical shipments (2004–2008) 

from NEMA with which DOE verified growth, projected shipments, and emerging technologies assumptions. 

Lamp inventory .................... Calculated stock in 2005 based on average lifetime and 

historical shipments. Then used growth, replacement 

rate, and emerging technologies assumptions to establish lamp inventory from 2006 to 2042. 

No change. 

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

growth based on AEO2008 estimates for future commercial floor space and residential buildings. Also accounted for trend of increasing sockets per home. 

Updated for AEO2009 (used version informed by impacts of the American Reinvestment and Recovery 

Act). 

Base-case R–CFL and 

emerging technologies.

Developed two base-case scenarios modeling the market penetration of light emitting diodes (LEDs), ceramic metal halides (CMH), and reflector compact fluorescent lamps (R-CFL) based on projected payback 

period. 

Updated LED prices and performance projections for 

DOE’s Solid State Lighting Research and Development Multi-Year Program Plan FY’09–FY’15. 

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

the base case and standards case, as well as each 

of the scenarios analyzed. 

No change. 

Standards-case scenarios ... Modeled both Roll-up and Shift scenarios. 

Revised BR lamp sensitivity scenario, creating two new 

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

‘‘No Product Substitution.’’ 

Modeled migration to only exempted BR lamps in the 

new ‘‘BR Product Substitution’’ scenario, which replaced the ‘‘No Product Substitution’’ scenario. 

Modeled migration to only R–CFL in the new ‘‘R–CFL 

Product Substitution,’’ which replaced the ‘‘Product 

Substitution’’ scenario. 

Added the ‘‘Baseline Lifetime’’ scenarios modeling sale 

of lamps with lifetimes similar to the baseline lamps 

in the standards case. (See section VI.C) 

3. Macroeconomic Effects on Growth 

In the April 2009 NOPR, as part of its 

shipments forecasts, DOE established 

commercial floor space and residential 

buildings growth based on AEO2008. 

Because AEO2008 does not provide 

industrial floor space forecasts, DOE 

used historical MECS floor space values 

to establish a growth rate for the 

industrial sector. 74 FR 16920, 16961 

(April 13, 2009). OSI stated that growth 

will be subject to economic shocks over 

time, and pointed to the current decline 

in the commercial market as evidence to 

that fact. (OSI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 213–214) 

Southern California Edison commented 

that DOE should look at past economic 

dislocations to better forecast lamp 

shipments through 2042. (Southern 

California Edison, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 214) The 

California Stakeholders urged DOE not 

to change its NIA assumptions with 

respect to the recent macroeconomic 

downturn reasoning that such a 

modification would add no value to 

DOE’s analysis because no one can 

accurately predict the timing and extent 

of an economic recovery. An attempt by 

DOE to do so would unduly burden its 

efforts to publish a final rule by the 

deadline. (California Stakeholders, No. 

63 at p. 8) 

While DOE agrees that future 

shipments will be subject to general 

economic shocks over time, DOE 

believes there is no practical way of 

projecting the timing of those shocks 

throughout the analysis period. DOE’s 

projections (of sockets and thus 

shipment growth) incorporate 

AEO2009’s assumption of average gross 

domestic product (GDP) growth of 2.5 

percent annually. That is consistent 

with historical growth, which has 

averaged 2.85 percent annually over the 

last 30 years, covering both recessionary 

and expansionary cycles.30 Because of 

this consistency with historical trends 

and the incorporation of future 

economic growth considerations, DOE 

believes its approach of using AEO’s 

projections is superior to extrapolating 

from specific historical economic 

events. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34117 

31RLW Analytics, Inc., ‘‘California Statewide 

Residential Lighting and Appliance Efficiency 

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

Sept. 29, 2008). Available at: www.calresest.com/ 

docs/2005CLASSREPORT.pdf. 

32Multi-Year Program Plan FY’09 to FY’15: SolidState Lighting Research and Development (March 

2009). Available at: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/ 

ssl_mypp2009_web.pdf. 

4. Reflector Market Growth 

To establish IRL shipment forecasts in 

the April 2009 NOPR, DOE first 

modeled the projected growth in the 

total reflector lamp market. To do this, 

DOE utilized the year-to-year 

commercial floor space and residential 

building growth projections in 

AEO2008. DOE also accounted for a 

trend toward more fixtures in new and 

renovated homes. To do this, DOE 

obtained historical California data31 on 

recessed cans per home, categorized by 

home age. Using this data, DOE 

estimated the average number of 

recessed cans per home to grow from 

4.82 in 2005 to 8.52 in 2042. To estimate 

the growth rate in each year, DOE 

multiplied this growth in the number of 

recessed cans in homes by the projected 

stock of homes according to AEO2008. 

Combining these two sources, DOE 

predicted an average growth rate of 

sockets of 2.6 percent between 2006 and 

2042. 74 FR 16920, 16961 (April 13, 

2009). 

In response to DOE’s shipment 

forecasts, NEMA commented that DOE’s 

stated average annual growth rate of 2.6 

percent for IRL was not realistic. NEMA 

also provided additional historical IRL 

shipment data from 2004 to 2008 that 

show shipments of PAR38 lamps 

decreasing approximately 8 percent per 

year and shipments of PAR30 and 

PAR20 lamps only marginally 

increasing. (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 14–15) 

In response, DOE notes that the 2.6 

percent growth rate in sockets presented 

in the April 2009 NOPR does not 

represent growth in overall IRL 

shipments. DOE used that growth in 

sockets and then applied varying 

penetrations of non-IRL technologies 

into those sockets to determine IRL 

shipment forecasts, as discussed in 

section V.D.5. In fact, after accounting 

for these non-IRL technologies, DOE’s 

resulting 2004 to 2008 IRL shipments 

decline at a rate consistent with 

NEMA’s historical shipments. 

At the NOPR public meeting, EEI 

commented that data from RECS show 

that California homes historically have 

been smaller than the national average. 

Therefore, using the California study as 

a proxy for the nation as a whole may 

not be appropriate. Additionally, in 

recent years, EEI stated that new U.S. 

homes have stopped growing in terms of 

average floor space. EEI suggested that 

DOE research other State studies and 

regional studies from the National 

Association of Home Builders to obtain 

more values for growth rates of lighting 

fixtures. Philips agreed and stated a 

preference for much more pessimistic 

IRL growth projections than those used 

by DOE, due to the economic 

slowdown, houses getting smaller, and 

the penetration of CFLs and other 

emerging technologies. (EEI, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 196; 

Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

38.4 at p. 197; EEI, No. 38.4 at pp. 3,4) 

In response, DOE agrees that RECS 

data shows that the average home in 

California is smaller than the average 

home in the U.S. However, that fact 

does not mean DOE’s extrapolation of 

the California trend (showing increasing 

number of light sources per home) to the 

nation is inappropriate. As discussed 

above and in TSD chapter 10, DOE used 

the growth rate of sockets per California 

home as an input into its national 

shipment projections, not the absolute 

number of sockets per home. It is the 

growth in the size of California homes 

relative to the growth of all U.S. homes 

that is important to the analysis, not the 

absolute size of the homes. Therefore, as 

long as the floor space growth rate of 

new homes in California is consistent 

with rest of the country, the trend 

toward more sockets in California is 

applicable in this instance to the 

country as a whole. To that point, 

Census data from 1973 to 2008 show 

that average floor space of new homes 

in the West has grown at roughly the 

same rate as in the nation overall—1.11 

percent versus 1.20 percent. Therefore, 

DOE believes the application of the 

California data to the rest of the country 

is appropriate in this instance and has 

not changed its methodology for the 

final rule. 

With regard to the comment that 

homes are no longer growing in size, 

DOE’s analysis of census housing data 

shows positive annual single-family 

home floor space growth in each year 

from 1994 to 2007. In 2008, the overall 

U.S. average did indeed decline by 0.5 

percent. However, while year-to-year 

average growth has varied over 35 years, 

the long-term trend is clearly upward— 

as mentioned above, the average floor 

space of new homes has grown at a 

compounded annual rate of 1.2 percent 

since 1973. AEO2009 projections for 

average residential square footage, 

which incorporate macroeconomic 

effects, also predict a long-term trend of 

positive floor space growth. Therefore, 

DOE believes projecting continued 

growth in the number of sockets per 

home is appropriate and has not 

changed its methodology for the final 

rule. This enables DOE to continue to 

use AEO forecasts, which capture 

macroeconomic conditions—as many 

comments have urged DOE to do—in its 

socket and shipment growth projections. 

With regard to the comment suggesting 

DOE obtain more regional housing data, 

DOE notes that AEO2009 projections for 

residential housing stock growth are 

based off Census data on the nine 

Census Divisions. AEO projects housing 

stocks separately for each Census 

Division. Given the purposes of this 

analysis and the nationwide 

applicability of standards, DOE believes 

this methodology incorporates a 

sufficient level of geographic 

granularity. 

5. Penetration of R–CFLs and Emerging 

Technologies 

As discussed in more detail in the 

April 2009 NOPR (74 FR 16920, 16962– 

63 (April 13, 2009)) DOE developed and 

analyzed two base-case shipment 

scenarios for IRL that estimated varying 

penetrations of non-IRL technologies 

into the reflector market. For the 

Existing Technologies scenario, DOE 

only considered the market penetration 

of technologies that are currently readily 

available and have reached maturation 

in terms of price and efficacy, namely 

R–CFL. In the Emerging Technologies 

scenario, DOE attempted to forecast the 

market penetration of mature 

technologies and those technologies that 

are still undergoing significant changes 

in price and efficacy. Specifically, DOE 

considered the market penetration of R– 

CFL, LED lamps, and CMH lamps in the 

Emerging Technologies scenario. 

Because the lamps employing emerging 

technologies are beyond the scope of the 

rulemaking, DOE did not consider them 

design options for improving IRL or 

GSFL efficacy. Instead, DOE considered 

these technologies potential substitutes 

for the lamps covered in this 

rulemaking. DOE assumed that the price 

of emerging technologies relative to 

covered technologies is related to the 

likelihood that a consumer will buy an 

emerging technology instead of a 

covered lamp. 

DOE developed price, performance, 

and efficacy forecasts for each of the 

analyzed R–CFL and emerging 

technologies. For the LED forecasts, 

DOE used data from its Solid State 

Lighting Multi-Year Program Plan. (For 

this final rule, DOE updated its LED 

forecasts for DOE’s latest Multi-Year 

Program Plan.)32 With these inputs, 

DOE calculated the payback period 

(PBP) of each technology in the relevant 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34118 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

33California Energy Commission, ‘‘Residential 

Compliance Manual For California’s Energy 

Efficiency Standards,’’ Chapter 6 (April 2005) (Last 

accessed: June 18, 2009). Available at: http:// 

www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-400- 

2005-005/chapters_4/q/6_Lighting.pdf. 

34 International Code Council, ‘‘International 

Energy Conservation Code: Excerpt From the 2007 

Supplement’’ (July 2007) (Last accessed: June 18, 

2009). Available at: http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/ 

codes/2007-08cycle/2007Supplement/IECC07S.pdf. 

sector using the difference between its 

purchase price, annual electricity cost, 

and annual lamp replacement cost 

relative to the lamp it replaces. (See 

TSD chapter 10 for further details.) DOE 

then used a relationship between PBP 

and market penetration to predict the 

market penetration of each technology 

in the relevant sector in every year from 

2006 to 2042. DOE received several 

comments on how it estimated R–CFL 

and emerging technologies penetrations 

into the IRL market, as discussed below. 

At the public meeting, EEI 

commented that dimmable CFLs could 

dramatically impact IRL growth if the 

dimmable technology improves. (EEI, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 

202) In contrast, ADLT commented that 

DOE overestimated the penetration of 

R–CFLs in the commercial market in its 

April 2009 NOPR analysis. ADLT stated 

that many commercial lighting 

applications require directional lighting 

for which R–CFLs are ineffective. 

(ADLT, No. 72 at p. 5) 

In response to EEI’s comment, DOE 

agrees that enhanced utility features of 

various emerging technologies may 

change the rate at which they are 

adopted. DOE also acknowledges that 

there is considerable uncertainty in 

predicting the penetration of non-IRL 

technologies into the IRL market. It is 

for this very reason that DOE models 

two base-case scenarios that 

encompasses a large range of potential 

penetrations. DOE believes that its 

Emerging Technologies forecast 

adequately captures the effects of any 

increased penetration of R–CFLs 

through advances in dimming 

technology. As discussed in TSD 

chapter 10, based on payback period 

calculations, in the Emerging 

Technologies forecast, DOE predicts that 

R–CFLs will have a significant impact 

on IRL shipments only in the first few 

years of the analysis period. Thereafter, 

LEDs, which have dimming capability 

(and thus can provide the utility at issue 

in the comment), become more costeffective and dominate the emerging 

technologies forecast, despite any 

potential future improvement in R–CFL 

dimming capabilities. 

With regard to ADLT’s comment, DOE 

recognizes that there are several 

qualities of R–CFLs (such as form factor, 

beam spread, color quality, 

directionality, and dimming capability) 

which may result in consumers’ 

unwillingness to purchase them for IRL 

applications. DOE has attempted 

account for these factors by reducing the 

penetration of R–CFLs by approximately 

40 percent relative to the penetrations 

predicted by the payback periodpenetration calculations. However, 

considering the significant uncertainty 

regarding these penetrations, DOE 

verified its R–CFL penetration by 

comparing its modeled shipments from 

2005 to 2008 to NEMA’s historical 

shipments. As discussed earlier, DOE 

found that during this time period, the 

rate of decline in historical IRL 

shipments (which is primarily due to R– 

CFL penetration) is consistent with 

DOE’s modeled shipments. For this 

reason, DOE does not feel it necessary 

or that there is an analytical basis and 

data to modify its R–CFL penetration 

estimates. 

Pertaining to the Emerging 

Technology forecasts, NEMA 

commented that the April 2009 NOPR 

analysis incorrectly projected IRL 

shipments to increase after reaching a 

minimum level. NEMA asserted that 

DOE should remodel its expected 

energy savings with a continued decline 

in IRL shipments after 2024. (NEMA, 

No. 81, p. 15) DOE believes that its IRL 

forecasts are reasonable. As emerging 

technologies continue to improve and 

their prices continue to decrease, DOE 

agrees that IRL shipments will further 

decline as market share shifts from IRL 

to LED. However, as these emerging 

technologies reach maturation, DOE 

believes that their relative market share 

will stabilize, consistent with their 

mature cost and performance features. 

Thus, as the total number of reflector 

lamp sockets continues to increase (due 

to new construction), it is reasonable to 

predict that IRL shipments will 

experience a moderate increase as well. 

However, as DOE acknowledges that 

there is considerable uncertainty 

regarding its forecasts, DOE performed a 

sensitivity analysis for the Emerging 

Technologies scenario in which IRL 

shipments continue to decline until 

emerging technologies reach a 

maximum market penetration, which is 

upheld for the rest of the analysis 

period. This sensitivity analysis results 

in approximately a 6 percent decrease in 

energy savings over the analysis period. 

6. Building Codes 

In response to the April 2009 NOPR, 

GE commented that increasinglystringent building codes will most likely 

be phased in over time, causing IRL 

growth to slow and decline. (GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 205– 

206) EEI also stated that the most recent 

model building codes would have an 

effect on lighting technologies and 

efficiencies. EEI added that the 2009 

International Energy Conservation Code 

(IECC) for residential construction calls 

for 50 percent of lighting to be highefficiency. Once DOE certifies the IECC, 

EEI stated, States have one year to 

update their codes to meet or exceed the 

IECC 2009, which will alter the growth 

of IRL. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 38.4, pp. 206–207, 315; EEI, No. 45 

at pp. 5–6). 

In response, to evaluate the effects of 

more-stringent building codes being 

phased in over the analysis period, DOE 

identified and evaluated three of the 

most influential building codes across 

the country. These included: (1) 

California’s Title 24,33 which is 

mandatory in the State; (2) the latest 

International Energy Conservation Code 

(IECC 2009), which is a model energy 

code and which some States voluntarily 

incorporate by reference into their 

building codes, and (3) ASHRAE/IESNA 

Standard 90.1–2004. Each code has 

sections that pertain to residential and 

commercial lighting. For example, IECC 

2009 requires that high-efficacy light 

bulbs be installed in at least 50 percent 

of permanent lighting fixtures in new 

residential homes. ‘‘High-efficacy’’ is 

defined as: 

‘‘A lighting fixture that does not 

contain a medium screw base socket 

(E24/E26) and whose lamps have a 

minimum efficacy of: 

1. 60 lumens per watt for lamps over 

40 watts, 

2. 50 lumens per watt for lamps over 

15 watts to 40 watts, 

3. 40 lumens per watt for lamps 15 

watts or less.’’ 34

The California Building Standards 

Code (Title 24) requires that all 

luminaires that are permanently 

installed via new construction, 

alterations, or additions (including 

replacements) be high-efficacy. Title 

24’s definition of ‘‘high-efficacy’’ is very 

similar to that in IECC 2009. 

DOE also researched ASHRAE/IESNA 

Standard 90.1–2004, a commonlyreferenced code for commercial 

buildings. Although it rarely references 

lumen-per-watt metrics directly, the 

code does impose lighting power 

density requirements and requires 

controls for many building types and 

sizes, while providing various 

allowances and exemptions for many 

applications. 

When evaluating how such codes will 

affect lamp shipments, it is important to 

note that DOE does not have the 

authority to mandate that States enact 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34119 

35See: http://www.energycodes.gov/implement/ 

state_codes/index.stm. 

36 DiLouie, Craig, ‘‘Lighting Controls: Current 

Use, Major Trends and Future Direction,’’ Lighting 

Controls Association (2003). 

37See, for example, http://resourcecenter.pnl.gov/ 

cocoon/morf/ResourceCenter/article/1566. (Last 

accessed June 16, 2009). 

38 VonNeida, Bill; Maniccia, Dorene; Tweed, 

Alan, An Analysis of the Energy and Cost Savings 

Potential of Occupancy Sensors for Commercial 

Lighting Systems, Lighting Research Center and 

Environmental Protection Agency (August 2000). 

residential building codes, as EEI 

suggested (although for commercial 

codes DOE can require the adoption of 

a certain code it determines will 

improve the energy efficiency of the 

nation’s commercial building stock). (42 

U.S.C. 6833(b)(2)(A)) To clarify, EPCA 

requires DOE to determine whether 

updates to IECC’s residential energy 

efficiency code will improve the energy 

efficiency of the nation’s residential 

housing stock. When DOE makes such 

a positive determination, States are 

required to review (but not necessarily 

adopt) the energy provisions of the code 

and to determine whether it would be 

appropriate to revise residential 

building codes to meet or exceed the 

model code on which DOE made a 

positive determination. (42 U.S.C. 

6833(b)(1)). States must complete their 

review within two years of DOE’s 

positive determination. Given a variety 

of policy considerations and the absence 

of a direct mandate under EPCA that 

States adopt such building codes, 

currently, the stringency of residential 

codes adopted varies widely throughout 

the country.35 The most recent and 

stringent codes are not necessarily 

adopted by States. Furthermore, in some 

States, local governments have authority 

over their building codes (known as 

‘‘Home Rule’’), making it even more 

likely that the stringency of building 

codes will vary widely throughout the 

country. For these reasons, DOE does 

not believe that it should explicitly 

assume that new, more stringent codes 

will necessarily be adopted, 

implemented, and enforced. 

Furthermore, building codes are 

informed by product capabilities, 

IESNA recommended light levels, and 

lamp and ballast efficiencies, rather 

than vice versa. With that said, 

however, while not a driver of 

development of more efficient 

technology, DOE agrees that 

increasingly-stringent residential 

building codes are likely to contribute to 

a greater share of shipments being 

higher-efficacy lamps by the end of the 

analysis period as compared to the start 

of the period. Consistent with this trend, 

DOE’s market share matrices show 

migration to higher-efficacy lamps in 

the base case, which allow for the 

effects of more-energy-efficient building 

codes, although DOE did not directly 

analyze those effects. See chapter 10 of 

the TSD for the full market-share 

matrices in 2012 and 2042. 

7. GSFL Shipments Growth 

NEMA also commented on several 

aspects of the GSFL shipment forecasts. 

NEMA commented that DOE should 

forecast shipments that account for a 

migration to GSFL with longer lifetimes. 

NEMA argued that this phenomenon, 

currently occurring through both the 

increased shipments of T8 lamps 

relative to T12 lamps and through a 

movement from short-life T8 lamps to 

long-life T8 lamps, will result in a 

decline of overall GSFL shipments. 

NEMA stated that such an effect would 

materially affect DOE’s economic 

justification of GSFL standard levels. 

(NEMA, No. 81 at p. 14) In response to 

NEMA’s concern, DOE agrees that it is 

important to account for the economic 

effects of consumers purchasing longerlife GSFL and has done so. In its NOPR 

analyses and in chapter 11 of the TSD, 

DOE has fully accounted for this 

migration toward longer-life lamps in its 

calculations of consumer equipment 

costs and industry revenues, which are 

inputs into its calculations of NPV and 

INPV. According to the NIA model, the 

average commercial sector 4-foot MPB 

T8 shipped in 2012 has a lifetime of 

approximately 6 years; in 2042, the 

average lifetime is approximately 7 

years. 

NEMA also commented that DOE 

overlooked the trend toward more 

lighting controls and occupancy sensors 

in the commercial sector and, therefore, 

did not account for this effect in slowing 

shipment growth and reducing potential 

energy savings. NEMA asserted that this 

highlights the flaw in the current 

rulemaking approach (e.g., considering 

lamps instead of lighting systems). 

(NEMA, No. 81 at p. 14) 

In response, DOE researched the issue 

of lighting controls and how their 

deployment may affect the potential 

energy savings from more-efficient 

lamps. DOE agrees that lighting controls 

are penetrating the commercial 

buildings sector and as these 

technologies advance, building 

managers seek to control costs, and 

more recent commercial building energy 

codes are adopted. DOE’s research 

suggested this trend is almost entirely in 

the new construction and major 

renovation market segments. A 2003 

study suggested such controls are 

already common to roughly 60 percent 

of newly-constructed commercial square 

footage.36 DOE has determined that the 

impacts of lighting controls are captured 

by the operating-hours data derived 

from CBECS and employed in DOE’s 

analysis. However, as NEMA pointed 

out, given the additional time for the 

continued market penetration of these 

controls throughout the analysis period 

and the fact that buildings larger than 

5,000 square feet require automatic 

shutoff controls to be in compliance 

with the most recent versions of the 

most referenced energy codes,37 higher 

penetration rates are possible in the 

future. Therefore, to evaluate the 

potential increased penetration of 

lighting controls, DOE conducted a 

sensitivity analysis in which it 

estimated that all new commercial 

building floor space after 2012 featured 

automated lighting controls, such as 

occupancy sensors and scheduling 

systems. 

Next, DOE estimated the reduced 

operating hours due to these lighting 

controls based on industry references. A 

Lighting Research Center study on 

savings potential from occupancy 

sensors found a range of 17 percent to 

60 percent, depending on the 

application and tenant behavior.38 This 

finding was in line with other industry 

estimates. For its analysis, DOE 

assumed the midpoint of these findings 

(38.5 percent) as the energy savings 

achieved by new commercial buildings 

employing lighting controls. DOE then 

reduced commercial operating hours by 

the product of the energy savings, 

increase in commercial square footage 

with lighting controls, and the average 

proportion of the lighting market 

serving newly-constructed commercial 

buildings over the analysis period. 

Based on these inputs, DOE calculated 

approximately a 0.5 percent decline in 

national energy savings and an average 

reduction in shipments of 0.5 percent 

over the analysis period. Although this 

reflects a relatively small impact, DOE 

considered this information in weighing 

the economic justification of the final 

rule. See TSD chapter 11 for more 

details on the lighting controls 

sensitivity analysis. 

8. Residential Installed GSFL Stock 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE allotted 

a portion of the 4-foot MBP installed 

stock in 2012 to the residential sector. 

To model this, DOE chose the 

representative system as a 40W T12, 

4-foot MBP lamp on a magnetic lowballast-factor ballast. 74 FR 16920, 

16942–16943 (April 13, 2009). DOE 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34120 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

39 ’’Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) 

Initiative for PY2008: Title 20 Standards 

Development,’’ Analysis of Standards Options for 

Linear Fluorescent Fixtures (Prepared for PG&E by 

ACEEE, Lighting Wizards, and Energy Solutions). 

(Last modified May 14, 2008) 

received comments on its residential 

sector analysis for the GSFL NIA. These 

comments are discussed below. 

NEMA stated that DOE’s analysis 

overlooked the fact that a small portion 

of the residential installed base is 

already composed of T8 lamps, thereby 

resulting in an overstatement of energy 

savings. NEMA stated that fixture 

manufacturers have begun to sell more 

T8 fixtures for the residential sector and 

that one luminaire manufacturer 

reported sales in the sector are currently 

split evenly between T8 and T12 

fixtures. (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 8) 

DOE acknowledges that in there is 

some present migration to T8 lamps in 

the residential sector. However, DOE 

also believes that the vast majority of 

the installed GSFL stock in the 

residential sector is T12 lamps. This 

view was communicated in public 

meetings, comments, and manufacturer 

interviews, as noted in the April 2009 

NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 16942 (April 13, 

2009). For example, in earlier 

comments, NEMA stated that the 

residential sector is projected to use 

more than 75 percent of all 4-foot 

medium bipin T12 lamps sold by 2012 

and this level would be expected to 

persist, given that the 2000 Ballast Rule 

allows continued use of the most 

common residential magnetic ballast. 

(NEMA, No. 21, at p. 20; OSI, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 276) 

DOE’s estimates are roughly in line with 

this estimate. Furthermore, DOE’s 

approach is consistent with a 2008 

PG&E study that assumed, based on 

discussions with fixture manufacturers 

and distributors, all current residential 

fixtures were T12 systems.39 Based on 

these comments, interviews, and its 

own research, DOE chose to analyze the 

4-foot medium bipin T12 lamp as the 

representative system in the residential 

sector. Taken together, PG&E’s study 

and the public comments DOE received 

do not compel a change in this 

approach. However, DOE does assume 

and account for rapid migration to T8 

lamps in the residential sector in the 

base case, reflecting the trend noted by 

NEMA. For example, in the base case, 

DOE assumes the stock of 4-foot 

medium bipin T8 lamps in the 

residential sector will grow more than 

10-fold in the first decade after the 

effective date, or roughly at a 28-percent 

compounded annual growth rate. 

Therefore, DOE has retained its 

methodology in this respect. 

EEI commented that 34W T12 lamps 

are being sold now in hardware stores 

for the residential market, and, 

therefore, DOE should not assume that 

the entire residential market is 

composed of 40W T12 lamps. Southern 

California Edison commented that only 

about 25 percent of T12 lamps are 40W 

(DOE’s baseline lamp) in California. On 

the other hand, GE commented that the 

overwhelming majority of GSFL in the 

residential market are 40W lamps. (EEI, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 

222; Southern California Edison, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 188– 

189; GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

38.4 at p. 189) 

DOE acknowledges that some 34W 

T12 lamps may be sold to residential 

consumers. Therefore, DOE has revised 

its residential 4-foot T12 market-share 

matrix to reflect this effect. In addition, 

DOE revised its 4-foot T12 market-share 

matrices in both the commercial and 

residential markets to better reflect 

confidential manufacturer survey data, 

as it relates to triphosphor and 

halophosphor shipment categories. As a 

result of these two changes, DOE now 

assumes that in the 2012 base case, 8 

percent of 4-foot T12 lamp shipments in 

the residential sector are 34W, and 92 

percent are 40W (down from 100 

percent in the April 2009 NOPR). 

Overall, for this final rule, DOE 

allocated 90 percent (up from 67 

percent) of the commercial 4-foot T12 

market to 34W lamps and 10 percent to 

40W. 

9. GSFL Lighting Expertise Scenarios 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

considered two sets of standards-case 

scenarios for GSFL shipments: (1) Rollup and Shift scenarios; (2) High and 

Market Segment-Based Lighting 

Expertise scenarios. 74 FR 16920, 

16967–16968 (April 13, 2009). The Rollup and Shift scenarios address the issue 

of whether consumers who currently 

purchase lamps with efficacies that 

exceed (not just meet) the minimum 

standard would be likely to shift to even 

higher efficacy lamps in the face of 

amended standards. These scenarios 

and the comments DOE received on 

them are described below. For further 

details on the scenarios DOE analyzed 

and developed, see TSD chapter 10. 

For the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

modeled the Lighting Expertise 

scenarios that analyzed the lamp and 

ballast purchase decisions consumers 

are likely to make when required to 

purchase higher-efficacy lamps. DOE 

analyzed these scenarios because how 

consumers respond to this situation 

could substantially affect the potential 

energy savings and NPV that will result 

from amended standards. For example, 

to maintain lumen output with a new 

higher-efficacy lamp, some consumers 

may select a reduced-wattage lamp to 

replace a less-efficacious predecessor. 

Others may simply replace the lamp 

with one of the same wattage, not make 

any other adjustments, and accept 

higher light output. For GSFL, which 

operate on ballasts, consumers may also 

choose to run the higher-efficacy lamps 

on lower-ballast-factor ballasts. To the 

extent that lower ballast factors (BF) can 

achieve the appropriate lumen output, 

DOE incorporated them into the 

technology choices facing consumers. 

The Lighting Expertise scenarios 

estimate the extent to which consumers 

in the standards case may migrate to 

energy-saving, reduced-wattage lamps, 

or, when reduced-wattage lamps are not 

available or feasible, pair the new lamps 

with a lower-BF ballast (i.e., ballast 

factor ‘‘tuning’’). With the results of this 

analysis, DOE developed two standardscase scenarios called the ‘‘High’’ and 

‘‘Market Segment-Based’’ Lighting 

Expertise scenarios. This set of 

scenarios characterizes the likelihood 

consumers will maintain equivalent 

light output upon the purchase of a new 

higher-efficacy lamp or accept higher 

lighting levels. In the High Expertise 

scenario, consumers who can maintain 

lumen levels, do so. Conversely, in the 

Market Segment-Based scenario, DOE 

assumes only a percentage of consumers 

will have the expertise, based primarily 

on their market segment and purchase 

event, to make this energy savings 

decision. 

In general, NEMA supported the 

modeling of the Market Segment-Based 

Lighting Expertise scenario as the more 

realistic outcome of amended energy 

conservation standards. NEMA stated 

that despite an increase in efficacy, 

triphosphor lamps (particularly those at 

TSL4 and TSL5) will not save 

consumers any energy, because the 

lamps will be the same wattage as those 

they replace (with consumers simply 

realizing higher lighting levels). 

(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

38.4 at pp. 253–254; GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 256–7; 

NEMA, No. 81 at p. 19) NEMA also 

commented that original equipment 

manufacturer (OEM) sales data indicates 

that roughly 90 percent of OEM 

luminaires (used in the fixture 

replacement, renovation, and new 

construction markets), are shipped with 

ballasts with a normal ballast factor. 

Therefore, NEMA commented, DOE’s 

estimate of consumers with high 

expertise for new construction and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34121 

renovation in the commercial sector (69 

percent and 78 percent, respectively) are 

likely overstated and should probably 

be closer to what it estimates for the 

fixture replacement (34 percent) market. 

(OSI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

38.4 at pp. 233–235, NEMA, No. 81, pp. 

15–16) 

In response to the comments it 

received, DOE conducted further 

research and interviews on this issue. 

Specifically, DOE reevaluated its 

assumptions based on confidential sales 

channel data on instant-start electronic 

T8 ballast sales that DOE received. The 

data were categorized by ballast type 

(standard or high-efficiency), ballast 

factor, and sales channel. OEM sales, 

which represent ballasts generally sold 

to fixture manufacturers, best match the 

fixture replacement, renovation, and 

new construction purchase events in 

DOE’s analysis. 

While the OEM sales data suggest, as 

NEMA noted, that most ballasts shipped 

for new fixtures have normal ballast 

factors, DOE does not believe such a 

distribution will necessarily 

characterize the lamp/ballast market in 

the standards case for the following 

reasons. First, the current distribution of 

ballast factors cannot be assumed to be 

predictive of the standards-case 

distribution. As more efficient lamps are 

introduced, a key variable—lumen 

output—in the utility of fixtures will 

have changed, all other things being 

equal. If, in the standards case, fixture 

OEMs were agnostic to ballast factor and 

continued to purchase the same 

distribution of high, normal, and low 

ballast factors, they would be altering 

and perhaps jeopardizing this utility the 

consumer derives from their product. 

Because fixtures are often designed and 

marketed for a typical lumen output, 

DOE does not believe it is likely that 

OEMs would be disinterested in the 

light output of their product in the 

standards case. This is reinforced by the 

emphasis on the cost of ownership 

estimates provided by fixture 

manufacturers in their specifications 

sheets and marketing materials. Given 

higher-efficacy lamps, DOE believes 

fixture manufacturers will continue to 

market energy savings as before, which 

will require pairing reduced-wattage 

lamps (if sold with the fixture) or low 

BF ballasts with their fixtures. 

Next, discussions with fixture 

manufacturers and DOE’s product 

research indicate fixture manufacturers 

have the flexibility to meet the demand 

of their end-users. There are no inherent 

substitutability issues that would pose 

obstacles in migrating from normal 

ballast factor to a low ballast factor. In 

interviews, fixture manufacturers 

communicated their desire and that of 

their customers to ‘‘match’’ lumens— 

i.e., not over-light or under-light relative 

to the system being replaced. For 

example, one fixture manufacturers 

noted that it was common for them to 

replace three-lamp fixtures with twolamp fixtures. 

Manufacturers stated during the 

public meeting that the commercial 

sector is mostly characterized by a high 

level of lighting sophistication. (Philips, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at 

pp. 239–240) For all of these reasons, 

DOE believes that fixture OEMs would 

be likely to consider lower BF ballasts, 

if more-efficacious lamps were required 

due to standards. Therefore, DOE 

decided not to change its lighting 

expertise assumptions for this final rule 

and continues to use the results of its 

analysis to characterize the MarketSegment-Based Lighting Expertise 

scenario. However, whereas DOE 

believes it has modeled market behavior 

which is consistent with the available 

research, DOE acknowledges the 

uncertainty in these estimates, and, 

therefore, modeled a sensitivity scenario 

in which it assumed that 34 percent (as 

recommended by NEMA) of consumers 

in the new construction and renovation 

markets migrate to lower-ballast-factor 

ballasts or low-wattage lamps. 

Generally, this sensitivity scenario 

reduces energy savings and NPV by 

approximately 20 percent and 25 

percent, respectively (depending on the 

TSL and scenario). NPV and NES 

remain highly positive. See TSD chapter 

11 for results of this sensitivity analysis. 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

characterized residential consumers as 

having low lighting expertise in the 

Market-Segment-Based Lighting 

Expertise scenario and assumed 0 

percent of these consumers would 

migrate to lower-BF ballasts or lowerwattage lamps in this standards-case 

scenario. 74 FR 16920, 16968 (April 13, 

2009). ASAP commented that the 

residential consumer’s expertise, or lack 

thereof, is not as relevant as what is on 

the store shelf and what is on sale. 

Therefore, ASAP argued, 0 percent 

choosing a lower BF ballast or reduced 

wattage is likely not accurate for fixture 

replacement in the residential sector. 

(ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

38.4 at pp. 236–237) 

DOE reiterates that how consumers 

behave in this respect is highly 

uncertain. What is on sale in the store 

clearly has an effect, but to assert that 

it is the only determinate would be to 

disregard the impact of consumer 

choice. Additionally, what is on sale 

depends largely on the expertise of the 

agent deciding what the store should 

stock, and how responsive this agent is 

to consumer demand. As discussed in 

the April 2009 NOPR, because of the 

uncertainty around this issue DOE 

decided to consider both the High and 

Market Segment-Based Lighting 

Expertise scenarios. 74 FR 16920, 

16967–68 (April 13, 2009). With these 

scenarios, DOE attempts to capture this 

range of potential impacts, with the 

Market Segment-Based scenario 

characterizing the lower bound. DOE 

decided for this final rule to continue to 

assume, in the Market Segment-Based 

lighting expertise scenario, that 0 

percent of residential fixture 

replacement purchases will pair lower 

ballast factors with higher-efficacy 

lamps, or purchase reduced-wattage 

lamps. In contrast, the High Lighting 

Expertise scenario is meant to represent 

the upper bound of impacts and 

assumes that 100 percent of residential 

decision-makers have high lighting 

expertise. 

10. IRL Product Substitution Scenarios 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

modeled two sets of standards-case 

scenarios for IRL: Shift/Roll-up and 

Product Substitution/No Product 

Substitution. 74 FR 16920, 16969–70 

(April 13, 2009). Similar to GSFL, the 

Shift/Roll-up scenarios consider 

whether consumers purchasing lamps 

with efficacies that exceed (not just 

meet) the minimum standard would be 

likely to shift to even higher efficacy 

lamps in the face of amended standards. 

In the Product Substitution scenario, 

DOE assumed consumers purchasing 

covered IRL in the base case do not 

necessarily continue to purchase 

regulated IRL in the standards case. 

Accordingly, DOE modeled a shift to 

both exempted BR lamps (namely the 

65W BR30 lamp) and to R–CFL in the 

standards case. In the ‘‘No Production 

Substitution’’ scenario, DOE assumed 

consumers who purchase covered IRL 

technology in the base case continue to 

purchase covered IRL technology in the 

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

installed covered IRL in the base case is 

the same as that in the standards case 

throughout the analysis period). In this 

scenario, DOE did not model any 

additional shift in the standards case to 

non-regulated reflector technologies. For 

more information about the IRL 

standards-case scenarios, see chapter 10 

of the NOPR TSD. 

DOE received several comments on 

the merits of modeling the Product 

Substitution and No Product 

Substitution scenarios. ASAP and the 

Alliance to Save Energy commented that 

DOE should model migration to R–CFL 

and migration to exempt BR lamps 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34122 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

40New York State Energy Research and 

Development Authority, Incandescent Reflector 

Lamps Study of Proposed Energy Efficiency 

Standards for New York State (2006) (Last accessed 

Oct. 7, 2006). Available at: http://www.nyserda.org/ 

publications/Report%2006-07-Complete%20reportweb.pdf. 

41Lighting Resource Center, NLPIP Lighting 

Answers: Volume 6, Issue 2 (Sept. 2002) (Last 

accessed: June 21, 2009). Available at: http:// 

www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/nlpip/lightingAnswers/ 

mr16/reflectorizedLamps.asp. 

separately in order to better determine 

the effects of standards. ASAP suggested 

that DOE’s decision to simultaneously 

model R–CFL and BR lamps obscured 

standards-case impacts because it 

combined two offsetting effectsmigration to BR lamps, which would 

decrease energy savings, and migration 

to R–CFL, which would increase energy 

savings. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4. at p. 241; Alliance 

to Save Energy, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No 38.4. at pp. 243–244). 

ACEEE and ADLT commented that 

because DOE intends to cover 

previously-exempted lamps in a 

separate rulemaking, it should eliminate 

or greatly reduce modeled migration to 

these lamps in the standards case. 

(ACEEE, No. 76 at p. 6, ADLT, No. 72 

at p. 4) Philips also commented that 

DOE’s assumption in the No Product 

Substitution scenario—that consumers 

who purchase covered IRL in the base 

case will continue to do so in the 

standards case—is incorrect because 

standards will increase the cost of 

covered IRL. This increase will tend to 

accelerate the penetration of competing 

technologies, which the No Product 

Substitution scenario fails to 

incorporate. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 239) 

First, DOE notes that currently 

exempted BR lamps, which are not 

included in the current rulemaking but 

are largely at issue in this discussion, 

may be analyzed for energy 

conservation standards in a separate 

rulemaking. At this time, DOE cannot 

predict what minimum efficacy 

requirements, if any, may be established 

for BR lamps. Therefore, it is impossible 

to determine how lamps exempted from 

this rulemaking (BR lamps) will 

compare in cost and efficacy to those 

IRL covered by today’s final rule. As a 

result, there is a great deal of 

uncertainty in estimating the number of 

consumers likely to migrate to BR 

lamps. For this very reason, DOE 

maintains the following two scenarios. 

In the first scenario, no migration to the 

exempted 65W BR lamp is modeled 

(representative of a situation in which 

the exempted lamps are regulated at the 

same efficacy level as those IRL in this 

rulemaking) and only migration to R– 

CFL occurs. In the second scenario, DOE 

models the same migration to the 65W 

BR lamp as in the NOPR (representative 

of a situation in which the exempted 

lamps remain unregulated). 

However, DOE agrees that modeling 

the two separate offsetting standardscase impacts (migration to R–CFL and 

migration to the 65W BR lamp together) 

conflates two variables that may be 

more illustrative when modeled 

separately. Therefore, for this final rule, 

DOE is modifying what was called the 

Product Substitution scenario in the 

April 2009 NOPR and by dividing it into 

two scenarios and renaming them the 

‘‘R–CFL Product Substitution’’ and ‘‘BR 

Product Substitution’’ scenarios, 

respectively. In the R–CFL Product 

Substitution scenario, DOE models 

migration to only R–CFL in response to 

standards (for the reasons addressed in 

the comments and responses above). 

Similarly, in the BR Product 

Substitution scenario, DOE models 

migration only to BR lamps. DOE 

believes this approach best isolates the 

potential energy savings impacts of 

migration to the two different 

technologies. DOE has maintained its 

approach of modeling incrementally 

greater migration to R–CFL and BR 

lamps for higher TSLs in these 

scenarios; it also maintained the 

magnitude of these increases. In 

consideration of Philips’s comment, 

DOE is no longer analyzing the ‘‘No 

Product Substitution Scenario.’’ DOE 

received several comments on the 

merits of modeling the ‘‘No Product 

Substitution’’ scenario for determining 

manufacturer impacts due to standards. 

These comments are discussed in 

section V.F. 

Philips commented that it would be 

unlikely for the commercial sector to 

migrate to BR lamps in the standards 

case because the sector is driven by lifecycle costs (which are generally higher 

for BR lamps) and because most 

commercial entities have high lighting 

knowledge. As for the residential sector, 

Philips noted that BR lamps are not 

suitable for outdoor applications, 

limiting the pool of applications for 

which BR lamps are suitable to be 

potential replacements for covered IRL 

in the standards case. (Philips, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 239) 

DOE agrees that PAR lamps may be 

more suitable for outdoor applications 

than the exempted BR lamps. However, 

as noted in the April 2009 NOPR and 

based on residential estimates that 40 

percent of all residential IRL are PAR 

lamps,40 DOE believes that a 

considerable portion of residential PAR 

lamps are used in non-outdoor 

applications that are suitable for both 

PAR and the exempted BR lamps. 74 FR 

16920, 16970 (April 13, 2009). Thus, 

DOE maintains for this final rule that 

some residential consumers may move 

to exempted IRL in the standards case, 

although a great deal of uncertainty 

remains. For this reason DOE models a 

separate scenario which reflects no 

migration to the 65W BR lamps. 

Regarding NEMA’s assertion that 

commercial consumers are more 

sensitive to life-cycle cost, DOE agrees 

that the penetration rates of less-costeffective lamps will be lower in the 

commercial sector than the residential 

sector. In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

took this factor into account in its 

analysis by using separate payback 

period-penetration relationships for 

each sector. 74 FR 16920, 16963 (April 

13, 2009). For the reasons discussed 

above, for this final rule, DOE maintains 

the same migration to the 65W BR lamp 

as modeled in the April 2009 NOPR in 

the Product Substitution scenario. 

IALD commented that DOE did not 

consider all the possible substitution 

scenarios in the April 2009 NOPR. For 

example, consumers may switch to 

fixtures with exempted AR (aluminum 

reflector) and MR (multi-faceted 

reflector) lamps because of the lower 

upfront cost, or lamp manufacturers 

may choose to produce 39W lamps 

(outside the scope of coverage of DOE’s 

regulations). (IALD, No. 71 at p. 2, 3) In 

response, DOE believes that a migration 

to AR and MR lamps is unlikely to have 

a material impact on energy savings due 

to the unique characteristics (e.g., lamp 

size, voltage, or socket) of these lamps 

and because they generally cannot be 

interchanged with other reflectorized 

lamps.41 In addition, DOE does not 

expect a significant migration to 39W 

lamps as a result of standards for the 

following reason. If these lamps were 

manufactured at lower efficacies 

without halogen technology (thereby 

circumventing the standard), they 

would likely have much lower lumen 

output than needed to meet the demand 

of consumers of the existing lamp, 

thereby making it an unacceptable 

replacement. 

For more information about the R– 

CFL Product Substitution and BR 

Product Substitution standards-case 

scenarios, see chapter 10 of the TSD. 

11. Discount Rates 

In its analyses, DOE multiplies 

monetary values in future years by a 

discount factor in order to determine its 

present value. DOE estimated national 

impacts using both a 3-percent and a 7- 

percent real discount rate as the average 

real rate of return on private investment 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34123 

42Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ 

assets/regulatory_matters_pdf/a-4.pdf. 

in the U.S. economy. NRDC argued that 

DOE should use a 2-percent or 3-percent 

discount rate and should not apply it to 

the value of carbon emissions. (NRDC, 

No. 82 at p. 5). 

In response, DOE notes that it follows 

the guidelines on discount factors set 

forth by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). Specifically, DOE uses 

these discount rates in accordance with 

guidance that OMB provides to Federal 

agencies on the development of 

regulatory analysis (OMB Circular A– 

4 42 (Sept.17, 2003), particularly section 

E, ‘‘Identifying and Measuring Benefits 

and Costs’’). Accordingly, DOE is 

continuing to use 3-percent and 

7-percent real discount rates for the 

relevant calculations for this final rule. 

Furthermore, DOE continues to report 

both undiscounted and discounted 

values of carbon emission reductions. 

DOE believes this allows for 

consideration of a range of policy 

perspectives, one of which is the view 

that a reduction in emissions today is 

more valuable than one in thirty years. 

E. Consumer Sub-Group Analysis 

In analyzing the potential impact of 

new or amended standards on 

commercial customers, DOE evaluates 

the impact on identifiable groups (i.e., 

sub-groups) of customers, such as 

different types of businesses that may be 

disproportionately affected by a 

National standard level. In the April 

2009 NOPR, DOE identified low-income 

consumers, institutions of religious 

worship, and institutions that serve lowincome populations, and consumers of 

T12 electronic ballasts as lamp 

consumer sub-groups that could be 

disproportionately affected, and 

examined the impact of proposed 

standards on this group. 74 FR 16920, 

16971–72 (April 13, 2009). DOE 

determined the impact on this consumer 

sub-group using the LCC spreadsheet 

model. DOE did not receive comments 

on sub-groups chosen to analyze nor on 

the assumptions applied to those subgroups. DOE relied on the same 

methodology outlined in the April 2009 

NOPR for the final rule analysis. The 

results of DOE’s LCC sub-group analysis 

are briefly summarized in section 

VII.C.1.b and described in detail in 

chapter 12 of the TSD. 

F. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

DOE performed a manufacturer 

impact analysis (MIA) to estimate the 

financial impact of energy conservation 

standards on manufacturers of GSFL 

and IRL, and to assess the impact of 

such standards on employment and 

manufacturing capacity. DOE’s MIA 

methodology is discussed in detail in 

the April 2009 NOPR (74 FR 16920, 

16972–77 (April 13, 2009)) and in 

chapter 13 of the TSD. DOE conducted 

the MIA for GSFL and IRL in three 

phases. Phase 1 (Industry Profile) 

consisted of preparing an industry 

characterization, including data on 

market share, sales volumes and trends, 

pricing, employment, and financial 

structure. Phase 2 (Industry Cash Flow 

Analysis) focused on the industries as a 

whole. In this phase, DOE used the 

Government Regulatory Impact Model 

(GRIM) to prepare an industry cash-flow 

analysis for each industry (GSFL and 

IRL). Using publicly-available 

information developed in Phase 1, DOE 

adapted the GRIM’s generic structure to 

perform an industry cash flow analysis 

for manufacturers of GSFL and IRL both 

with and without energy conservation 

standards. In Phase 3 (Sub-Group 

Impact Analysis) DOE conducted 

interviews with manufacturers 

representing the majority of domestic 

GSFL and IRL sales. During these 

interviews, DOE discussed engineering, 

manufacturing, procurement, and 

financial topics specific to each 

company and obtained each 

manufacturer’s view of the industries. 

The interviews provided valuable 

information DOE used to evaluate the 

impacts of an energy conservation 

standard on manufacturer cash flows, 

manufacturing capacities, and 

employment levels. DOE then finalized 

its assumptions for the cash flow 

analysis and described the qualitative 

impacts on manufacturers due to 

amended energy conservation 

standards. 

The GRIM inputs consist of data 

regarding the cost structures for GSFL 

and IRL industries, shipments, and 

revenues. These include information 

from many of the analyses described 

above, such as retail prices from the 

product price determination analysis 

and shipments forecasts from the NIA. 

For the final rule, DOE incorporates a 

number of changes to GRIM inputs that 

were made in the other analyses for this 

rulemaking. The GRIM uses the medium 

prices in the product price 

determination analysis to calculate the 

manufacturer production costs (MPCs) 

for each equipment class at each TSL. 

By multiplying the production costs by 

different sets of markups, DOE derives 

the manufacturer selling prices used to 

calculate industry revenues. Following 

the NOPR, DOE updated its product 

price determination analysis using the 

CPI. DOE uses these updated prices in 

the GRIM for the final rule. 

The GRIM estimates manufacturer 

revenues based on total-unit-shipment 

forecasts and the distribution of these 

shipments by efficacy. Changes in the 

efficacy mix at each standard level are 

a significant driver of manufacturer 

finances. For the final rule analysis, 

DOE updated the GSFL and IRL MIA 

results based on the total shipments and 

efficacy distribution estimated in the 

final rule NIA. 

As described in section V.D.10, DOE 

updated the substitution scenarios in 

the IRL GRIM. For the April 2009 

NOPR, DOE modeled a set of standardscase IRL scenarios called the ‘‘Product 

Substitution’’ and ‘‘No Product 

Substitution’’ scenarios. 74 FR 16920, 

16969–70 (April 13, 2009). In the 

Product Substitution scenario, DOE 

assumed consumers purchasing covered 

IRL in the base case do not necessarily 

purchase covered IRL in the standards 

case. DOE modeled a shift to both 

exempted BR R–CFL in the standards 

case. In the ‘‘No Production 

Substitution’’ scenario, DOE assumed 

consumers who purchase covered IRL 

technology in the base case continue to 

purchase covered IRL technology in the 

standards case. 

In response to comments by ASAP, 

for today’s final rule, DOE modified the 

IRL shipments scenarios. The Product 

Substitution is modified by dividing it 

into two and renaming them the ‘‘R– 

CFL Product Substitution’’ and ‘‘BR 

Product Substitution’’ scenarios. In the 

R–CFL Product Substitution scenario, 

DOE models migration to only R–CFL in 

response to standards. Similarly, in the 

BR Product Substitution scenario, DOE 

models migration only to BR lamps. For 

further detail in DOE’s modification of 

the Product Substitution scenarios and 

its response to ASAP’s comments 

regarding this issue, see section V.D.10 

of today’s notice. 

For the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

determined the total capital conversion 

costs that would be required for the IRL 

industry to convert existing production 

to meet demand at each TSL. For the 

NOPR, DOE scaled the IRL capital 

conversion costs using the Existing 

Technologies base-case shipments to 

account for the decline in shipments 

before standards become effective. DOE 

used the same capital conversion costs 

for all scenarios. For today’s final rule, 

DOE updated the capital and product 

conversion costs to 2008$ using the PPI 

for NAICS code 335110 (electric lamp 

bulb and part manufacturing) for both 

GSFL and IRL. Additionally, for the 

final rule, DOE is using two sets of 

capital conversion costs. For all IRL 

scenarios in the Existing Technologies 

base case, DOE scales its updated 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34124 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

estimate of the capital conversion costs 

using the Existing Technologies basecase shipments. For all IRL scenarios in 

the Emerging Technology base case, 

DOE scales its updated estimate of the 

capital conversion costs using the 

Emerging Technologies base-case 

shipments. Scaling the IRL capital 

conversion costs for each base case 

results in lower capital conversion costs 

in the Emerging Technologies base case 

than in the Existing Technologies base 

case. DOE believes this approach to 

scaling capital conversion cost with 

shipments more accurately captures the 

capital costs that the IRL industry could 

incur in each scenario. 

For today’s final rule and in response 

to comments, DOE developed a 

shortened lifetime scenario for IRL to 

investigate the effects of shorter lamp 

lifetime at higher TSLs. In this 

sensitivity scenario, DOE changes the 

lifetime and prices of the higher-efficacy 

representative lamps at TSL 4 and TSL 

5. These changes in characteristics also 

simulate certain lamps becoming a 

commodity product in response to 

energy conservation standards. These 

alterations cause higher shipments in 

the standards case and result in reduced 

negative impacts on the industry. See 

section VI.C.1 of today’s final rule for an 

explanation of the lifetime sensitivity 

scenario. For the INPV results in the 

lifetime sensitivity scenario, see section 

VII.C.2.a of today’s notice and chapter 

13 of the TSD. 

For the April 2009 NOPR, DOE used 

a set of markup scenarios to calculate 

manufacturer selling prices in order to 

estimate industry revenues in its 

cashflow analysis. 74 FR 16920, 16977 

(April 13, 2009). In both the IRL and 

GSFL GRIM, DOE modeled a Flat 

Markup scenario. This scenario 

assumed that the cost of goods sold for 

each lamp is marked up by a flat 

percentage to cover standard selling, 

general, and administrative (SG&A) 

expenses, research and development 

(R&D) expenses, and profit. To derive 

this percentage, DOE evaluated 

publicly-available financial information 

for manufacturers of lighting equipment. 

For today’s final rule, DOE continues to 

model a Flat Markup scenario in both 

the IRL and GSFL GRIM. 

For GSFL only, DOE also modeled a 

Four-Tier markup scenario for the April 

2009 NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 16977 (April 

13, 2009). In this scenario, DOE 

assumed that the markup on lamps 

varies by efficacy in both the base case 

and the standards case. DOE used 

information provided by manufacturers, 

the medium prices in its product price 

determination, and industry average 

gross margins to estimate markups for 

GSFL under a four-tier pricing strategy 

in the base case. In this scenario 

premium products have a higher 

markup at each increasing tier of 

efficacy (i.e., a higher markup for each 

increasing phosphor series). In the 

standards case, DOE modeled the 

situation in which a reduction in 

product portfolios squeezes the margins 

of higher-efficacy products as they are 

‘‘demoted’’ to lower-relative-efficacytier products. 

For today’s final rule, DOE 

incorporates additional assumptions in 

its Four-Tier markup scenario for both 

the base case and standards case. For 

the final rule, DOE continues to model 

a base-case pricing strategy in which 

each phosphor series earns a separate 

markup. However these mark-ups are 

changing over time during the analysis 

period to take into account 

commoditization of more-efficient 

lamps as they gain market share. 

Depending on the product class of 

GSFL, the market share of either 800 or 

800 plus series lamps overtakes the 

market share of 700 series lamps. This 

capture of market share is fully realized 

at later dates (between 2035 and 2040, 

depending on the base-case scenario 

and product class). The original 

markups for 700, 800, and 800 plus 

series lamps converge to a single, lower 

markup over time. The Four-Tier 

markup standards case continues to 

‘‘squeeze’’ the margins of commoditized 

lamps, but the impacts are reduced 

because the margins are already lowered 

in the base case. For an extensive 

explanation of the revised Four-Tier 

markup scenario, see chapter 13 of the 

TSD. 

During the NOPR public meeting OSI 

commented that the INPV results for 

GSFL show that the manufacturer 

impacts were taken into consideration 

in DOE’s arrival at the appropriate 

proposed energy conservation standard. 

However, the negative INPV results for 

IRL, especially at the proposed TSL 4, 

indicated that the impact on 

manufacturers was not considered in 

DOE’s proposed energy conservation 

standard for IRL (OSRAM/Sylvania, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38 at pp 

284–286). Similarly, NEMA commented 

that DOE failed to give adequate 

consideration to the negative INPV at 

TSL4 (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 4). Philips 

added that the analysis for IRL showed 

a large increase in NPV at TSL 3, the 

first TSL to require exclusively infrared 

technology. The benefit to consumers 

moving past TSL 3 was incremental 

whereas the impacts on manufacturers 

were worse at TSL 4 than TSL 3 

(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

38 at pp 292–293). 

For the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

presented the results of the MIA and its 

determination of proposed energy 

conservation standard levels for GSFL 

and IRL based on the EPCA criteria. 

Specifically, EPCA provides that any 

such standard for a covered product 

must be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that the Secretary determines 

is technologically feasible and 

economically justified and that results 

in significant conservation of energy. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and (3)(B)) In 

determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, the Secretary 

must determine whether the benefits of 

the standard exceed its burdens, to the 

greatest extent practicable, considering 

the seven factors. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE believes that the 

industry commenters took a contrasting 

approach to the agency’s analysis under 

the relevant statutory criteria by 

attempting to frame the issue as one of 

comparing incremental benefits to 

consumers relative to impacts on 

manufacturers at in moving from TSL3 

to TSL 4. Instead, DOE interprets the 

proper application of statutory criteria, 

to require atop-down approach, which 

implies DOE must first analyze the TSL 

that would save the maximum amount 

of energy. If that TSL is not 

economically justified (i.e., the benefits 

do not exceed the burdens), DOE must 

then analyze the TSL with the next 

greatest energy savings until it reaches 

a TSL that it determines is economically 

justified and technologically feasible. 

Impacts on manufacturers and 

consumers are specific criteria that DOE 

must consider in its analysis. (42 U.S.C. 

6295 (o)(2)(B)(i)(I)) In the April 2009 

NOPR, DOE found that TSL 5 was not 

economically justified for IRL. DOE then 

analyzed TSL 4 and found that it was 

economically justified and 

technologically feasible. 74 FR 16920, 

17018 (April 13, 2009). 

For the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

considered the negative impacts on 

INPV for IRL manufacturers at TSL 4. 

However, the Secretary reached the 

initial conclusion that the benefits of 

energy savings, emissions reductions, 

the positive net economic savings to the 

Nation, and positive life-cycle cost 

savings at TSL 4 would outweigh the 

potentially large reduction in INPV for 

manufacturers. 74 FR 16920, 17018 

(April 13, 2009). For the final rule, DOE 

continues to base its determination of 

whether a standard level is 

economically justified using all seven 

EPCA factors. While the impacts on 

consumers and manufacturers are both 

considered in making this 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34125 

determination, none of these factors are 

reviewed in isolation. Although DOE 

gathers information on each of the seven 

statutory factors individually, the 

Secretary must ultimately consider the 

seven factors collectively in determining 

whether a standard is economically 

justified. 

In its comments on DOE’s April 2009 

NOPR, ADLT stated that DOE’s use of 

longer lifetimes at TSL 4 and TSL 5 is 

counter to manufacturer interviews. 

According to ADLT, because longer 

lamp lifetimes would have a significant 

impact on IRL shipments, the MIA 

overstates the impact on manufacturers. 

(ADLT, No. 72 at p. 3) 

DOE acknowledges that lifetimes of 

analyzed lamps have a significant 

impact on IRL shipments. For the April 

2009 NOPR, DOE presented its 

assumptions for lamp lifetimes and 

shipment projections. 74 FR 16920, 

16956–57, 16959–65 (April 13, 2009). 

DOE also acknowledges that shipments 

are a significant driver of INPV results, 

especially in the IRL industry. To 

analyze the effects of lower lifetimes on 

IRL shipments at TSL 4 and TSL 5, DOE 

included a lifetime sensitivity analysis 

for today’s final rule. The INPV results 

for the sensitivity scenario show that 

reduced lamp lifetimes at TSL 4 and 

TSL 5 significantly reduce the negative 

impacts on IRL manufacturers. DOE 

agrees with ADLT that the impacts on 

the IRL industry would be lower if 

manufacturers reduced lamp lifetimes 

in response to the energy conservation 

standards. See section VI.C.1 of today’s 

final rule for an explanation of the 

lifetime sensitivity scenario. For the 

INPV results in the lifetime sensitivity 

scenario, see section VII.C.2.a of today’s 

notice and chapter 13 of the TSD. 

The CA Stakeholders are concerned 

that DOE’s analysis of the burden on the 

GSFL industry may have focused 

primarily on the worst case scenario, 

rather than on the more likely 

combination of scenarios. The CA 

Stakeholders argue that if DOE were to 

average the impacts on GSFL 

manufacturers in the 16 possible 

scenarios, the industry losses would be 

less than half of the losses associated 

with the worst case scenario (CA 

Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 11). 

In arriving at the energy conservation 

standards in this final rule, DOE 

considered the full range of potential 

impacts on GSFL manufacturers. To 

determine the range of potential impacts 

on GSFL manufacturers, DOE performed 

an analysis which included 16 different 

industry cash flow scenarios. These 

scenarios considered numerous 

variables which influence the analysis 

(level of emerging technologies, markup 

strategies, product substitution, 

consumer lighting expertise, and 

product mix). To better explain the basis 

of its decision DOE describes how it 

balanced the likelihood of the scenarios 

and the range of uncertainty in arriving 

at today’s standards. For a more detailed 

explanation of how DOE arrived at its 

decision for today’s final rule, see 

section VII.D of today’s notice. 

All manufacturers expressed the view 

that the supply of standards-compliant 

lamps would be constrained. OSI 

commented that the large, negative 

INPV impacts for IRL manufacturers 

show that after the effective date of the 

standard, only the current volumes of 

standards-compliant lamps will be 

produced by manufacturers. (OSI, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38 at p. 

286). Philips stated that there is not an 

opportunity to invest in IRL because of 

negative impacts on manufacturers at 

the proposed level and the limited time 

horizon of the investment due to 

emerging technology. According to 

Philips, these factors could cause the 

IRL industry to experience a capacity 

constraint of HIR lamps (Philips, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 38 at pp. 287– 

288). GE agreed that this rulemaking 

forces a decision upon manufacturers in 

terms of whether to invest in a 

technology whose market is expected to 

decline over time. This limited 

investment will lead to a constrained 

IRL HIR lamp market (GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 38 at pp. 292– 

293). Similarly, NEMA commented that 

TSL 4 or above is essentially 

unthinkable for the industry and would 

cause capacity issues. NEMA added that 

TSL 3 or above for IRL would require 

manufacturers to over-invest to increase 

capacity of HIR lamps that will no 

longer be needed in a few years. NEMA 

believes these investments, which may 

never be recovered, cannot be justified 

financially and economically because of 

the diminishing market of covered IRL 

as a result of emerging technology. 

(NEMA, No. 81 at pp. 5, 10) 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

included the capital conversion costs 

that would be required to meet the 

entire industry demand at each TSL. 74 

FR 16920, 17001–02 (April 13, 2009). 

DOE based these estimates on 

interviews with manufacturers that 

produce the vast majority of IRL for sale 

in the United States. DOE obtained 

financial information through these 

manufacturer interviews and aggregated 

the results to mask any proprietary or 

confidential information from any one 

manufacturer. These estimates were 

found to be consistent with financial 

ratios for plant, property, and 

equipment reported in manufacturer 

financial statements. For TSL 5, because 

some manufacturers did not provide 

capital costs since they had no access to 

the needed technology, DOE 

supplemented manufacturer 

information with information provided 

by a supplier of coating technology. 

Therefore, DOE believes that the large 

capital conversion costs identified are 

representative of the expenditures that 

would be required for the industry to 

increase the production of higherefficacy lamps at each TSL. DOE also 

cited these large capital conversion 

costs as a primary driver of the large, 

negative impacts on INPV. 74 FR 16920, 

17002–03 (April 13, 2009). 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

acknowledged manufacturers’ concern 

about the potential for emerging 

technologies to further erode the IRL 

market. 74 FR 16920, 17002–03 (April 

13, 2009). DOE also noted that an IRL 

standard would be unique because it 

would force investments in a market 

that could shrink over the entire lifetime 

of the investment. These large capital 

conversion costs continue to be a 

significant driver of the large, negative 

INPV values. 

DOE believes that the large, negative 

INPV results compared to the industry 

value using the Emerging Technologies 

base case accurately captures 

manufacturer concerns about the lack of 

a financial return from large capital 

conversion in a shrinking market. 

Philips commented that the capacity 

constraint would be worse at TSL 4 than 

at TSL 3, even though both these TSLs 

involve HIR technology. According to 

Philips, the additional time needed for 

the manufacturing processes associated 

with IRL lamps that meet TSL 4 could 

lead to additional capacity constraints 

because fewer products can be produced 

after the effective date of the standards. 

(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

38 at pp. 292–293) 

DOE agrees that the INPV impacts at 

TSL 4 are larger than at TSL 3. The 

production of improved infrared 

capsules is more time consuming than 

the production of standard HIR lamps. 

The improvements to standard HIR 

lamps lower the output of each coating 

machine because production run would 

require additional cycle time for the 

coating process and quality control. The 

additional capital conversion costs at 

TSL 4 include the additional production 

equipment required to meet industry 

demand with a lower production output 

rate. DOE believes that there is 

sufficient lead time for manufacturers to 

convert their existing facilities to meet 

market demand with standardscompliant lamps. Manufacturers could 

mitigate possible capacity constraints by 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34126 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

installing additional coaters, purchasing 

infrared burners from a supplier, and 

using existing excess capacity. 

The CA Stakeholders and ACEEE 

commented that DOE’s capital 

conversion and product conversion 

costs for IRLs should have addressed the 

fact that massive investments in 

advanced IR technologies will likely be 

happening absent standards. According 

to the CA Stakeholders, due to great 

potential improvements and consumer 

preferences, IRL manufacturers will 

already be making investments in 

advanced burner technology to meet the 

EISA 2007 requirement for general 

service incandescent lamps. These 

investments include coating machines 

and coating technology that can be 

applied to both general service lamp 

burners and reflector lamp burners. (CA 

Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 27) (ACEEE, 

No. 76 at p. 5) 

DOE believes that the energy 

conservation standards set by today’s 

final rule are more stringent than the 

EISA 2007 requirements for general 

service incandescent lamps in 2012, 

and, therefore, these GSIL investments 

are not pertinent to the IRL analysis. 

The EISA 2007 GSIL standards that are 

effective in 2020 are similar to the IRL 

energy conservation standards for 

today’s final rule. If manufacturers use 

the same technology in 2020, improved 

capsule technology could be used to 

reach prescribed GSIL efficacy levels. 

However, it is uncertain that a similar 

pathway for GSIL will be used to reach 

the prescribed efficacy levels in 2020 

since emerging technologies may offer a 

better solution. Because the GSIL 

regulation is effective eight years after 

the effective date for today’s IRL energy 

conservation standard and because 

manufacturers will have already made 

investments for IRL, any GSIL 

investments to meet the 2020 

requirements will not impact the 

magnitude of investments needed by the 

IRL industry to meet today’s final rule. 

OSI stated that an additional concern 

about the declining market share of IRL 

due to emerging technology is that IRL 

are manufactured mostly in the United 

States, whereas the alternative 

technologies are not. The commenter 

argued that a standard that hastens the 

shift to alternative technologies would 

have negative impacts on domestic 

employment in the IRL industry. (OSI, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38 at p. 

286) 

In response, DOE notes that in the 

April 2009 NOPR, DOE includes two 

base-case scenarios which examine the 

employment impacts of energy 

conservation standards. The Emerging 

Technologies base case models the 

situation in which emerging 

technologies such as LED and CMH 

lamps take an increasing share of 

covered IRL. Shipments of IRL are 

eroded in both the Existing 

Technologies and Emerging 

Technologies scenarios by R–CFL (a 

fully mature technology). In the 

Emerging Technology base case, IRL 

shipments are replaced by CMH, LEDs, 

and other emerging technologies that 

have the potential to replace a greater 

percentage of recessed can fixtures. DOE 

treats the erosion of the IRL market as 

a base-case issue, since the market 

decline is occurring without standards. 

In the April 2009 NOPR and in today’s 

final rule, DOE acknowledges that the 

differential between employment levels 

in the Existing Technologies and 

Emerging Technologies base cases is 

large. However, the impact caused by 

standards is much less than the 

difference in employment between the 

two base cases. In any scenario, energy 

conservation standards have a small 

impact on the average employment 

levels in the IRL industry. 

At the NOPR public meeting, GE 

expressed concern that the GSFL energy 

conservation standards could shift 

production overseas. (GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 38 at pp. 278– 

279) 

DOE agrees that energy conservation 

standards will require significant capital 

conversion costs that could cause 

manufacturers to consider sourcing 

decisions, but DOE believes that many 

other factors could mitigate the decision 

to relocate production facilities abroad 

in response to amended standards. For 

example, the majority of GSFL are 

produced domestically on high-speed 

lines. The large capital conversion costs 

required at higher TSLs involve 

converting these existing high-speed 

lines to ones capable of producing 

smaller-diameter lamps. While these 

capital conversion costs are large, 

moving production outside the United 

States would require additional costs to 

transport existing production lines and 

to build a green field facility, none of 

which would eliminate the cost to 

convert the lines for smaller-diameter 

lamps. Furthermore, the highlycapitalized production process causes 

the labor content of GSFL to be a 

relatively small portion of the overall 

cost of each lamp. Because the vast 

majority of GSFL production costs are 

material costs, the labor cost savings 

from moving abroad would be relatively 

low. Most of the GSFL labor cost results 

from skilled workers that monitor and 

control the production process. There 

are relatively few unskilled workers in 

the production process, which further 

reduces the labor cost savings from 

relocation. Instead, the labor content of 

GSFL represents intellectual capital for 

GSFL production, so this would present 

another hurdle that would need to be 

addressed with relocation. A final 

mitigating factor that could prevent 

relocation of domestic production is 

increased shipping costs. Higher 

shipping costs, especially if production 

required oceanic freight, would likely 

outweigh any labor cost savings. For 

further information of conversion costs 

and possible employment impacts due 

to today’s energy conservation 

standards, see chapter 13 of the TSD. 

While DOE describes the factors that 

could mitigate a decision by U.S. 

manufacturers to relocate production 

facilities abroad due to amended energy 

conservation standards, DOE also 

recognizes that access to rare earth 

phosphors could also impact sourcing 

decisions. As described in section VI.G, 

most of the current supply of rare earth 

phosphors is controlled by China. A 

drastic change to export quotas or tariffs 

could influence the sourcing decision of 

U.S. manufacturers more significantly 

than amended energy conservation 

standards. If export quotas continue to 

decrease, companies could decide to 

relocate to China in order to gain access 

to the available rare earth phosphors 

supply, regardless of the energy 

conservation standard. However, DOE’s 

direct employment conclusions do not 

account for the possible relocation of 

domestic manufacturing to other 

countries as a result of changes in 

export quotas or tariffs on materials 

used (e.g., rare earth phosphors) because 

the potential for relocation is uncertain. 

During the public meeting, Energy 

Solutions inquired if the IRL analysis 

considered that emerging technology 

and other IRL replacements are often 

made by the same manufacturers 

(Energy Solutions, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38, at pp. 288–289). The 

CA Stakeholders, ACEEE, and NRDC 

commented that DOE’s INPV analyses 

should consider the positive impacts to 

lamp manufacturers associated with the 

increased sales of the non-covered 

products resulting from standards. (CA 

Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 4) (ACEEE, 

No. 76 at p. 6) (NRDC, No. 82 at pp. 4– 

5) The CA Stakeholders, ACEEE, and 

NRDC claimed the MIA impacts are 

overstated because the IRL and GSFL 

products that might see a reduction in 

shipment volume are generally made by 

the same manufacturers who sell the 

emerging technologies that may see a 

resulting increase in shipment volume. 

(CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 7) 

(ACEEE, No. 76 at p. 6) (NRDC, No. 82 

at pp. 4–5) Accordingly, the CA 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34127 

43 (States of New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, 

and California, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 

City of New York, and California Energy 

Commission) in the United States Court of Appeals 

in a petition regarding DOE’s Furnace Rulemaking 

(State of New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, No. 08– 

0311 (2d Cir. filed January 17, 2008)) 

Stakeholders agreed with the 

petitioners’43 argument in appealing 

that the Secretary must fully consider, 

‘‘the economic impact of the standard 

on the manufacturers * * * of the 

products subject to such standard.’’ (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)I). The CA 

Stakeholders stated that because one of 

the impacts ‘‘of the standard on the 

manufacturers’’ of IRL and GSFL 

products will be increased sales (at 

higher markups) of exempt or noncovered lamps made by the same 

manufacturers, the statutory language 

requires that these positive impacts also 

be taken into account. Similarly, EEI 

commented that manufacturer impacts 

should account for the lost sales of 

baseline products as well as increased 

sales of high-efficiency products. (EEI, 

No. 39 at p. 4) 

In response, the Emerging 

Technologies scenario describes how 

emerging technologies may erode the 

market for covered products in the base 

case, absent standards. The penetration 

of emerging technology reduces the 

number of covered lamps sold in future 

years in the same manner as a reduction 

in commercial floor space over time 

might reduce demand for covered IRL 

and GSFL lamps. The level of base-case 

reduction in lamp sales is independent 

of the energy conservation standard. 

The Emerging Technologies base case 

has lower energy savings in the NIA and 

lower base-case INPV in the GRIM, as 

compared to the Existing Technologies 

scenario. 

The situation described for the 

furnaces and boilers rulemaking only 

exists for IRL in this rulemaking. In the 

furnaces and boilers rulemaking, the 

MIA analysis captured the product 

switching from gas furnaces to electric 

heat pumps induced by amended energy 

conservation standards. 72 FR 65136, 

65158–61 (Nov. 19, 2007). The 

analogous situation for IRL occurs when 

the higher prices of covered lamps 

induce sales of non-covered BR lamps 

and R–CFLs. This migration from 

covered IRL to non-covered products 

was modeled in the April 2009 NOPR in 

the Product Substitution scenario. 74 FR 

16920, 16969–70 (April 13, 2009). For 

the final rule, this situation was 

modeled in both the BR Product 

Substitution scenario and the R–CFL 

Product Substitution scenario. Thus, 

DOE modeled the impacts on the IRL 

industry from reduced sales of covered 

IRL due to price effects. The difference 

in INPV of including or excluding the 

sales of non-covered products was 

found to be small. Including these sales 

in the GRIM is not a major driver of the 

INPV results. 

Instead, the larger declines in INPV in 

the Emerging Technologies scenario 

(compared to the Existing Technologies 

scenario) are not due to the exclusion of 

emerging technology sales from the 

analysis or to the declining sales of 

covered products, since the covered 

products are also declining in the base 

case. Instead, the larger impacts are 

caused by the overinvestment in the 

standards-compliant technology. In the 

Emerging Technologies scenario, 

manufacturers must invest in 

production levels anticipated for 2012, 

but the sales of covered products 

immediately begin to fall. In the base 

case, sales of covered products also 

decline, but manufacturers do not need 

to make extraordinary capital expenses. 

These extraordinary capital expenses 

cause the industry’s cash flow to 

decrease significantly in comparison to 

the base case, causing an overall 

decrease of estimated INPV. 

The CA Stakeholders claimed that by 

focusing on decreased sales of the 

specific technology being regulated, 

DOE is interpreting the statute to favor 

the status quo over more-efficient 

alternative technologies that are not 

being specifically regulated. According 

to the CA Stakeholders, there is nothing 

in the statue that limits DOE’s review to 

only consider the impacts on regulated 

IRL and GSFL. (CA Stakeholders, No. 63 

at p. 8) The CA Stakeholders 

recommended that DOE should focus its 

analysis on the economic impact on 

lighting manufacturers as a whole, 

rather than on the impacts of the 

specific technology being regulated. (CA 

Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 8) Similarly, 

Earthjustice commented that the INPV 

results shown in the MIA should be 

bounded around the corporation, not 

the profit center that makes the covered 

products (Earthjustice, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38, at p. 295). Agreeing 

with Earthjustice, the Appliance 

Standards Awareness Project stated that 

INPV impacts shown in the MIA should 

be bounded around the corporation and 

added that the difficulty in analyzing 

the impacts at the corporation level does 

not remove DOE’s obligation to do so 

(ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

38, at pp. 290–291 and pp. 295–297). 

EEI also commented that DOE should 

not try to analyze the impacts of the 

lighting standard on all operations of 

manufacturers, especially those with 

multiple product lines and multiple 

global production facilities. EEI stated 

that such an analysis would take too 

much time and could possibly delay the 

issuance of a standard. (EEI, No. 39 at 

p. 4) 

In response, DOE recognizes that the 

energy conservation standards may 

induce sales of non-covered products 

which are in whole or in part 

manufactured by the same 

manufacturers as the products covered 

by this rulemaking. These sales will 

increase the revenues and possibly 

increase the profits of the manufacturers 

that make covered IRL and GSFL. To 

include these revenues and profits in 

the GRIM analysis requires the same 

level of information about the product 

costs, required investments to increase 

sales, and the profitability as covered 

products. This information greatly 

increases both the complexity and 

uncertainty of the analysis of the 

products covered by this rulemaking. 

Much of this analysis is also outside the 

scope of this rulemaking. However, 

understanding that this can be a major 

driver of the GRIM results for some 

rulemakings, DOE attempted to bound 

the potential impact of the product 

substitutions on the industry value. For 

this reason, in the April 2009 NOPR, 

DOE ran the No Product Substitution 

scenario in the GRIM analysis. For 

today’s final rule, DOE ran both the BR 

Substitution and the R–CFL 

Substitution scenarios. The difference in 

impacts between the Product 

Substitution and No Product 

Substitution scenarios represented the 

lost sales and profits to manufacturers. 

The difference in industry value from 

including the revenue from induced 

sales of BR lamps in the BR Product 

Substitution scenario and excluding the 

revenue represents the potential benefits 

of these sales to manufacturers of 

covered IRL. The difference in industry 

value from including the revenue from 

induced sales of R–CFL lamps in the R– 

CFL Product Substitution scenario and 

excluding the revenue represents the 

potential benefits of these sales to 

manufacturers of covered IRL. DOE 

reports these differences and 

qualitatively describes those factors 

which might mitigate the impact on 

those firms which produce both types of 

produces. The analysis shows that the 

inclusion of the additional revenues has 

minimum impacts on the estimated 

INPVs. For further qualitative and 

quantitative information on the 

scenarios and results for the MIA, see 

chapter 13 of the TSD. 

Although IRL manufacturers may 

receive revenue from additional sales of 

R–CFL and exempted BR lamps, it is not 

certain that this would be a net benefit 

to manufacturers. In both the R–CFL 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34128 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Substitution and BR Substitution 

scenarios, covered IRL sales are not 

completely replaced by the additional 

sales of R–CFL and exempted BR 

lamps.. To provide an upper bound of 

the potential benefit to IRL 

manufacturers, DOE includes the 

revenue from R–CFL and exempted BR 

lamps but does not consider any capital 

conversion costs to increase sales of 

these products. In any scenario, the 

potential benefits of these sales to IRL 

manufacturers have far less impact on 

INPV than the capital and product 

conversion costs needed to reach higher 

TSLs for covered IRL. In any of the 

April 2009 NOPR and today’s final rule 

substitution scenarios, the large capital 

conversion costs are the biggest driver of 

the large, negative impacts on INPV. 

Thus, any additional benefit from sales 

of non-covered IRL products are not 

enough to mitigate the impacts on INPV 

due to the necessary estimated capital 

and product conversion costs. 

The CA Stakeholders, ACEEE, and 

NRDC commented that the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(ARRA) has tax provisions that could 

possibly mitigate the impacts on 

manufacturers due to energy 

conservation standards. Specifically, the 

commenters cited provisions in ARRA 

offer low-interest ‘‘industrial 

development bonds’’ for expanding 

manufacturing capabilities, as well as an 

advanced energy project tax credit for 

manufacturers of covered products. 

According to the commenters, these 

provisions would help manufacturers 

cover possible conversion costs 

associated with energy conservation 

standards. (CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at 

p. 7) (ACEEE, No. 76 at pp. 5–6) (NRDC, 

No. 82 at p. 3) 

DOE acknowledges that 

manufacturers of GSFL and IRL may 

qualify for the industrial development 

bonds and advanced energy project tax 

credit programs. If GSFL and IRL 

manufacturers do apply and receive the 

bonds and/or tax credit, these benefits 

could help mitigate some of the impacts 

of energy conservation standards. 

However, structures for the industrial 

development bonds and advanced 

energy project tax credit programs have 

not been finalized, and there is 

insufficient information available to do 

a thorough analysis of their potential 

impacts. Accordingly, DOE cannot 

determine with certainty that 

manufacturers of covered IRL and GSFL 

are eligible for either program. Any 

quantitative analysis of the industrial 

development bonds program or the 

advanced energy project tax credit 

program and their possible impacts on 

the GSFL and IRL industry would be 

highly speculative. Therefore, DOE did 

not include the bonds or tax credit in its 

analysis of potential impacts on the 

GSFL and IRL industries. 

According to the CA Stakeholders and 

ACEEE, the MIA does not consider 

pending legislation that could help 

mitigate the impacts due to energy 

conservation standards. Specifically, the 

CA Stakeholders cite three examples of 

pending legislation that could help to 

mitigate the impacts on GSFL and IRL 

manufacturers due to amended energy 

conservation standards: (1) Restoring 

America’s Manufacturing Leadership 

through Energy Efficiency Act of 2009; 

(2) 21st Century Energy Technology 

Deployment Act of 2009; and (3) 

American Clean Energy and Security 

Act of 2009. (CA Stakeholders, No. 63 

at p. 7) (ACEEE, No. 76 at p. 6) 

If adopted in present form, DOE 

acknowledges that the proposed 

legislation cited by the CA Stakeholders 

could potentially mitigate the impacts of 

energy conservation standards on GSFL 

and IRL manufacturers if they were to 

qualify for the benefits in the proposed 

legislation. However, because the 

legislation is pending and has not 

become public law, passage of such 

proposed legislation or the final form of 

those provisions are the matters of 

speculation. Therefore, DOE does not 

include the proposed legislation’s 

potential to mitigate the impacts on 

GSFL and IRL manufactures in its 

analysis nor has it considered the 

pending legislation in its decision for 

today’s rule. 

The CA Stakeholders commented that 

energy conservation standards have 

consistently spurred innovation, 

resulting in even higher-efficiency 

products. However, in its analysis, DOE 

assumes that high-lumen T8 lamps 

represent the only opportunity for 

manufacturers to maintain profit 

margins through 2042. (CA 

Stakeholders, No. 63 at p 13) 

Additionally, the CA Stakeholders and 

ACEEE argued that DOE did not 

consider that GSFL manufacturers at 

TSL 4 and TSL 5 will be able to 

maintain high margins on a variety of 

other covered and non-covered products 

in their portfolio. These other covered 

products include T5s and extremelyhigh-lumen T8s, while non-covered 

products include solid state lighting 

such as LEDs. According to the CA 

Stakeholders, ACEEE, and NRDC, GSFL 

have other characteristics that could 

command higher margins besides 

efficacy, including long life, low 

wattage, resistance to high and low 

temperature, and low mercury content. 

If any of these upsell opportunities 

commanded higher markups, the 

positive impacts on INPV would be 

significant and should be reflected in 

DOE’s analysis. (CA Stakeholders, No. 

63 at pp. 13–14) (ACEEE, No. 76 at p. 

4) (NRDC, No. 82 at p. 3). 

In response, DOE recognizes that 

manufacturers will attempt to devise 

product differentiation strategies to 

compensate for a compression of the 

efficacy range of their product lines as 

a result of energy conservation 

standards. These strategies may include 

redefining efficacy tiers to more narrow 

bands, introducing more efficacious 

lamps than are currently offered, or 

stressing product attributes other than 

efficacy. The great number of 

assumptions required to model all 

possible markup strategies in the GRIM 

would not add to DOE’s qualitative 

description of how these upsells would 

impact INPV. As described previously, 

the Flat Markup scenario captures the 

INPV effects, assuming that 

manufacturers fully compensate for a 

reduced range of efficacy values in their 

product portfolio. Thus, DOE’s 

consideration of the factors evoked by 

the CA Stakeholders and ACEEE is 

encompassed in the inclusion of a Flat 

Markup scenario and in its discussion of 

the relative weight it places on the 

markup scenarios for each of the TSLs. 

In comments on DOE’s April 2009 

NOPR, the CA Stakeholders stated that 

based on a sensitivity analysis of the 

GSFL GRIM, DOE’s concern that 

standards could eliminate higher 

margins currently earned by moreefficacious products was a significant 

driver in determining the total impacts 

on the GSFL industry. The CA 

Stakeholders pointed out that the FourTier markup scenario had the greatest 

effect in determining the INPV impacts 

on the GSFL industry. (CA 

Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 12) 

For the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

modeled two different markup scenarios 

to capture potential pricing schemes 

manufacturers apply to their products. 

74 FR 16920, 16977 (April 13, 2009). 

The Flat Markup scenario applies a 

single markup to all products regardless 

of their efficacy. This scenario also 

assumes that manufacturers maintain 

their gross margin as a constant 

percentage throughout the analysis 

period, regardless of standards. The 

Four-Tier markup scenario applied a 

different markup to four different tiers 

of products (that correspond to the four 

phosphor series). As higher efficacies 

are required by energy conservation 

standards, manufacturers’ product 

portfolios are reduced, squeezing the 

gross margins of higher-efficacy 

products as they are ‘‘demoted’’ to 

lower-relative-efficacy-tier products. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34129 

DOE agrees with the CA Stakeholders 

that the markup strategy is the primary 

driver of INPV for GSFL manufacturers. 

Therefore, to capture the full range of 

potential impacts of energy conservation 

standards on the GSFL INPV, DOE used 

the two markup scenarios for the April 

2009 NOPR. For today’s final rule, DOE 

continues to use both the Flat Markup 

and the Four-Tier markup scenarios to 

bound the potential impacts of energy 

conservation standards on the GSFL 

INPV. 

The CA Stakeholders and ACEEE 

commented that the base cases 

overestimated the margins that 

manufacturers will be able to maintain 

for high-lumen T8 lamps as the market 

naturally shifts to more-efficient 

products. (CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 

4) (ACEEE, No. 76 at p. 4) Additionally, 

the CA Stakeholders commented that as 

products become more efficient, absent 

standards and in a competitive market, 

higher-efficacy products will not 

maintain their current margins. (CA 

Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 12) The CA 

Stakeholders also argued that DOE’s 

Four-Tier markup analysis for the fourfoot medium bi-pin lamps appears to 

show manufacturers will maintain the 

estimated markup for 800 series highlumen T8 lamps meeting TSL 5 

indefinitely. According to the CA 

Stakeholders, high-lumen T8s have been 

available for several years and are 

already being commoditized. However, 

DOE’s own analysis has shown that the 

market is shifting to higher-efficacy 

products without energy conservation 

standards. (CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at 

p. 12) 

For the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

modeled two different markup 

scenarios. 74 FR 16920, 16977 (April 13, 

2009). The first scenario applies a single 

markup to all products regardless of 

their efficacy. The second markup 

scenario applies a different markup to 

four tiers of product efficacies that 

correspond to the four phosphor series. 

As the CA Stakeholders correctly stated, 

DOE assumed these two markup 

structures would be maintained 

throughout the analysis period. The CA 

Stakeholders also correctly stated that 

markups are the primary driver of INPV 

for GSFL. The CA Stakeholders believe 

that higher-efficacy lamps are already 

being commoditized and that noncovered, emerging technology will 

command high margins for 

manufacturers. While this assumption is 

not certain, DOE agrees that the 

premium GSFL covered in this 

rulemaking will likely follow a typical 

product life cycle, in which the average 

margins decrease over time in the base 

case, thereby resulting in a lower INPV 

than quantified by the Four-Tier markup 

scenario presented in the April 2009 

NOPR. DOE also agrees that it is likely 

that as more-efficacious lighting 

products enter or replace GSFL in the 

market, premium products which 

currently command higher markups will 

become commoditized over time, and 

margins will erode. As non-covered 

emerging technologies reduce the size of 

the GSFL market, the overall margins of 

the GSFL market will also be reduced. 

Based on these additional assumptions, 

DOE has revised the Four-Tier markup 

scenario for today’s final rule as 

previously described. DOE estimates 

that this commoditization reduces the 

base-case industry value and, to a lesser 

degree, the INPV impacts in the 

standards case. For further explanation 

of the Four-Tier markup scenario and 

the revised INPV results, see chapter 13 

of the TSD. 

NRDC commented that 

commoditization of features and margin 

reduction will occur regardless of the 

standard set for the GSFL industry, but 

technological innovation will result in 

the introduction of new premium 

products as well. NRDC added that DOE 

has forecasted two scenarios and 

compared them to determine the 

manufacturer impact. According to 

NRDC’s comments, the reality will 

certainly be somewhere in between a 

no-standards situation and the product 

commoditization scenario. NRDC 

concluded that the MIA results are 

likely to be significantly overstated 

because the true impacts will be in 

between these two situations (NRDC, 

No. 82 at p. 3). 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on the ability of 

GSFL manufacturers to maintain 

margins through differentiation by other 

means and how the ability to 

differentiate products might vary over 

time. 74 FR 16920, 17001 (April 13, 

2009). At TSL 5, DOE believes that the 

ability for manufacturers to differentiate 

products by means other than efficacy 

by the year 2012 is limited. Currently, 

only the most efficient lamps available 

meet this efficacy level. This ability 

could improve in later years as other 

features and higher efficacy products are 

introduced. However, given the 

discounting of future cash flows, the 

effect of this gradual improvement will 

be small. For this reason, DOE believes 

that the INPV results would be greater 

than the midpoint of the range of 

impacts. At TSL 4, manufacturers 

maintain some ability to create tiers of 

efficacy, which will mitigate some of the 

effects of commoditization of premium 

GSFL. However, DOE disagrees with the 

statement that the impacts on 

manufacturers are likely to be 

significantly overstated. DOE believes 

the revisions to the Four-Tier markup 

scenario have addressed the Advocates’ 

concerns regarding an unrealistic 

change in profitability in the standards 

cases. 

The CA Stakeholders commented that 

DOE should conduct its own research 

and/or seek alternate sources of 

information to calculate the 

manufacturer margins and conversion 

costs for T12 and T8 lamps. The CA 

Stakeholders argued that because 

manufacturer margins and conversion 

costs are two of the most significant 

GRIM inputs, to preserve the 

transparency of its analysis, DOE should 

not rely primarily on confidential data 

provided by one set of stakeholders (CA 

Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 14). 

In response, DOE understands the 

need for transparent and accurate data 

on which to base its analysis. Profit 

margin data at the product-line level are 

possibly the most sensitive data for any 

company, and therefore, are not readily 

available to the public. DOE attempts to 

validate any sensitive data provided by 

manufacturers, including information 

about profit margins, by first requesting 

any documentary evidence. DOE also 

compares the data submittals for each 

manufacturer for consistency. To the 

extent possible DOE has developed and 

will continue to develop its own 

estimates of key parameters for the MIA, 

such as manufacturing costs and 

pricing, by researching published 

sources, contacting tooling suppliers, 

and retaining the services of industry 

consultants. To maintain confidentiality 

and transparency at the same time, DOE 

makes its estimates of manufacturer 

margins and conversion costs available 

for public comment in an industryaggregated form. This process allows 

DOE to further refine its assumptions 

and estimates based on the responses 

provided by interested parties. 

The CA Stakeholders commented that 

the MIA’s assumptions should not be 

revised to consider the current 

economic recession. The CA 

Stakeholders argued that such revisions 

would not add any practical value, 

given that it is impossible to accurately 

predict the direction of short-term 

economic cycles. (CA Stakeholders, No. 

63 at p. 8) 

As previously stated, for today’s final 

rule, DOE has updated the GSFL and 

IRL GRIMs with revised NIA shipments 

and scenarios and used the updated 

product price determination inputs. 

DOE also revised the conversion costs 

using the appropriate PPI. These 

changes are typical revisions for energy 

conservation rulemakings and are not 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34130 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

44Roop, J. M., M. J. Scott, and R. W. Schultz, 

ImSET: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies 

(PNNL–15273 Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory) (2005). Available at http:// 

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

technical_reports/PNNL-15273.pdf. 

45EIA approves the use of the name NEMS to 

describe only an official AEO version of the model 

without any modification to code or data. Because 

the present analysis entails some minor code 

modifications and runs the model under various 

policy scenarios that deviate from AEO 

assumptions, the name NEMS–BT refers to the 

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

Building Technologies Program.) For more 

information on NEMS, refer to ‘‘The National 

Energy Modeling System: An Overview,’’ DOE/EIA– 

0581 (98) (Feb. 1998). Available at http:// 

tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/forecasting/058198.pdf. 

46An Updated Annual Energy Outlook 2009 

Reference Case Reflecting Provisions of the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and 

Recent Changes in the Economic Outlook, April 

2009. 

specifically attributable to current 

economic conditions. DOE agrees with 

CA Stakeholders and has not made 

revisions to the MIA specifically in 

response to the current near-term 

economic downturn. For additional 

information on the updates to the NIA 

and product price determination, see 

section V.D of today’s notice, 

respectively. For further explanation of 

inputs and updates to the GSFL and IRL 

GRIMs, see chapter 13 of the TSD. 

The CA Stakeholders commented that 

the effective date of today’s final rule for 

GSFL and IRL energy conservation 

standards has a significant impact on 

the reported INPVs, and that any 

prorogation of the effective date would 

help mitigate impacts on the industry 

due to energy conservation standards. 

The CA Stakeholders recommended that 

DOE should establish an effective date 

for GSFL for their proposed Tier 1 

standards (TSL4) in 2012 and for Tier 2 

(TSL5) in 2016. (CA Stakeholders, No. 

63 at p. 2, 14). Similarly, ACEEE argued 

that a phase-in standard would allow 

additional lead time for manufacturers 

and capture maximum energy savings. 

However, ACEEE requested expedited 

phase-in dates for GSFL standards at 

Tier 1 (July 2012) and Tier 2 (July 2015) 

(ACEEE, No. 76 at p. 2). ACEEE 

presented the alternative of a later 

effective date for choosing TSL 5 for all 

covered GSFL (2013 or 2014), because it 

provides manufacturers additional time 

to spread conversion cost, thereby 

minimizing the impacts on INPV 

(ACEEE, No. 76 at pp. 2–3). Similar to 

ACEEE’s alternative effective date, OSI 

requested a one-year extension of the 

effective date for IRL products only. OSI 

commented that the extension would 

allow sufficient time to replace its 

capital base for covered IRL and allow 

for manufacturing of the higher-efficacy 

products to stabilize (OSI, No. 84 at p. 

1). 

DOE agrees that the effective date of 

energy conservation standards (i.e., 

compliance date) has a significant 

impact on INPV. In the GRIM cashflow 

analyses, the conversion costs are 

implemented in the years between the 

announcement of the final rule and the 

effective date of the standards. By 

delaying the effective date and the 

required capital and product conversion 

costs, it would in theory be possible to 

reduce the negative impacts on INPV 

calculated for the proposed standards 

case, due to discounting the negative 

cash flows for conversion costs in later 

years. However, for the reasons 

discussed in section VI.I, for today’s 

final rule, DOE is not using a tiered 

approach to set energy conservation 

standards. Similarly, for the reasons 

discussed in section VI.I, DOE is not 

considering a later effective date for 

either the GSFL or the IRL energy 

conservation standard. The implications 

of a later effective date on the GSFL and 

IRL INPV are not being considered. 

For a detailed discussion of the MIA, 

see chapter 13 of the TSD accompanying 

this notice. 

G. Employment Impact Analysis 

DOE considers employment impacts 

in the domestic economy as one factor 

in setting energy conservation 

standards. Employment impacts include 

direct and indirect impacts. Direct 

employment impacts are changes in the 

number of employees for manufacturers 

of the appliance products that are 

subject to standards, their suppliers, and 

related service firms. The MIA 

addresses these impacts. Indirect 

employment impacts from standards 

consist of the net jobs created or 

eliminated in the national economy, 

other than in the manufacturing sector 

being regulated, due to: (1) Reduced 

spending by end users on energy; (2) 

reduced spending on new energy supply 

by the utility industry; (3) increased 

consumer spending on the purchase of 

new products; and (4) the effects of 

those three factors throughout the 

economy. DOE expects the net monetary 

savings from standards to be redirected 

to other forms of economic activity. 

DOE also expects these shifts in 

spending and economic activity to affect 

the demand for labor in the short term. 

In developing the April 2009 NOPR 

and today’s final rule, DOE estimated 

indirect national employment impacts 

using an input/output model of the U.S. 

economy called Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies (ImSET44). ImSET is a 

spreadsheet model of the U.S. economy 

that focuses on 188 sectors most 

relevant to industrial, commercial, and 

residential building energy use. ImSET 

is a special-purpose version of the ‘‘U.S. 

Benchmark National Input-Output’’ 

(I–O) model designed to estimate the 

national employment and income 

effects of energy-saving technologies. 

The ImSET software includes a 

computer-based I–O model with 

structural coefficients to characterize 

economic flows among the 188 sectors. 

ImSET’s national economic I–O 

structure is based on a 1997 U.S. 

benchmark table, especially aggregated 

to those sectors. For further details, see 

chapter 15 of the TSD accompanying 

this notice. 

As described in section V.G, DOE uses 

ImSet to consider indirect employment 

impacts when evaluating alternative 

standard levels. Direct employment 

impacts on the manufacturers that 

produce IRL and GSFL are analyzed in 

the manufacturer impact analysis, as 

discussed in section V.F. 

H. Utility Impact Analysis 

The utility impact analysis 

determines the changes to energy 

supply and demand (and forecasted 

power generation capacity) that result 

from the end-use energy savings due to 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards. DOE used a version of EIA’s 

National Energy Modeling System 

(NEMS) for this utility impact analysis. 

NEMS, which is available in the public 

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

sector. EIA uses NEMS to produce its 

AEO, a widely-recognized baseline 

energy forecast for the United States. 

The version of NEMS used for appliance 

standards analysis is called NEMS– 

BT45 and is primarily based on the 

April Update of the AEO 2009 46 with 

minor modifications. The analysis 

output includes a forecast of the total 

electricity generation capacity at each 

TSL. 

DOE obtained the energy savings 

inputs associated with electricity 

consumption savings from the NIA. 

These inputs reflect the effects on 

electricity of efficiency improvements 

due to the deployment of GSFL and IRL 

that would meet the energy 

conservation standards set forth in this 

rulemaking. Chapter 14 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice presents 

details on the utility impact analysis. 

DOE received comments to the 

ANOPR requesting that DOE report gas 

and electricity price impacts, and the 

economic benefits of reduced need for 

new electric power plants and 

infrastructure. The expectation is that 

lower electricity demand will lead to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34131 

47 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). 

48 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008); see also North 

Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

49 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

50See 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

lower prices for both electricity and 

natural gas that would benefit 

consumers. 

DOE considered reporting gas and 

electricity price impacts but found that 

the uncertainty of price projections, 

together with the fairly small impact of 

the standards relative to total electricity 

demand, makes these price changes 

highly uncertain. As a result, DOE 

believes that they should not be 

weighed heavily in the decision 

concerning the standard level. Given the 

current complexity of utility regulation 

in the United States (with significant 

variances among States), it does not 

seem appropriate to attempt to measure 

impacts on infrastructure costs and 

prices where there is likely to be 

significant overlap. 

I. Environmental Assessment 

Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI), DOE 

prepared an environmental assessment 

(EA) of the potential impacts of the 

proposed standards it considered for 

today’s final rule which it has included 

as chapter 16 of the TSD for the final 

rule. DOE found the environmental 

effects associated with the standards for 

GSFL and IRL to be insignificant. 

Therefore, DOE is issuing a Finding of 

No Significant Impact (FONSI), 

pursuant to NEPA, the regulations of the 

Council on Environmental Quality (40 

CFR parts 1500–1508), and DOE’s 

regulations for compliance with NEPA 

(10 CFR part 1021). The FONSI is 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

In the EA, DOE estimated the 

reduction in total emissions of CO2 and 

NOX using the NEMS–BT computer 

model. DOE also calculated a range of 

estimates for reduction in mercury (Hg) 

emissions using power sector emission 

rates. The EA does not include the 

estimated reduction in power sector 

impacts of sulfur dioxide (SO2), because 

DOE has determined that any such 

reduction resulting from an energy 

conservation standard would not affect 

the overall level of SO2 emissions in the 

United States due to the presence of 

national caps on SO2 emissions. These 

topics are addressed further below; see 

chapter 16 of the TSD for additional 

detail. 

EEI commented that DOE should 

consider the environmental impacts of 

the production processes especially if 

higher efficiency standards would result 

in more manufacturing overseas. (EEI, 

No. 45 at p. 4) As discussed in the 

manufacturer impact analysis (see 

section V.F), DOE does not expect a 

migration of production of IRL overseas 

as a result of this rule. In addition, as 

the migration of GSFL production 

overseas is highly speculative, DOE 

does not feel it appropriate to 

incorporate the environmental impacts 

of production processes if moved 

overseas. 

Earthjustice stated that DOE must 

calculate the amount of reductions in 

emissions of particulate matter (PM) 

that will result from standards for 

GSFLs and IRLs (and monetize the 

value). Earthjustice stated that even if 

DOE believes that the impacts on 

secondary PM emissions were 

physically impossible to estimate due to 

their complexity, it would not justify 

DOE ignoring the impact of standards 

on primary emissions of PM from power 

plants. (Earthjustice, No. 60 at pg 8) PM 

emissions reductions are much more 

difficult to estimate than other 

emissions due to the wide range of 

power plant controls and individual 

plant operations that impact PM 

emissions. DOE is not currently able to 

run a model that can make these 

estimates reliably at the national level. 

NEMS–BT is run similarly to the 

AEO2009 NEMS, except that lighting 

energy use is reduced by the amount of 

energy saved (by fuel type) due to the 

trial standard levels. The inputs of 

national energy savings come from the 

NIA analysis. For the EA, the output is 

the forecasted physical emissions. The 

net benefit of a standard is the 

difference between emissions estimated 

by NEMS–BT and the Updated 

AEO2009 Reference Case. The NEMS– 

BT tracks CO2 emissions using a 

detailed module that provides results 

with broad coverage of all sectors and 

inclusion of interactive effects. 

The Clean Air Act sets an emissions 

cap on SO2 for all affected Electric 

Generating Units. The attainment of the 

emissions cap is flexible among 

generators and is enforced through the 

use of emissions allowances and 

tradable permits. In other words, with or 

without a standard, total cumulative 

SO2 emissions will always be at or near 

the ceiling, and there may be some 

timing differences among yearly 

forecasts. Thus, it is unlikely that there 

will be reduced overall SO2 emissions 

from standards as long as the emissions 

ceilings are enforced. Although there 

may be no actual reduction in SO2

emissions, there still may be an 

economic benefit from reduced demand 

for SO2 emission allowances. Electricity 

savings decrease the generation of SO2

emissions from power production, 

which can lessen the need to purchase 

SO2 emissions allowance credits, and 

thereby decrease the costs of complying 

with regulatory caps on emissions. 

NOX emissions from 28 eastern States 

and the District of Columbia (DC) are 

limited under the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR), published in the Federal 

Register on May 12, 2005.47 Although 

CAIR has been remanded to EPA by the 

DC Circuit, it will remain in effect until 

it is replaced by a rule consistent with 

the Court’s July 11, 2008 opinion in 

North Carolina v. EPA.48 Because all 

States covered by CAIR opted to reduce 

NOX emissions through participation in 

cap-and-trade programs for electric 

generating units, emissions from these 

sources are capped across the CAIR 

region. 

For the 28 eastern States and D.C. 

where CAIR is in effect, no NOX

emissions reductions will occur due to 

the permanent cap. Under caps, 

physical emissions reductions in those 

States would not result from the energy 

conservation standards under 

consideration by DOE, but standards 

might have produced an 

environmentally-related economic 

impact in the form of lower prices for 

emissions allowance credits, if they 

were large enough. However, DOE 

determined that in the present case, 

such standards would not produce an 

environmentally-related economic 

impact in the form of lower prices for 

emissions allowance credits, because 

the estimated reduction in NOX

emissions or the corresponding 

allowance credits in States covered by 

the CAIR cap would be too small to 

affect allowance prices for NOX under 

the CAIR. In contrast, new or amended 

energy conservation standards would 

reduce NOX emissions in those 22 States 

that are not affected by CAIR. As a 

result, the NEMS–BT does forecast 

emissions reductions from the proposed 

amended standards considered in 

today’s final rule. 

In the April 2009 NOPR, however, 

DOE provided a different estimate of 

NOX reductions, because DOE assumed 

that the CAIR had been vacated. 74 FR 

16920, 17009–14 (April 13, 2009). This 

is because the CAIR rule was vacated by 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) in its 

July 11, 2008 decision in North Carolina 

v. Environmental Protection Agency.49

Although the DC Circuit, in a December 

23, 2008 opinion,50 decided to allow the 

CAIR rule to remain in effect until it is 

replaced by a rule consistent with the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34132 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

51 70 FR 28606 (May 18, 2005). 

52 517 F 3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

53A joint comment by the States of New York, 

California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, 

Vermont, and Washington. 

Court’s earlier opinion, DOE retained its 

analysis of NOX emissions reductions 

based on an assumption that the CAIR 

rule was not in effect, because: (1) The 

NOPR was so advanced at the time that 

the December 23, 2008 opinion was 

issued that revisiting the analysis would 

have caused undue delay; and (2) 

neither the July 11, 2008, nor the 

December 23, 2008 decisions of the D.C. 

Circuit changed the standard-setting 

proposals offered in the NOPR. 

Thus, for the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

established a range of NOX reductions 

based on low and high emissions rates 

(in metric kilotons of NOX emitted per 

terawatt-hour (TWh) of electricity 

generated) derived from the AEO2008. 

DOE anticipated that, in the absence of 

the CAIR’s trading program, the new or 

amended energy conservation standards 

would reduce NOX emissions 

nationwide, not just in 22 States. 

Similar to SO2 and NOX, future 

emissions of Hg would have been 

subject to emissions caps under the 

Clean Air Mercury Rule 51 (CAMR), 

which would have permanently capped 

emissions of mercury for new and 

existing coal-fired plants in all States by 

2010, but the CAMR was vacated by the 

DC Circuit in its decision in New Jersey 

v. Environmental Protection Agency 52

prior to publication of the April 2009 

NOPR. However, the NEMS–BT model 

DOE initially used to estimate the 

changes in emissions for the proposed 

rule assumed that Hg emissions would 

be subject to CAMR emission caps. 

After CAMR was vacated, DOE was 

unable to use the NEMS–BT model to 

estimate any changes in the quantity of 

mercury emissions (anywhere in the 

country) that would result from 

standard levels it considered for the 

proposed rule. Instead, DOE used an Hg 

emissions rate (in metric tons of Hg per 

energy produced) based on the 

AEO2008 for the April 2009 NOPR. 

Because virtually all mercury emitted 

from electricity generation is from coalfired power plants, DOE based the 

emissions rate on the metric tons of 

mercury emitted per TWh of coalgenerated electricity. To estimate the 

reduction in mercury emissions, DOE 

multiplied the emissions rate by the 

reduction in coal-generated electricity 

associated with the standards 

considered. Because the CAMR remains 

vacated, DOE continued to use the 

approach it used for the April 2009 

NOPR to estimate the Hg emission 

reductions due to standards for today’s 

final rule. 

EEI commented that, ‘‘if the standard 

leads to more use of compact 

fluorescent technology as replacements 

for incandescent reflector lamps, there 

will be an increase in mercury use and 

disposal issues compared to the baseline 

technologies.’’ (EEI, No. 45 at p. 4). DOE 

estimates that any increase in use of 

CFLs, as compared to having no new or 

amended GSFL and IRL standards, 

would be minimal and any related 

mercury releases would be 

environmentally insignificant and 

speculative, particularly since only a 

fraction of CFLs are improperly 

disposed of and only a small fraction of 

the mercury in those CFLs leaches into 

the environment. 

Earthjustice and NRDC argue that 

DOE should incorporate the value of 

CO2 emissions reductions into the LCC 

and NPV analyses because the value of 

CO2 emissions reductions affects the 

economic justification of standards, 

DOE must incorporate these effects into 

the LCC and NPV analyses. 

(Earthjustice, No. 60, at pgs 7–8 and 

(NRDC and Earthjustice, Issue Paper, 

No. 82 at p. 1)) New York, et al. also 

recommended that DOE prioritize 

energy savings and reduced CO2

emissions and allocate at least as much 

weight to the monetary value of reduced 

carbon emissions as it does to other 

monetary impacts. (NY et al., No. 88 at 

p. 1)53 On the other hand, NEMA 

expressed support of the approach used 

by DOE in the NOPR to reflect a range 

for monetized values and report 

environmental benefits separately from 

the net benefits of energy savings. 

(NEMA, No. 81 at p. 21) 

DOE notes that neither EPCA nor 

NEPA requires that the economic value 

of emissions reduction be incorporated 

in the LCC or NPV analysis of energy 

savings. DOE has chosen to report these 

benefits separately from the net benefits 

of energy savings. A summary of the 

monetary results is shown in section 

VII.C.6 of this notice. DOE considered 

both values when weighing the benefits 

and burdens of standards. 

J. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

DOE also calculated the possible 

monetary benefit of CO2, NOX, and Hg 

reductions. Cumulative monetary 

benefits were determined using 

discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. DOE 

monetized reductions in CO2 emissions 

due to the standards in this final rule 

based on a range of monetary values 

drawn from studies that attempt to 

estimate the present value of the 

marginal economic benefits (based on 

the avoided marginal social costs of 

carbon) likely to result from reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions. The marginal 

social cost of carbon is an estimate of 

the monetary value to society of the 

environmental damages of CO2

emissions. 

Several parties provided comments 

regarding the economic valuation of CO2

for the April 2009 NOPR. NRDC 

commented that New England now has 

a CO2 trading price that could be used 

by DOE (NRDC, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 311–312) 

NRDC and Earthjustice argue that DOE 

should incorporate an assumption of a 

mandatory cap on CO2 emissions or at 

the very least revise the range of CO2

valuation. (NRDC and Earthjustice, Issue 

Paper, No. 82, p. 1–14) NY et al. also 

criticized the range of CO2 values used 

in the NOPR and recommended the use 

of a long-run marginal abatement cost of 

CO2 for monetizing CO2 emission 

reductions, rather than the damage costs 

given the highly uncertain nature of the 

latter (NY et al., No. 88, p. 9–10). As 

discussed in section VII.C.6, DOE has 

updated the approach described in the 

April 2009 NOPR (74 FR 16920, 17009 

(Apr. 13, 2009)) for its monetization of 

environmental emissions reductions for 

today’s rule. 

Although this rulemaking does not 

affect SO2 emissions or NOX emissions 

in the 28 eastern States and D.C. where 

CAIR is in effect, there are markets for 

SO2 and NOX emissions allowances. 

The market clearing price of SO2 and 

NOX emissions allowances is roughly 

the marginal cost of meeting the 

regulatory cap, not the marginal value of 

the cap itself. Further, because national 

SO2 and NOX emissions are regulated by 

a cap-and-trade system, the cost of 

meeting these caps is included in the 

price of energy. Thus, the value of 

energy savings already includes the 

value of SO2 and NOX control for those 

consumers experiencing energy savings. 

The economic cost savings associated 

with SO2 and NOX emissions caps is 

approximately equal to the change in 

the price of traded allowances resulting 

from energy savings multiplied by the 

number of allowances that would be 

issued each year. That calculation is 

uncertain because the energy savings 

from new or amended standards for IRL 

and GSFL would be so small relative to 

the entire electricity generation market 

that the resulting emissions savings 

would have almost no impact on price 

formation in the allowances market. 

These savings would most likely be 

outweighed by uncertainties in the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34133 

54For more information, see the Update to the 

AEO2009 and the AEO2009 Assumptions 

documentation [add proper cites]. 

marginal costs of compliance with SO2

and NOX emissions caps. 

EEI commented that the cost of 

remediating emissions such as CO2, 

NOX, SO2, and mercury were already 

included in electricity rates paid by 

consumers and therefore emission 

reductions should not be ‘‘monetized’’ 

because it would lead to double 

counting. (EEI, No. 78 at p. 4–5). As 

described above, DOE has only 

monetized the value of emissions not 

covered by existing caps, such as NOX

in regions not covered by CAIR. The 

monetization of these emissions is based 

on estimates of their damage costs (i.e., 

health effects) that are not included in 

economic prices. 

EEI also commented that DOE should 

consider the most recent trends in 

electricity generation, including 

reductions in emissions, the rise of 

renewable portfolio standards, and the 

possibility of an upcoming CO2 cap-andtrade program which would reduce the 

amount of CO2 produced per kWh 

generated. (EEI, No. 45 at p. 5) 

Earthjustice stated that Federal caps will 

likely be in place by the time new 

standards become effective, so DOE 

should increase its electricity prices to 

reflect the cost of complying with 

emission caps. Earthjustice also noted 

that there are regional cap-and-trade 

programs in effect in the Northeast 

(Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative 

(RGGI)) and the West (Western Climate 

Initiative (WCI)) that will affect the 

price of electricity but are not reflected 

in the AEO energy price forecasts. 

(Earthjustice, No. 60 at p. 6–7) NY et al. 

also recommended including some level 

of CO2 pricing in its modeling. (NY et 

al., No. 88, at p. 25) 

In response, DOE incorporated 

current trends in its analysis, but 

expressly did not include possible 

future legislation in this rulemaking. 

The current NEMS–BT model used in 

projecting the environmental impacts 

includes the CAIR rule, as described 

above, which is projected to reduce SO2

and NOX emissions. NEMS–BT also 

takes into account the current set of 

State level renewable portfolio 

standards, the effect of the RGGI, and 

utility investor reactions to the 

possibility of future CO2 cap and trade 

programs, all of which impact electricity 

prices and reduce the projected carbon 

intensity of generation.54

VI. Discussion of Other Key Issues and 

Comments 

A. Sign Industry Impacts 

The CA Stakeholders supported the 

adoption of TSL3 for the 8-foot SP 

Slimline and 8-foot RDC HO product 

classes partially due to concern for the 

outdoor sign industry. Based on 

communication with the Director of 

Technical & Regulatory Affairs for the 

International Sign Association, the CA 

Stakeholders believed that the outdoor 

sign industry would experience 

significant negative impacts if covered 

8-foot T12 lamps were eliminated by 

DOE proposing TSL4. (CA Stakeholders, 

No. 63 at p. 10) However, DOE does not 

believe that such an impact exists. The 

definition of ‘‘general service 

fluorescent lamp’’ exempts any 

fluorescent lamp designed and marketed 

for cold temperature applications. 10 

CFR 430.2. Because outdoor signs 

typically require lamps and ballasts 

designed for cold temperature 

operation, they should be minimally 

impacted by an energy conservation 

standard. If owners of outdoor signs are 

in fact using covered 8-foot T12 lamps, 

they have the option to replace those 

lamps with either a covered 8-foot T8 

lamp or an exempted 8-foot T12 lamp 

designed for use in cold temperature 

applications. Thus, the outdoor sign 

industry will not be negatively impacted 

by DOE adopting TSL4. 

B. Max-Tech IRL 

As required under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(1) and described in the April 

2009 NOPR, DOE identified the efficacy 

levels that would achieve the maximum 

improvements in energy efficiency that 

are technologically feasible (max-tech 

levels) for GSFL and IRL. 74 FR 16920, 

16933–35 (April 13, 2009). For IRL, DOE 

tentatively determined that the 

maximum technologically feasible 

efficacy level would incorporate the 

highest-efficiency technologically 

feasible reflector, halogen infrared 

coating, and filament design. Id. 

Combining all three of these highefficiency technologies simultaneously 

results in the maximum technologically 

feasible level. However, because the 

only technology pathway to this level is 

dependent on a proprietary technology, 

DOE did not consider this level further 

in its analyses. In the April 2009 NOPR, 

DOE analyzed TSL5, which is the most 

efficient commercially-available IRL and 

employs a silver reflector, an improved 

(but not most-efficient) IR coating, and 

a filament design that results in a 

lifetime of 4,200 hours. Although this 

commercially-available lamp uses the 

patented silver technology, DOE 

believes that there are alternate 

pathways to achieve this level. A 

combination of redesigning the filament 

to achieve higher temperature operation 

(and thus reducing lifetime to 3,000 

hours), employing other non-proprietary 

high-efficiency reflectors, and applying 

a higher-efficiency IR coating has the 

potential to result in an IRL that meets 

an equivalent efficacy level (for more 

information regarding these 

technologies, see chapter 3 of the TSD). 

Therefore, in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

concluded that TSL5 is the maximum 

technologically feasible level for IRL 

that is not dependent on the use of a 

proprietary technology. Id. 

1. Treatment of Proprietary 

Technologies 

Several stakeholders commented that 

DOE did not analyze the max-tech level 

for IRL as required by EPCA because IRL 

can achieve efficacies even higher than 

TSL5. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 96; ADLT, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 

113; Earthjustice, No. 60 at pp. 2–3; CA 

Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 14; ACEEE, 

No. 76 at p. 5; NRDC, No. 82 at p. 2) 

Commenters disagreed with DOE’s 

conclusion that it could not establish a 

TSL that required the use of a 

proprietary technology. (Earthjustice, 

No. 60 at pp. 3–4; CA Stakeholders, No. 

63 at p. 14; ACEEE, No. 76 at p. 5) These 

stakeholders claimed that DOE must 

either analyze the economic impacts of 

the true max-tech level, which would 

incorporate the proprietary technology, 

or show that standards based on the 

proprietary silverized reflector are not 

technologically feasible. (Earthjustice, 

No. 60 at p. 4; CA Stakeholders, No. 63 

at pp. 14–15) 

DOE agrees with the stakeholders that 

max-tech level for IRL is different than 

TSL5. While TSL5 is the highest 

efficiency level on which DOE 

performed the full range of economic 

analyses (including LCC, national 

impacts, and manufacturer impacts), 

DOE maintains that it did in fact 

consider and analyze the max-tech level 

consistent with EPCA. According to 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34134 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

55Halogen infrared (HIR) lamps that are 

commercially available today typically use infrared 

(IR) coatings with alternating layers of two materials 

(i.e., SIO2 and a second material of either Ta2O5 or 

Nb2O5) and have layer counts ranging from 45 to 

75. In contrast, the most-efficient HIR lamps have 

a coating made of three materials: SiO2, Ta2O5, and 

TiO2, the latter in the high-index rutile phase. This 

three-material coating, described as a HybridTM by 

Advanced Lighting Technologies, Inc. (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘advanced IR coating ’’), has an 

effective IR reflectance significantly higher than 

that of the two-material coatings used in the 

commercially-available examples, thereby resulting 

in enhanced lumen-per-watt (lm/W) values. 

from the imposition of a standard.’’ (42 

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

The observation that DOE did not 

label the max tech level as TSL6 does 

not mean that DOE did not consider this 

efficiency level. As noted in the April 

2009 NOPR and further explained 

below, DOE rejected this level because 

it required the use of a proprietary 

technology. However, DOE is not 

broadly screening out proprietary 

technologies or otherwise eliminating 

them from its analysis. In contrast to the 

present case, most patents do not 

convey market power to their owners 

because close substitutes for these 

inventions exist. Licensors will pay no 

more for these technologies than the 

cost advantage they provide over the 

next best alternative pathway to 

compliance with the efficiency 

standard. Ultimately the availability of 

cost-effective alternate technology 

pathways is what limits the ability of 

the owner of a proprietary technology to 

extract high fees for its use. 

However, it is DOE’s opinion that a 

standard level which can only be met 

with a single proprietary technology 

which comes without assurances of 

open and free technology access should 

be rejected because it carries great risk 

of resulting in an anti-competitive 

market, a principle consistently applied 

in past DOE rulemakings. In such a 

situation, the standards-setting process 

itself would convey great market power 

because there would be no alternative 

means to satisfy the standard. DOE 

believes that this is sufficient cause to 

conclude that the max-tech level in 

question is not economically justified. 

Having made this determination, there 

was no need or benefit to performing 

additional analyses relevant to the other 

statutory criteria. In fact, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. 

Herrington, the DC Circuit recognized 

that a complete analysis of all factors in 

not always required: ‘‘ If no standard 

could have been based on prototypes 

without requiring manufacturers to 

accomplish the impossible, we agree 

that DOE could reasonably deem all 

such standards economically unjustified 

without trudging through the remaining 

statutory factors.’’ 768 F.2d 1355, 1396– 

97 (D.C. Cir. 1985). 

At the NOPR public meeting, ASAP 

suggested that DOE should consider 

cross-licensing as a vehicle for 

manufacturers to access proprietary 

technologies if such technologies might 

comprise the only pathway to 

compliance with a certain standard 

level. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 97) While DOE 

acknowledges that manufacturers of 

proprietary technologies can create 

cross-licensing agreements with other 

organizations, DOE continues to reject 

the notion that a standard requiring a 

specific proprietary technology can be 

established under the EPCA criteria, for 

several reasons. First, the availability 

and the price of the proprietary 

technology could change after the 

efficiency standards are established, if 

the patent owner attempts to extract the 

value added by the standard-setting 

process in royalty fees for the 

technology required to meet the maxtech level. Second, DOE believes that 

the terms of cross-licensing agreements 

are generally not made public, so it is 

difficult to assess historical trends as to 

the impact of such agreements on the 

market. Thus, DOE cannot assess the 

cost implications of current or future 

cross-licensing agreements made in the 

industry; by extension, DOE cannot 

assess the manufacturer, consumer, or 

nationwide impact of a standard that 

requires the usage of a proprietary 

technology. 

In consideration of all of these factors, 

DOE maintains that it considers a 

standard level which can be met by only 

one proprietary design to be 

economically unjustified. Thus, DOE 

has rejected the max-tech level for IRL, 

and conducted the full range of 

economic analyses on what it believes 

to be the next highest efficiency level 

(not dependent on a proprietary design), 

TSL5. 

2. Other Technologies 

In response to the April 2009 NOPR, 

DOE received a number of comments 

suggesting that even without the use of 

a proprietary technology, several 

existing technologies could be utilized 

to produce IRL with efficacies that meet 

or exceed TSL5. (ADLT, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 107–110, 

113; CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at pp. 16– 

17; ADLT, No. 72 at p. 2; ACEEE, No. 

76 at p. 5; NRDC, No. 82 at p. 4) 

Manufacturers also commented on the 

burdens and barriers associated with 

implementing some of these 

technologies. Comments received 

regarding alternate technologies that 

could be used to meet or exceed TSL5 

are summarized below. 

a. High-Efficiency IR Coatings 

DOE analyzed advanced IR coatings 

in the April 2009 NOPR as a possible 

technology pathway to achieving TSL5 

without the use of the proprietary 

silverized reflector. 74 FR 16920, 

16944–45 (April 13, 2009). As part of its 

analysis (documented in the Appendix 

5D of the TSD), DOE obtained several 

halogen burners on which advanced IR 

coatings were deposited.55 Using a 

combination of testing and engineering 

calculations, DOE determined the 

maximum lamp efficacy that could 

result from implementing an advanced 

IR coating and non-proprietary 

aluminum reflector, while maintaining a 

lamp lifetime similar to the baseline 

lamp lifetime. 

In response to the April 2009 NOPR, 

several stakeholders noted that DOE’s 

maximum lamp efficacy as presented in 

Appendix 5D of the TSD, far exceeds 

that of TSL5 and, thus, should have 

been considered as a higher TSL6. 

(PG&E, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

38.4 at p. 99; CA Stakeholders, No. 63 

at p. 15) The CA Stakeholders further 

agreed with DOE’s statement in 

appendix 5D that advanced IR coatings 

are not a developmental product. (CA 

Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 17) ADLT 

confirmed that the uncoated burner 

tested by DOE for appendix 5D has been 

used in products for several years in the 

United States and that the coating 

applied to this burner has been in 

production in Europe on 12V burners 

for several years. (ADLT, No. 72 at p. 3) 

In contrast, NEMA commented that 

because DOE’s lamp efficacies 

calculated in Appendix 5D are based on 

prototype burners, and not on product 

that is currently in production, these 

values overestimate the final 

performance that would be achieved 

after making all design and process 

tradeoffs necessary to implement a 

complete high-speed, high-volume 

assembly process. (NEMA, No. 81 at pp. 

28–29) In addition, both Philips and 

ADLT agreed that there is a difference 

between the efficacy that can be attained 

in a laboratory production process and 

that which can be attained in an 

industrial environment. ADLT 

acknowledged that this difference is 

more pronounced when employing 

higher-efficiency IR coatings. (Philips, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 

111; ADLT, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 38.4 at pp. 112–113) 

While DOE considers advanced IR 

coatings to be a valid design option for 

increasing IRL efficacy and has not 

screened it out of the analysis, DOE also 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34135 

recognizes that it lacks the data to 

accurately estimate the performance of 

lamps utilizing this design option when 

manufactured at the production 

volumes needed to service the IRL 

market. Although all individual 

components of the prototype have been 

produced in high volume for separate 

products, that alone does not prove that 

a lamp with that combination of parts 

would have the same efficacy when 

manufactured on a large scale. In 

addition, as the analysis performed in 

appendix 5D of the TSD was based on 

an IR coating deposited in a laboratory 

environment, it is reasonable to assume 

that the efficacy of similar burners when 

manufactured in an industrial 

environment will be lower. While DOE 

recognizes that advanced IR coatings 

will likely produce higher-efficacy IRL, 

because DOE does not have adequate 

data to accurately estimate this efficacy, 

DOE is no longer considering the tested 

burners in establishing the max-tech 

level or alternate technology pathways 

to achieving other TSLs. 

b. Silverized Reflectors 

Commenters stated that in addition to 

the patent for GE’s silverized reflector, 

two other patents exist for 

manufacturing coatings of reflective 

silver. Another company possesses a 

provisional patent for a silverized lamp 

reflector (‘‘Reflector A’’), a technology 

(currently in development) that has 

been demonstrated in prototypes that 

have tested performances at least equal 

to that of the patented technology. A 

third entity has a patent for a ‘‘durable 

silver reflective coating’’ (‘‘Reflector B’’) 

that could be used for lamp 

applications. (CA Stakeholders, No. 63 

at p. 19–20; ADLT, No. 72 at p. 2) 

While recognizing the promise of 

these reflective silver technologies, DOE 

notes that significant uncertainty 

remains as to the successful 

implementation of both of these designs 

in commercial products at the scale 

needed to service the IRL market. In 

addition, DOE has no data on the 

performance of Reflector A. Although 

stakeholder have provided tested 

efficacies of lamps utilizing Reflector B, 

similar to the discussion regarding 

advance IR coatings, DOE is unable 

accurately estimate the performance of 

these lamps when produced at high 

volumes in industrial environments. For 

this reason, although DOE considers 

silverized reflectors as an IRL design 

option, DOE has concluded that it 

cannot base its establishing of max-tech 

or adoption of any other TSL on the 

potential performance of these 

reflectors. 

c. Integrally-Ballasted Low-Voltage IRL 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

screened out integrally-ballasted lowvoltage IRL as a technology option, 

because it was unaware of any IRL with 

integrated transformers that stepped 

down voltage from 120V line voltage. 74 

FR 16920, 16940 (April 13, 2009). 

Therefore, DOE could not conclusively 

determine if this technology option was 

technologically feasible. (See the 

Chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD). To 

demonstrate technological feasibility, 

the California Stakeholders contracted a 

consulting company to combine existing 

lamp components to make several 

prototypes of 120V IRL utilizing lowvoltage capsules. The tested efficacies of 

these prototype indicated that lowvoltage capsules could be used as a 

technology pathway to meeting TSL4 

and TSL5. (California Stakeholders, No. 

63 at pp. 20–21) Regarding the 

technological feasibility of low-voltage 

IRL, Philips commented that higher 

mains voltages found in Europe (such as 

220V and 240V) allow greater 

improvements in efficiency to be 

obtained by IRL with integrated 

transformers, but such improvements 

could not be obtained as easily in the 

U.S., where a mains voltage of 120V is 

used. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 318–319) 

In response, because the California 

Stakeholders have demonstrated that an 

integrally-ballasted low-voltage IRL 

operating on 120V mains is 

technologically feasible, DOE is no 

longer screening out this technology 

option in its screening analysis. 

However, because one of the tested 

prototypes (in particular, the only one 

claimed to meet TSL5) combined the 

low-voltage capsule with a 

developmental silverized reflector (see 

section V.B.5.d), DOE believes that there 

is significant uncertainty regarding the 

actual efficacies when such a product is 

manufactured on large scales. In 

addition, as stakeholders did not 

provide the lifetime of their tested 

prototypes, DOE cannot confirm that the 

resulting efficacies represent products 

with lifetimes similar to the baseline 

lamps DOE analyzed. Therefore, 

although DOE recognizes the potential 

of integrally-ballasted low-voltage IRL to 

reach high efficacies, due to the lack of 

definitive data DOE cannot base the 

establishing of max tech or the adoption 

of any other TSL on the test data 

provided. 

3. Lamp Lifetime 

Because lamp lifetime affects lamp 

efficacy, certain commenters suggested 

that the max-tech level should reflect a 

typical baseline lamp with a lifetime of 

between 1,000 and 2,000 hours. (CA 

Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 15) ADLT 

acknowledged that a relationship exists 

between lamp lumens and lifetime in 

which, all other things remaining equal, 

one cannot be changed without affecting 

the other. ADLT suggested that DOE 

should analyze lamps with lifetimes 

between 2,000 and 3,000 hours, which 

represents lifetimes commonly found in 

the commercial and residential markets. 

(ADLT, No. 72 at p. 3) 

DOE agrees that the max-tech level 

should be based on a lamp with a 

lifetime typical to the baseline lamp, 

and it conducted its rulemaking 

analyses accordingly. As discussed in 

Chapter 5 of the TSD and consistent 

with ADLR’s recommendation, DOE 

believes typical lifetimes of IRL 

regulated by this rulemaking are 

currently 2,500 to 3,000 hours. As 

discussed in section I.A.2, DOE has 

already considered that the maximum 

technologically feasible level would 

incorporate the highest-efficiency 

filament design, and such a filament 

would increase operating temperature 

(and efficacy) to a point that would 

result in a lifetime equivalent to the 

baseline lamp lifetime. However, 

because this level requires the use of the 

proprietary silverized reflector, DOE 

rejected this level as not economicallyjustified. 

In addition, DOE has reevaluated 

whether TSL5 represents the maximum 

technologically feasible level not 

dependent on a single proprietary 

technology. In the April 2009 NOPR, 

DOE based TSL5 on a commerciallyavailable IRL which employs a 

proprietary silver reflector, an improved 

(but not most-efficient) IR coating, and 

a filament design that results in a 

lifetime of 4,200 hours. However, DOE 

also stated that it believed that other 

technology pathways (not dependent on 

the proprietary technology) may exist. 

This belief was largely based on 

advanced IR coated capsules DOE tested 

(as documented in Appendix 5D). 

However, as discussed in section 

VI.B.2.a, DOE does not have the 

required certainty regarding these tested 

efficacies, and, therefore, is not 

considering them in establishing 

standard levels for this final rule. To 

verify that an alternate technology 

pathway exists to achieving TSL5, DOE 

evaluated commercially-available lamps 

at TSL4 (that generally have lifetimes of 

4,000 hours) and modeled their 

efficacies at a reduced life-time similar 

to the baseline (2,500 hours). Using the 

9th edition of the IESNA Lighting 

Handbook and by developing a 

relationship between lifetime, lumens, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34136 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

and wattage, DOE determined that a 

reduced lifetime TSL4 lamp (not using 

the proprietary silver reflector) would in 

fact just meet the efficacy requirements 

of TSL5. Therefore, DOE believes that 

TSL5 represents the maximum 

technologically feasible level not 

dependent on a single proprietary 

technology, taking into account all 

lifetime considerations. 

C. IRL Lifetime 

1. Baseline Lifetime Scenario 

As discussed earlier, DOE’s NOPR 

analyses were primarily based on 

commercially-available lamps, modeling 

4,000-hour-lifetime and 4,200-hourlifetime lamps at TSL4 and TSL5. DOE 

received a number of comments on the 

anticipated availability of IRL of various 

lifetimes under amended standards. 

Specifically, NEMA stated that it is 

possible to achieve higher efficacy 

levels (e.g., TSL4 and TSL5), but that 

only shorter-lifetime lamps are likely to 

be offered at those levels. NEMA also 

argued that PAR halogen lamps must 

have lifetimes of at least 2,000 hours 

(and more typically 3,000 hours) in 

order to be economically viable to 

consumers. (NEMA, No. 81 at pp. 5, 31) 

In addition, ADLT commented that the 

market determines the appropriate 

combination of efficacy and lifetime, it 

predicted that, in the future, higherefficacy lamps would have shorter 

lifetimes than those proposed by DOE at 

TSL4 and TSL5 in the April 2009 

NOPR. (ADLT, No. 72 at p. 3–4) The CA 

Stakeholders also disagreed with DOE’s 

selection of longer-lifetime lamps at 

TSL4 and TSL5. They stated that on a 

technology basis, lamp lifetime does not 

necessarily increase with the use of 

improved halogen technology. The CA 

Stakeholders believed that because 

manufacturers will be able to produce 

lamps with different combinations of 

lamp life and efficacy at TSL4 and 

TSL5, DOE’s shipment analysis should 

not assume any change in average lamp 

life at those levels. (CA Stakeholders, 

No. 63 at p. 28) 

Although DOE acknowledges that 

there is a technology trade-off between 

IRL lifetime and efficacy, based on the 

current stock of commercially-available 

product, DOE has concluded that lamp 

lifetimes of 4,000 hours and 4,200 hours 

are technologically feasible at TSL4 and 

TSL5, respectively. However, DOE also 

recognizes that given the issues 

regarding proprietary technologies, 

some manufacturers may choose to meet 

these higher efficacy levels by reducing 

lifetime to 2,500 hours and 3,000 hours. 

In addition, DOE also agrees with the 

CA Stakeholders, that beyond issues 

regarding proprietary technologies, 

given their ability to provide similar 

offerings of lamp lifetime, 

manufacturers will likely choose to offer 

lamps at lifetime similar to the baseline 

lamps (2,500 to 3,000 hours). Finally, 

DOE agrees with stakeholders that such 

an assumption will likely change the 

impacts of amended standards on 

consumers and manufacturers from 

those presented in the April 2009 

NOPR. 

For this reason, DOE developed a 

Baseline Lifetime scenario (in which it 

analyzed LCC savings, NPV, and 

manufacturer impacts) to investigate the 

effects of shorter lamp lifetime at TSL4 

and TSL5. DOE determined it was not 

necessary to apply this scenario to TSL1 

through TSL3, because at those levels, 

DOE already analyzes lamps with 

lifetimes similar to those of the baseline 

lamp lifetimes. However, for this 

scenario at TSL4, for each of the three 

baseline lumen packages, DOE analyzed 

an additional IRL with a lifetime 

equivalent to the baseline lamp’s 

lifetime (2500 hours for the 90W lumen 

package, 2500 hours for the 75W lumen 

package, 3000 hours for the 50W lumen 

package). The efficacy and wattages of 

the additional IRL were the same as 

those analyzed at TSL4 in the April 

2009 NOPR. In addition, as DOE had no 

indication that a less-costly technology 

could be utilized to meet TSL4 at these 

lower lifetimes, DOE modeled that the 

price of these additional lamps would 

be the same as the long-lifetime TSL4 

lamps. 

For the Baseline Lifetime scenario at 

TSL5, as discussed in section VI.B.3, 

DOE’s calculations indicate that the 

operating temperature of the 4,000 hour 

TSL4 lamp could be increased so as to 

result in a 2,500 hour lifetime lamp with 

an efficacy that would just meet TSL5. 

Therefore, at TSL5, DOE models three 

additional lamps (one for each baseline 

lumen package) which have lifetimes of 

2,500 hours, the same prices of the TSL4 

lamps (since these lamps would use the 

same technologies), and the same 

wattages and efficacies of the previously 

analyzed TSL5 lamps. The results of 

this Baseline Lifetime scenario are 

presented with the Commercial Product 

Lifetime scenario in sections VII.B, 

VII.C.1, VII.C.2 and VII.C.3. 

2. Minimum Lamp Lifetime 

Requirement 

Some stakeholders expressed concern 

regarding the possibility of extremely 

low lifetime lamps entering the market 

if DOE were to adopt TSL4 or TSL5. As 

mentioned above, NEMA stated that a 

PAR halogen lamp must have a lifetime 

of at least 2,000 hours, and more 

typically 3,000 hours, to be 

economically viable. (NEMA, No. 81 at 

p. 31) NEMA stated that shorter-lifetime 

lamps are unacceptable for long-life 

applications and negatively impacted 

the environment, because more lamps 

must be manufactured, transported, and 

disposed of. (NEMA, No. 81 at pp. 5, 31) 

Thus, NEMA commented that DOE 

should have considered a minimum 

lamp life when setting efficacy 

standards. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 104, 111– 

112) Edison Electric Institute 

recommended that DOE should consider 

setting a minimum lifetime standard for 

IRL, as was done for CFL via the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005). (EEI, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 

117) 

While DOE acknowledges that EPACT 

2005 set a minimum lifetime standard 

for CFL based on the August 9, 2001 

version of the Energy Star Program 

Requirements for Compact Fluorescent 

Lamps (42 U.S.C. 6295(bb)), DOE does 

not have the authority to set minimum 

lifetime standards for incandescent 

reflector lamps, because lamps lifetime 

is not an energy efficiency metric. 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6291(6), ‘‘energy 

conservation standard’’ is defined as: (1) 

A performance standard which 

prescribes a minimum level of energy 

efficiency or a maximum quantity of 

energy use; or (2) a design requirement 

(only for specifically enumerated 

products, which do not include 

incandescent reflector lamps). Because a 

standard for lamp lifetime would not 

fall under the definition of ‘‘energy 

conservation standard’’ as defined by 42 

U.S.C. 6291(6), DOE cannot adopt a 

minimum lifetime requirement for IRL 

in this final rule. 

3. 6,000-Hour-Lifetime Lamps 

In response to these comments, DOE 

notes that it selected IRL designs for its 

Commercial Product Lifetime scenario 

that would preserve the lifetime of the 

baseline IRL analyzed in this 

rulemaking, even though DOE 

understands that manufacturers can 

increase IRL efficacy by reducing IRL 

lifetime. 73 FR 13620, 13650 (March 13, 

2008). DOE notes that improved HIR 

lamps, as well as lamps introduced to 

meet TSL5 in the April 2009 NOPR have 

lifetimes greater than 4,000 hours, 

demonstrating that longer-life lamps can 

meet higher standard levels. DOE also 

believes that the life-cycle cost analysis 

results presented in this rulemaking 

accurately indicate the economic 

benefits to consumers, as the life-cycle 

cost analysis inherently considers lamp 

lifetime as well as the time value of 

money. Furthermore, in the April 2009 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34137 

NOPR, DOE expressed its belief that 

lamp lifetime is an economic issue 

rather than a utility issue because 

lifetime does not change the light output 

of the lamp. 74 FR 16920, 16939 (April 

13, 2009). Nevertheless, DOE analyzed 

whether long-life lamps would be 

available at higher TSLs. At TSL5, DOE 

has determined that manufacturers can 

provide lamps with a lifetime of at least 

4,200 hours, but is unable to confirm 

that they could offer lamps with a 

lifetime of 6,000 hours. However, at 

TSL4, DOE believes that manufacturers 

can achieve lifetimes of 6,000 hours by 

decreasing the efficacy of a lamp 

compliant with TSL5. Thus, 6,000-hourlifetime lamps would not be eliminated 

at this standard level. 

In summary, DOE understands that 

lifetime and IRL efficacy are related, but 

believes that the selection of an IRL 

lifetime by a lamp designer does not 

automatically determine the efficacy of 

the lamp. There are a variety of methods 

that lamp designers can utilize to meet 

DOE’s standard levels, and these 

methods are analyzed in this 

rulemaking. DOE considers how lamp 

lifetime affects consumers in its LCC 

analysis. 

D. Impact on Competition 

1. Manufacturers 

DOE received several comments 

related to the impact of IRL standards 

on industry competition. Philips 

believed that because most technologies 

employed to manufacture advanced IR 

coatings were proprietary, the adoption 

of IRL standards that required such a 

technology would adversely affect 

competition among lamp manufacturers. 

(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

38.4 at pp. 111–112) 

ADLT disagreed that advanced IR 

coatings required proprietary 

technology. (ADLT, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 112) The CA 

Stakeholders also disagreed and instead 

supported DOE’s assertion in appendix 

5D that advanced IR coatings were not 

a developmental product, and were 

presently not patented and were 

available to all lamp manufacturers. (CA 

Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 17) ADLT 

confirmed that the uncoated burner 

tested by DOE for appendix 5D has been 

in production for several years in the 

United States. Furthermore, the coating 

applied to this burner has been in 

production in Europe on 12V burners 

for several years. (ADLT, No. 72 at p. 3) 

The California Stakeholders asserted 

that adoption of a high standard level 

for IRL would not cause a significant 

lessening of competition. They 

commented that because manufacturers 

invest in new technologies at different 

times in competition with rivals, 

manufacturers currently offer products 

of different efficacies. The California 

Stakeholders added further that 

manufacturers have already invested 

significant capital to develop efficient 

burners and reflectors, which is 

reflected by the fact that they offer 

products currently meeting TSL 4 and 

TSL 5. (California Stakeholders, No. 63 

at pp. 24–25) 

In response, DOE does not believe 

that the adoption of a high standard 

level will adversely affect competition 

between lamp manufacturers. 

Consumers purchase lamps for a variety 

of utility features (size, color, dimming 

capability, directional light, lifetime, 

etc.) other than efficacy. Because 

consumer choice among these many 

features will remain unrestricted by this 

final rule, manufacturers have many 

grounds on which to compete. 

Furthermore, continued innovation in 

incandescent technology—driven, in 

part, by the desire to maintain a 

schedule of margins based on efficiency 

(as opposed to simply the utility 

features noted above)—is likely to 

maintain or even promote competition. 

DOE also acknowledges the proprietary 

silverized reflector technology at issue. 

As discussed in section VI.A, DOE 

believes there are alternative 

technologies to meeting higher efficacy 

levels and therefore believes that this 

final rule does not provide for any 

technological advantage that doesn’t 

already exist in the marketplace. A more 

detailed discussion of the impact of the 

adopted IRL standard on industry 

competition is contained in section 

VII.C.5. 

DOE also received comment regarding 

the impact of the effective date for IRL 

standards on industry competition. To 

DOE’s knowledge, two of the three 

major manufacturers of IRL currently 

sell a full product line (across common 

wattages) that meet TSL4. However, it is 

DOE’s understanding that OSI employs 

a technology platform that, due to the 

positioning of the filament in the HIR 

capsule, is inherently less efficient. 

Therefore, it is likely that in order to 

meet TSL4, OSI would have to make 

considerably higher investments than 

the other manufacturers, placing it at a 

competitive disadvantage. OSI 

commented that they required one 

additional year to obtain the requisite 

approval, design, build, and install 

equipment, and stabilize high volume 

production if DOE were to adopt TSL4. 

(OSI, No. 84 at p. 1) 

While DOE recognizes the challenges 

inherent in gaining access to technology 

and building capacity needed to begin 

production, as detailed in section VI.I of 

this notice DOE does not have the 

statutory authority to extend the 

implementation period. OSI did not 

provide the detailed information which 

DOE would need to appreciate why 

what is achievable in 4 years cannot be 

accomplished in the 3 years lead time 

specified by EPCA. For example DOE 

believes that proprietary technologies 

are not required to meet TSL 4 and that 

suppliers could provide HIR capsules if 

these could not be manufactured inhouse. Furthermore it is unclear how it 

might be possible to stabilize high 

volume production without producing 

high volumes of lamps. For this reason 

DOE believes that a 3 year lead time will 

be sufficient to ensure that the IRL 

market is supplied. 

2. Suppliers 

DOE also received several comments 

related to the potential impact of the 

adopted IRL standard on the 

competition between technology 

suppliers. The Applied Coatings Group 

(ACG) expressed concern regarding the 

adoption of an IRL standard that could 

only be met using an advanced IR 

coating manufactured by ADLT (this 

coating is described in appendix 5D of 

the TSD). ACG believed that such an 

action may create a monopoly for DSI, 

a subsidiary of ADLT, which would be 

detrimental for the lighting industry and 

consumers. (ACG, No. 52 at p. 2) 

Conversely, the CA Stakeholders 

believed that there is already 

competition to manufacture advanced 

coatings for lamps. They provided a list 

of companies that had either already 

invested in the technology or were 

considering such an investment. (CA 

Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 18) DSI, a 

U.S. company which is owned by 

ADLT, applies coatings using a 

sputtering process in a vacuum 

chamber. Auer Lighting, a German 

company also owned by ADLT, 

manufactures a similar coating of 

comparable efficiency and price using 

plasma impulse chemical vapor 

deposition (PICVD). Furthermore, a 

patent is pending on a third process to 

apply an IR coating to improve lamp 

efficacy (CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at pp. 

17–18) The CA Stakeholders believe 

that the IRL standards adopted by this 

rulemaking and the GSIL standards 

imposed by EISA 2007 will only 

increase the level of competition in the 

advanced coatings industry. (CA 

Stakeholders, No. 63 at pp. 18–19) 

DOE agrees with the CA Stakeholders 

that the adopted standard for IRL will 

not create a monopoly for DSI because 

sufficient competition exists in the 

advanced coatings industry. As 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34138 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

discussed above, other companies are 

currently investing in advanced IR 

coating technology or are considering 

such an investment prior to DOE 

adopting revised IRL standards in this 

final rule. Furthermore, technology 

pathways exist other than advanced IR 

coatings that can meet or exceed the 

highest efficacy level. Thus, it is 

extremely unlikely for one company to 

become a monopoly as a result of DOE’s 

adopted standards because there is more 

than one technology pathway to meet 

the most efficient level. For these 

reasons, DOE believes that the IRL 

standards adopted in today’s final rule 

will not adversely impact competition 

among technology suppliers. 

E. Xenon 

In response to the March 2008 

ANOPR, DOE received comments 

regarding the price and availability of 

xenon. Manufacturers believed that 

because of xenon’s high price and 

limited supply, it should not be 

considered for use as a higher efficiency 

inert fill gas. (NEMA, No. 21 at p. 9) 

Although price is not considered in the 

screening analysis, DOE did conduct an 

in-depth market assessment of the 

supply of xenon, and the potential 

impact of xenon supply limitations on 

IRL standard levels. DOE determined 

that although xenon is a rare gas, its 

supply is sufficiently large to 

incorporate into all IRL and that the 

xenon supply would not affect IRL 

product availability (see appendix 3B of 

the TSD for more details). As such, in 

the April 2009 NOPR, DOE believed that 

the use of xenon as a higher efficiency 

inert fill gas satisfied the screening 

criteria and considered it as a design 

option when developing efficacy levels. 

The CA Stakeholders agreed with 

DOE’s analysis and conclusions in 

appendix 3B of the TSD that xenon is 

not likely to impact manufacturers’ 

ability to produce IRL at higher standard 

levels. (CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 

22) NEMA agreed with DOE’s 

observations regarding the fluctuating 

demand for xenon and its price being 

affected by demand in other industries. 

However, NEMA reiterated that DOE 

must consider the increased cost of 

xenon in its LCC analysis because 

NEMA estimates these costs to be 

substantial ($0.50 to $0.75 per lamp). 

(NEMA, No. 81 at p. 20) 

In response, DOE did consider the 

impact of the price of xenon on LCC 

savings in the April 2009 NOPR and has 

updated its analysis with NEMA’s 

inputs. DOE performed an analysis, 

described in appendix 3B, in which it 

calculated how much the price of xenon 

would have to increase before LCC 

savings became negative. DOE 

concluded that, in general, the price of 

xenon could approximately triple before 

it significantly negatively impacted LCC 

savings. However, DOE notes that when 

examining LCC savings for lamps 

modeled in the Baseline Lifetime 

scenario (see section VI.C.1), the 

economic benefits of moving to higher 

efficacy lamps is much reduced. 

Therefore, increases in the price of 

xenon could in fact turn LCC savings to 

LCC increases for some consumers. DOE 

also maintains its conclusion that the 

availability of xenon will not be 

impacted by this final rule because 

historical evidence shows that supply 

slowly increases until it meets demand. 

For more details, see appendix 3B of the 

TSD. 

F. IRL Hot Shock 

In interviews, manufacturers of IRL 

expressed concern that halogen and HIR 

IRL are susceptible to a premature 

failure mode known as ‘‘hot shock’’ 

when installed in energized sockets, 

which could reduce LCC savings for 

consumers. The hot shock condition 

occurs when the lamp filament contacts 

another part of itself due to vibration or 

torque, causing an electrical short 

within the lamp. In written comments, 

both NEMA and GE expressed that hot 

shock is a significant concern for 

efficacious IRL, especially in the 

residential sector, where IRL in recessed 

ceiling cans of multi-floor houses may 

experience hot shock due to vibrations 

caused by the movement of people on 

the upper floors shared by the ceilings 

where IRL are installed. (NEMA, No. 81 

at p. 6, p. 10, pp. 27–28; GE, No. 80 at 

p. 7–8) In contrast, the California 

Stakeholders provided three reasons 

why they believed that the hot shock 

failure mode is not prevalent enough to 

prevent DOE from selecting a standard 

level that may require higher efficiency 

technologies. (California Stakeholders, 

No. 63 at pp. 21–22) Firstly, the 

California Stakeholders stated that in 

product documentation, manufacturers 

describe simple ways to avoid hot 

shock, primarily by avoiding installing 

or directing lamps while circuits are on. 

Secondly, the California Stakeholders 

stated that a patented technology 

(specifically a voltage reduction circuit) 

exists that claims to eliminate the risk 

of hot shock. Lastly, the California 

Stakeholders argued that as 

manufacturers have been selling 

halogen and HIR lamps for many years, 

if hot shock was a significant concern, 

there would be a noticeable adverse 

market response and mentioning of 

consumer dissatisfaction (of which their 

research found neither). 

DOE acknowledges that halogen and 

HIR IRL are susceptible to hot shock 

during installation in energized sockets 

or due to vibration that occurs during 

operation. DOE cannot set standards 

that necessitate the usage of a 

proprietary technology due to the 

adverse impacts on manufacturers and 

industry competition that may result. 

Thus, DOE is not considering the patent 

described by the California Stakeholders 

as a feasible way of preserving LCC 

savings. See section VI.B.1 for further 

details. DOE does agree, however, that 

halogen and HIR products are readily 

available on the market despite the risk 

of hot shock. DOE was unable to 

determine the prevalence of hot shock 

in the commercial or residential sectors 

due to a lack of available data, so DOE 

determined at what lifetime a standardscompliant lamp purchased by a 

commercial or residential consumer 

would experience negative LCC savings. 

The results are shown in Table VI.1 for 

commercial consumers and Table VI.2 

for residential consumers. Entries of ‘‘N/ 

A’’ represent lamps that already give 

negative LCC savings to consumers. 

DOE also notes, as discussed in the 

April 2008 NOPR, during interviews 

manufacturers stated hot shock could 

decrease lifetime by 25 to 30 percent. 

TABLE VI.1—IRL LIFETIME FOR NEGATIVE LCC SAVINGS IN THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR

Efficacy level 

IRL lifetime (hours) 

90W baseline 75W baseline 50W baseline 

EL1 ............................................................................................................................................... N/A N/A N/A 

EL2—6,000 hr .............................................................................................................................. 2587 2587 3277 

EL2—3,000 hr .............................................................................................................................. 2242 2242 N/A 

EL3 ............................................................................................................................................... 1897 1897 2932 

EL4 ............................................................................................................................................... 1897 2242 3277 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34139 

TABLE VI.1—IRL LIFETIME FOR NEGATIVE LCC SAVINGS IN THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR—Continued 

Efficacy level 

IRL lifetime (hours) 

90W baseline 75W baseline 50W baseline 

EL5 ............................................................................................................................................... 1897 1897 3277 

TABLE VI.2—IRL LIFETIME FOR NEGATIVE LCC SAVINGS IN THE RESIDENTIAL SECTOR

Efficacy level 

IRL lifetime (hours) 

90W baseline 75W baseline 50W baseline 

EL1 ............................................................................................................................................... 2443 N/A N/A 

EL2—6,000 hr .............................................................................................................................. 2355 2532 3233 

EL2—3,000 hr .............................................................................................................................. 1999 2177 2977 

EL3 ............................................................................................................................................... 1644 1821 2621 

EL4 ............................................................................................................................................... 1733 1910 2977 

EL5 ............................................................................................................................................... 1644 1910 3243 

G. Rare Earth Phosphors 

During manufacturer interviews, 

manufacturers asserted that higher TSLs 

for GSFL would require substantially 

larger amounts of triphosphor to attain 

those efficiency levels. As compared to 

halophosphor, triphosphor is composed 

of more expensive rare earth elements 

that increase many performance features 

of GSFL, including efficacy, lumen 

maintenance, and color rendition. 

Manufacturers commented that a 

standards-induced increase in 

triphosphor demand would drive up 

prices for the rare earth elements used 

to make triphosphor, and might 

potentially exceed what the market 

could supply. In response, for the April 

2009 NOPR, DOE conducted a market 

assessment of the rare earth phosphor 

industry (see April 2009 NOPR TSD 

Appendix 3C). DOE focused on the key 

rare earth elements used in high-efficacy 

GSFL—yttrium, terbium, and 

europium—because they are major cost 

drivers of triphosphor and were the 

subject of manufacturer concerns over 

availability. After completing the 

assessment, DOE did not believe it had 

sufficient information to project 

phosphor prices by modeling future 

supply and demand curves. Instead, 

DOE compared the LCC savings of 

consumers purchasing high-efficacy 

lamps to potential increases in the 

incremental first cost of rare-earth-based 

800-series lamps that would result from 

higher rare earth phosphor prices. In 

general, DOE found that in most 

commercial and residential purchase 

events, consumer LCC savings was 

sufficiently high to remain positive even 

in the face of potentially dramatic 

increases in phosphor prices. DOE also 

stated that higher prices were likely to 

attract mining firms into the market and 

make less-concentrated rare earth 

deposits economically viable. 74 FR 

16920, 16974 (April 13, 2009) 

NEMA disagreed with DOE’s analysis 

in the April 2009 NOPR and conclusion 

on four major points: First, DOE 

underestimated the increase in 

standards-induced triphosphor demand; 

second, DOE did not appropriately 

consider the problems with supply in 

the industry; third, higher efficacy 

levels will have a negative 

environmental impact due to the 

required increase in mining operations; 

fourth, the cumulative effect of the 

above factors would lead to dramatic 

increases in costs to manufactures and 

consumers. 

Specifically, on the magnitude of 

standards-induced triphosphor demand, 

NEMA argued that TSL 1 or TSL 2 

would prohibit halophosphor lamps, 

which would double manufacturer 

triphosphor demand. NEMA 

commented that shifting all lamps to 

TSL 4 or TSL 5 would increase the 

industry’s triphosphor needs by an 

additional factor of three. In sum, 

NEMA estimated TSL 1, TSL 2, TSL 3, 

TSL 4, and TSL 5 would require 175 

percent, 200 percent, 230 percent, 250 

percent, and 350 percent of current 

triphosphor usage, respectively. 

(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No 

38.4 at pp. 247–248, 251–252; NEMA, 

No. 81 at pp. 3, 18–19) Conversely, 

NRDC argued that the conversion of T12 

lamps to T8 and T5 lamps would 

mitigate the increase in phosphor 

demand. (NRDC, No. 82 at p. 3) 

In response to all comments, DOE 

conducted additional research on the 

rare earth industry, including several 

interviews with agents along the 

triphosphor value chain and other 

industry experts. Based on these 

interviews, manufacturer comments, 

further research and analysis of 

additional data obtained, DOE 

reevaluated its rare earth phosphor 

market analysis and assumptions. 

To determine how much trisphosphor 

demand would increase at each TSL, 

DOE determined the amount of 

triphosphor required in each lamp type 

at each TSL, using assumptions from 

manufacturer interviews and industry 

interviews. For example, DOE used 

Philips’ estimate that high performance 

800-series lamps require three to four 

times as much triphosphor as standard 

700-series lamps to establish the 

difference in triphosphor weight 

between the two phosphor series. DOE 

then multiplied these amounts by its 

shipments projections (see section 

V.D.2) for each phosphor series. (See 

TSD appendix 3C for a more detailed 

discussion of DOE’s methodology.) 

Based on this analysis, DOE agrees 

with the industry commenters that 

amended standards will lead to 

significant increases in manufacturers’ 

need for triphosphor, and by extension, 

europium (Eu), terbium (Tb), and 

yttrium (Y). DOE estimates that at TSL 

3, TSL 4, and TSL 5, manufacturer 

demand for triphosphor in covered 

products in 2012 would be 171 percent, 

183 percent, and approximately 230 

percent of base-case usage, respectively. 

These ranges reflect DOE’s upper-bound 

and lower-bound energy savings 

scenarios, which DOE used to capture 

the effect of consumers selecting 

different phosphor series lamps in 

response to standards. In the lowerbound scenario, triphosphor usage 

actually declines from TSL 3 to TSL 4, 

as the increase in triphosphor usage due 

to higher-efficacy lamps is offset by the 

decline in usage from the elimination of 

high-efficacy T12 lamps. At TSL 5, there 

is a large incremental jump in usage 

under any scenario. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34140 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

56Latimer, Cole; Kim, Jieun, Kim; Tahara-Stubbs, 

Mia; Wang, Yumin, ‘‘China’s Rare Earth Monopoly 

Threatens Global Suppliers, Rival Producers 

Claim,’’ Financial Times (May 29, 2009). 

57Richardson, Ed, Thomas & Skinner, ‘‘High 

Performance Magnets,’’ Strategic Minerals 

Conference (April 2009). 

58Hedrick, James B., Mineral Commodity 

Summaries, United States Geological Survey (Jan. 

2009). 

DOE believes its own estimate of the 

standards-induced triphosphor demand 

differs from NEMA’s estimate for several 

reasons. First, DOE’s estimate is relative 

to the 2012 market as opposed to 

current usage. DOE’s analysis attempts 

to isolate the impact on triphosphor 

usage from the energy conservation 

standards under consideration in this 

rulemaking, net of the expected increase 

between now and the effective date. As 

such, DOE accounts for a currentlyongoing trend toward triphosphor lamps 

in the base case due to the increased 

penetration of triphosphor T8 lamps 

relative to halophosphor T12 lamps. 

Supporting this base-case increase in 

triphosphor usage, one industry 

supplier told DOE it expected 

triphosphor demand for linear GSFL to 

double in five to six years in the base 

case. Another said it expects continued 

double-digit growth in terbium demand. 

Second, DOE’s estimate does not 

assume that all T8 lamps are 700-series 

in the 2012 base case. For example, 22 

percent of 4-foot medium bipin lamps 

T8 are 800-series or high-performance 

800-series lamps. 

Regarding NEMA’s second point 

regarding the total available supply of 

rare earth phosphors, Philips 

commented that Rhodia, a major 

phosphor supplier, told them in 2006 

that there was only a 14-year terbium 

supply left in the ground, meaning that 

if demand doubled due to standards, the 

lamp industry would struggle to obtain 

sufficient amounts of terbium in six to 

seven years. NEMA commented that 

Rhodia predicted that even without 

changes to DOE’s energy conservation 

standards, terbium, and europium 

would be in short supply within five 

years. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No 38.4 at pp. 254–255, 

258–259, 263) 

NEMA also highlighted China’s 

monopolistic position in the rare earth 

market as a threat to supply. NEMA 

stated that China, in an attempt to move 

manufacturing of products such as 

GSFL to their country, is setting 

production caps, reducing export quotas 

and licenses, and placing taxes on 

exports of rare earth commodities. 

According to NEMA, Chinese mine 

operators will not flood the market with 

the more abundant elements because 

that would depress their value. (NEMA, 

No. 81 at pp. 16–18) 

NEMA also rejected the notion that 

mines outside China, induced by higher 

phosphor prices, could augment supply 

by the amount China is restricting it. 

NEMA asserted that DOE should focus 

not on rare earths in general but rather 

those that are important to GSFL, 

particularly terbium and europium, 

because they represent only a tiny 

fraction of the rare earth mined. NEMA 

stated that DOE’s list of potential mines 

in the April 2009 NOPR TSD (appendix 

3b) does not indicate the presence of 

significant phosphor elements needed 

for GSFL manufacturing. For example, 

one mine DOE had listed as a potential 

source is in Mountain Pass, California. 

However, NEMA stated that its ore 

contained only 0.2 percent europium 

and no measure of terbium, according to 

the U.S. Geological Survey. (NEMA, No. 

81 at p. 16–19) Even if other mines 

eventually go into production, Philips 

argued, they will not come online 

quickly enough to meet standardsinduced demand. (Philips, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No 38.4 at pp. 253, 

259) NEMA commented that DOE’s 

conclusion that higher rare earth prices 

will attract additional mining operations 

is not supported by the record or anyone 

with knowledge of the subject. (NEMA, 

No. 81 at p. 19) 

As it relates to the physical 

availability of Y, Tb, and Eu, DOE 

reevaluated its analysis on the supply 

and demand of the key rare earths to the 

lighting industry given manufacturer 

comments. DOE agrees that the 

availability of rare earth phosphors 

(particularly with regard to terbium and 

europium) is a serious issue. As stated 

above, DOE agrees that manufacturers 

will most likely require large increases 

in rare earth phosphors to meet the 

standard established by this final rule. 

DOE interviewed industry experts and 

suppliers along the triphosphor value 

chain about the quantity of the key 

elements likely to be available over the 

near, intermediate, and long term. DOE 

received conflicting reports from those 

within the field regarding future 

supplies of these key materials. Many 

factors obscure the amount of 

recoverable rare earth that will be 

available to manufacturers, including 

future Chinese policy and strategic 

priorities, policies of countries outside 

China, demand from other applications, 

reclamation efforts, and lack of 

transparency in the industry. Industry 

experts have suggested there are 

sufficient amounts available to meet 

expected demand for anywhere from 15 

years to indefinitely. That is not to say 

that a supply shortage of these key 

elements and other rare earths is 

unlikely. Indeed, many of those experts 

that DOE interviewed expect shortages 

of most rare earths—not because of this 

rulemaking, but because of Chinese 

policy. Based on its interviews and 

research, DOE has concluded that the 

pivotal issue governing the risk to the 

physical availability of rare earths is 

Chinese policy. China currently 

supplies some 95 percent of the rare 

earth market and has taken steps to 

restrict the exportation of rare earths 

resources. Many in the field, as noted by 

manufacturers, consider this to be more 

a reflection of China’s strategic decision 

to compel rare earth-dependent 

industries (which tend to be burgeoning 

high-technology fields) to host 

operations in China,56 rather than an 

indication of limitation in terms of the 

physical availability of the resource.57

DOE does not dispute such a strategy 

could restrict rare earth phosphor 

supplies. However, DOE again notes this 

is substantially not a function of this 

final rule, but of external factors that 

may or may not affect industry in the 

base case as well as the standards case. 

In terms of other mining operations 

outside China, DOE found differing 

opinions on whether such operations 

have the potential to appreciably 

increase the supply of the key rare 

earths. DOE understands the key 

difference between those elements 

critical to the lighting industry and rare 

earths in general (discussed below) and 

agrees with NEMA that simply 

increasing production of rare earths is 

not sufficient to meet the specific needs 

of lamp manufacturers. While DOE also 

agrees that new projects outside of 

China could take years to come online, 

industry experts related that part of the 

reason for this is the threat of China 

increasing supply, thereby reducing 

prices, just as other facilities embark on 

the large capital costs required to 

develop mines. While this does imply a 

limited role for non-Chinese suppliers, 

it necessarily also implies an increase in 

rare earth phosphor supply. 

DOE continues to believe that any 

sharp increase in demand over the long 

term will send strong price signals to 

rare earth suppliers and potential 

suppliers around the globe, thereby 

increasing investment in the exploration 

and recovery of rare earths, as discussed 

in appendix 3B of the TSD. Another 

view common to the industry is that 

nations outside China will be forced to 

view rare earths as a strategic resource 

and take steps to secure access. The 

United States Geological Survey 

estimates that 58 percent of rare earth 

reserves base are in China,58 meaning 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34141 

59Cuif. Jean-Pierre, Rhodia Silcea—Electronics 

BU, ‘‘Is there enough rare earth for the ‘‘green 

switch’’ and flat Tvs?’’, Phosphor Global Summit 

2008 (March 2008). 60Available at: http://www.wingsironore.com/ 

data/wings_enterprises_reo_quick_summary.pdf 

61Rhodia, ‘‘Phosphor Recycling: Dream or New 

Source of Rare Earths?’’ Presentation at Phosphor 

Global Summit 2009 (March 2009). 

62Rhodia, ‘‘Phosphor Recycling: Dream or New 

Source of Rare Earths?’’, Presentation at Phosphor 

Global Summit 2009 (March 2009). 

there could be other sources of rare 

earths, although reserves of those 

specific rare earth elements key to 

lighting use may be more highly 

concentrated in China than all rare 

earths. (Please see appendix 3C of the 

TSD for a list of potential rare earth 

development projects.) Two potential 

domestic rare earth sources are the 

Mountain Pass, California site and the 

Pea Ridge iron ore mine in Missouri. 

NEMA and Philips noted that while 

20,000 tons of rare earths could 

potentially be mined at Mountain Pass, 

only 0.2% was europium. Regardless of 

the likelihood of the mine in Mountain 

Pass reopening, DOE notes that that 

amount equates to 40 tons of europium 

annually, a figured DOE confirmed by 

interviews with the mine’s operators. 

Production could in fact be higher, and 

such an amount is not insignificant 

amount given that estimated total 

worldwide demand for europium was 

300 tons in 2007 and was projected to 

be 420 tons in 2012.59 While estimates 

vary, a Rhodia presentation estimates 

terbium demand to be 420 tons in 2012, 

not the 600 tons NEMA noted. The 

company also told DOE that it expects 

supply and demand to be in balance in 

the near term for terbium and europium. 

Reports of the Pea Ridge resource 

indicate it is relatively rich in the rare 

earths key to the lighting industry, 

including terbium.60 Molycorp, the 

company that owns the Mountain Pass 

site, also told DOE that it is currently 

exploring four other sites outside China 

that have significant concentrations of 

the heavy rare earths (the group to 

which the critical rare earths such as 

terbium belong). 

NEMA also commented on phosphor 

reclamation as another source of rare 

earth supply. Philips stated that Rhodia 

has said there physically will not be 

enough phosphor beyond 2015 without 

reclamation. NEMA argued that while 

reclamation could augment supply, it 

would require significant infrastructure 

investment and still bring issues such as 

mercury contamination into play with 

regard to international transport (as 

many phosphor manufacturers are 

overseas). Such infrastructure and 

systems of collection and handling 

currently do not exist. Therefore, NEMA 

argued, while it expects recycling to 

emerge in response to the impending 

shortage, it is ‘‘entirely speculative’’ to 

assume reclamation can impact the rare 

earth phosphor shortage in this decade. 

Philips stated that only one of the two 

types of the green phosphor can 

currently be recycled; the type 

commonly used in CFLs cannot. In 

addition, GE stated that at TSL 4 and 

TSL 5, reclamation will not enlarge 

supply because reclaimed phosphor 

does not perform well enough to meet 

those levels. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No 38.4 at pp. 261, 262; 

NEMA, No. 81 at p. 18) 

Based on interviews, DOE believes 

that reclamation efforts can play a 

significant role in augmenting supply, 

but only in the longer term. Rhodia 

estimates that by 2015 there will be 

more than 250 tons of rare earth oxide 

in recycled lamps.61 Rhodia already has 

reclamation ability and is ramping up 

its capacity, but technical and economic 

challenges of commercial-scale 

operations remain. First, the 

infrastructure to collect recycled GSFL 

must be in place. With this 

infrastructure, a commercial-scale, 

technically-viable process for distilling 

the rare earths from the other lamp 

materials—glass, alumina, 

halophosphate, etc.—must be 

established. This will have to include 

chemical treatments, mercury removal, 

and waste disposal. 

While DOE agrees that reclaimed 

phosphor is too degraded to be used at 

TSL 4 or TSL 5, DOE notes that Rhodia 

stated that it can still meet the needs of 

high-performance lamps because the 

company refines the triphosphor back 

down into its original elements (e.g., 

terbium, europium) and then 

remanufactures the triphosphor. 

Because this process clearly adds cost to 

the reclaimed triphosphor, it is likely 

only higher price points will trigger 

additional supply via reclamation. 

The attractiveness of reclamation will 

depend not only on the cost of the 

process versus the price of normal rare 

earth acquisition, but also the amount of 

rare earth available for recovery in the 

retiring lamp stock. Currently, the 

universe of retiring lamps was installed 

several years ago; they are mostly 

halophosphor lamps. Therefore, the 

yield of rare earth oxides from recycling 

these lamps would be unlikely to make 

commercial-scale reclamation 

economically attractive in the very near 

future. As such, in light of the other 

details, DOE agrees that large-scale 

reclamation is unlikely to occur before 

2015. However, in several years, Rhodia 

expects the amount of recoverable 

useful rare earth to grow significantly as 

high-performance GSFL become 

commonplace.62 Just as energy 

conservation standards will increase the 

demand for rare earth phosphor in 2012, 

they will provide larger volumes 

available for reclamation when they 

retire. At such time, it is entirely 

possible that reclamation eventually 

could augment supply. 

On its third point regarding the 

impact of rare earth mining, NEMA 

argued that those who think TSL 5 is 

environmentally sound are not 

considering the environmental impact 

that will arise from such an increase in 

demand. Philips argued that the goal of 

the U.S. should not be to quadruple 

strip mining operations around the 

world. According to Philips, TSL 5 

would increase mining by 300 percent 

relative to TSL 3, depleting natural 

resources more rapidly and increasing 

the cost to the consumer. (Philips, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No 38.4 at 

pp. 253, 259; NEMA, No. 81 at p. 19) 

DOE agrees with NEMA and Philips 

that increased demand could require 

additional mining operations. However, 

mining for rare earths reflects a small 

portion of all global mining operations. 

DOE does not believe that the increase 

in global demand resulting from this 

final rule will come close to requiring 

the mining increase suggested by 

Philips as industry experts also noted 

that rare earths in many instances could 

be mined as byproducts and, therefore, 

not create the same footprint as an 

entirely new project. 

On its fourth point, NEMA and 

Philips argued that a massive price 

spike in rare earth phosphors will occur 

in 2012 when manufacturers supplying 

the U.S. market have to double their 

requirements as China continues to 

reduce quotas. GE commented that this 

would lead to very expensive lamps for 

consumers. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No 38.4 at pp. 256; Philips, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No 38.4 at 

pp. 248–249; NEMA, No. 81 at p. 18) 

Conversely, the California Stakeholders 

commented that they agreed with DOE’s 

April 2009 NOPR analysis related to 

rare earth phosphors, stating that rare 

earth phosphor prices and availability 

would not affect product availability or 

consumers’ life cycle cost savings. 

(California Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 11) 

ACEEE commented that it does not 

expect the availability of rare earth 

phosphors to result in excessive price 

volatility. (ACEEE, No. 76 at p. 2) 

In response, as discussed in the April 

2009 NOPR, DOE believes that the 

standards case, all other things being 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34142 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

63See http://lynascorp.com/ 

page.asp?category_id=1&page_id=25. 

64Cuif. Jean-Pierre, Rhodia Silcea—Electronics 

BU, ‘‘Is there enough rare earth for the ‘‘green 

switch’’ and flat Tvs?’’, Phosphor Global Summit 

2008 (March 2008). 

equal, will result in higher prices for 

yttrium, europium, and terbium. (74 FR 

16920, 16974 (April 13, 2009) As in the 

April 2009 NOPR, DOE does not believe 

is it possible to generate reasonable 

price forecasts, particularly given the 

historical volatility in rare earth prices, 

trade restrictions, trade policies, lack of 

publically-available data from China, 

and potential supply sources coming 

online. As an example of the price 

volatility, terbium prices on May 20, 

2009 were roughly half what they 

averaged in 2008,63 this after increasing 

dramatically in previous years. 

However, given that DOE believes 

standards-induced demand increase has 

the potential to affect the worldwide 

demand of europium, terbium, and 

yttrium, DOE has concluded that it is 

possible prices will rise for these 

elements, all other things being equal. 

To broadly gauge the potential impact of 

standards on prices, DOE assessed the 

standards-induced increase of their 

demand in the context of the 

international market for these materials, 

as these key rare earths have many 

applications and are transacted in a 

global market. DOE estimates that this 

final rule will increase worldwide 

demand for terbium and europium 

relative to the 2012 base case by roughly 

10 percent. DOE used Rhodia estimates 

for the 2012 base case.64

DOE’s interviews and research 

showed that there are many value-added 

processes in the supply chain of 

triphosphor. Some of the cost attendant 

to these processes is not directly driven 

by the demand (and scarcity) of these 

rare earth elements themselves, but by 

the mining, chemical processing and 

concentrating, and blending costs that 

are inherent to triphosphor production. 

According to interview participants, 

these processes are highly driven by 

energy costs, which will be mostly 

equivalent in the base case and 

standards cases. This is supported by 

the fact that despite the prospect of 

increasing demand, the prices of the key 

rare earths declined significantly from 

summer 2008 to spring 2009, more in 

line with oil and other commodity 

prices. Other important cost drivers to 

manufacturers include a 25-percent 

tariff on the export of key rare earths 

from China, which will also be the same 

in the base case and standards cases. 

As it did in the April 2009 NOPR, 

DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis for 

this final rule to address the potential 

increases in end-user lamp prices 

attributable to higher rare earth input 

costs. And despite the fact that price 

increases in the key rare earth elements 

are unlikely to be equal to triphosphor 

costs (because of the many other cost 

inputs), to be conservative, DOE 

assumed that such a relationship 

existed. That is, if Eu, Y, and Tb 

prices—weighted for their proportional 

use in triphosphor—doubled, DOE 

assumed the price of triphosphor also 

doubled. DOE used the analysis to 

determine how robust consumer LCC 

savings are at TSL 3, TSL 4, and TSL 5. 

DOE compares the LCC savings due to 

purchasing higher-efficacy GSFL (as 

calculated in chapter 8) to LCC savings 

under scenario with higher phosphor 

prices. As discussed in appendix 3C of 

the TSD, DOE determined the quantity 

of each rare earth phosphor required to 

manufacture each phosphor series of 

GSFL. DOE then estimated how a range 

of prices for the key rare earth 

phosphors would affect manufacturing 

lamp costs. Next, by applying 

manufacturer and retail markups, DOE 

analyzed how increases in rare earth 

phosphor prices may affect LCC savings 

for a consumer of each lamp type. 

DOE found that for most commercial 

and residential purchase events, 

consumer LCC savings were sufficiently 

high to remain positive even if there 

were dramatic increases in triphosphor 

prices and manufacturers were forced to 

pass those cost increases on to the 

consumer with current markup levels. 

In fact, all events that yield positive LCC 

savings at TSL 4 at current triphosphor 

prices would maintain positive LCC 

savings despite dramatic increases in 

trisphosphor prices (as a result of rare 

earth price increases). By the same 

token, DOE calculated that the dramatic 

decline in rare earths prices since the 

summer of 2008 likely did not 

significantly affect consumer LCC 

savings. 

In conclusion, regardless of the 

differences between DOE and NEMA’s 

phosphor usage estimates, it is worth 

noting that moving from TSL 3 to TSL 

4 results in a much smaller increase in 

triphosphor usage than any other 

incremental step up in efficacy levels, 

according to each estimate. As noted 

above, NEMA estimates a relatively 

small increase in usage at TSL 4 relative 

to TSL 3 (250 percent vs. 230 percent) 

and both show a much larger increase 

in moving to TSL 5 (350 percent). Given 

that NEMA commented that TSL 3 

could be implemented in terms of 

triphosphor, despite more than doubling 

domestic usage, DOE believes the 

relatively small incremental demand 

increase of moving to TSL 4 works to 

justify the latter, higher efficacy level. 

(NEMA, No. 81 at p. 2; GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No 38.4 at pp. 254– 

255) Similarly, while it is impossible to 

guarantee the amount of recoverable 

rare earth in the ground, or predict the 

supply impacts of Chinese policy, DOE 

does not believe the slight incremental 

impact of TSL 4 relative to TSL 3 

significantly exacerbates these concerns. 

However, given the large increases in 

rare earth phosphor required at TSL 5 

relative to TSL 4, DOE is concerned 

about the impact of TSL 5 on product 

availability as well as the potential 

environmental impact of producing the 

necessary rare earth resources. 

For all of these reasons—a relative 

small increase in triphosphor needs at 

TSL4 relative to TSL 3, which industry 

acknowledged was acceptable; 

continued LCC savings for the consumer 

even with higher triphosphor prices and 

tariffs; greater potential for additional 

supply resources and reclamation with 

higher rare earth prices; and, 

significantly, the fact that the major 

factors in rare earth availability and 

prices are largely independent of this 

rulemaking—DOE concludes that TSL 1 

through TSL 4 are appropriate with 

respect to rare earth phosphor 

availability, prices, and environmental 

impact. 

H. Product and Performance Feature 

Availability 

1. Dimming Functionality 

NEMA expressed concern about the 

loss of dimming capability as IRL 

consumers migrate to other 

technologies. NEMA acknowledged that 

although no data exists to characterize 

the dimming market, industry believes 

there is ‘‘considerable overlap’’ between 

dimmer and IRL installations. Thus, for 

both the commercial and residential 

sector, NEMA believes that a significant 

number of installed halogen lamps are 

used in combination with dimmers. 

NEMA commented that at TSL4 and 

TSL5 specifically, the high price of 

covered IRL will likely force consumers 

to buy lower cost, but non-dimmable 

technologies. NEMA argued this would 

disappoint end-users, especially those 

in the residential sector, as they are 

more likely to purchase a lamp based on 

its first cost. Furthermore, NEMA 

argued that because a significant 

percentage of installed halogen lamps 

are used in dimming applications (and 

therefore consume less energy when 

dimmed), the energy saving benefit of 

an alternative non-dimmable 

replacement is reduced. (NEMA, No. 81 

at p. 29–30) Lutron also urged DOE to 

account for this functional loss in its 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34143 

analysis. (Lutron, No. 38.4 at p. 316) 

Similarly, IALD commented that IRL 

provide utility, such as high CRI and 

dimming capability, that is unlikely to 

be met with emerging technologies and 

used in special applications, such as 

auditorium and art gallery lighting. 

(IALD, No. 71 at p. 2) 

In response, DOE believes that it has 

already accounted for dimming 

functionality in its analysis. First, DOE’s 

efficacy levels do not eliminate any 

dimming capability from the market. 

Thus, DOE is not assuming this 

functionality must be met with 

emerging technologies. Covered IRL are 

available at every TSL for use in 

dimming applications. Second, DOE’s 

emerging and existing scenarios already 

incorporate the effect of consumers who 

make purchasing decisions based only 

on a lamp’s first cost. Third, DOE 

disagrees that the percentage of covered 

lamps used in dimming applications 

would affect DOE’s projected energy 

savings. While DOE agrees with NEMA 

that when lamps are dimmed they 

consume less energy, DOE expects the 

usage of dimmers to remain the same in 

both the base and standards case. It is 

unlikely that a consumer would dim a 

lamp more or less only because he/she 

is using a standards-compliant lamp. 

Lastly, DOE believes consumers who 

would be ‘‘greatly disappointed’’ 

without dimming functionality would 

not be deterred from an incrementally 

higher first cost associated with 

retaining that functionality. For these 

reasons, DOE has already accounted for 

dimming functionality in its analysis. 

2. GSFL Product Availability 

NEMA wrote that TSL4 and TSL5 

cannot be economically justified, partly 

because these efficacy levels would 

preserve T8 lamps that are mostly 

incompatible with today’s installed base 

of T8 ballasts; NEMA also stated that 

higher standards for U-shaped lamps 

would negatively impact competition 

and eliminate energy-efficient U-shaped 

lamps with 6-inch spacing. (NEMA, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at 

pp. 24, 38, NEMA, No. 81 at pp. 2–3) 

DOE disagrees with NEMA that TSL 

3 would remove nearly all T12 lamps 

from the market by the effective date. 

Certain T12 lamps still meet TSL 3, as 

presented in NOPR, a point that NEMA 

does not dispute. Moreover, given the 

magnitude of the current T12 

shipments, particularly in the 

residential sector, where, as NEMA has 

noted, the most common residential 

magnetic ballast is exempted, DOE 

believes that T12 lamps will remain on 

the market at TSL 3. 

Next, DOE has accounted for 

compatibility with existing ballasts, as 

well as the need for a new ballast 

purchases (when applicable), in all its 

analyses, as discussed in the April 2009 

NOPR. While DOE agrees TSL 4 or 

higher may eliminate T12 lamps from 

the market, as presented in DOE’s 

market share matrices, at least five T8 

lamps meet TSL 4, and two providing 

residential consumers with product 

options. Therefore, DOE does not 

believe this final rule presents a 

possibility of product shortages. 

I. Alternative Standard Scenarios 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE noted 

that although it was proposing TSL3, 

serious consideration would be given to 

a more stringent standard level for GSFL 

in the final rule. Accordingly, DOE 

requested comment on alternative 

scenarios for GSFL standards that could 

achieve greater energy savings than the 

proposed TSL3. In addition to 

consideration of a standard that would 

eliminate T12 lamps as presented in 

TSL4 and TSL5, DOE also provided two 

examples of alternative standard 

scenarios that may be considered: (1) A 

standard with a delayed implementation 

date (i.e., extended lead time); and (2) a 

standard with differentiated residential 

and commercial levels. 74 FR 16920, 

17017, 17025 (April 13, 2009). In 

response, DOE received several 

comments on these example scenarios. 

1. Tiered Standard 

ACEEE, the California stakeholders, 

NEMA, and NEEP all recommended 

various forms of tiered standards. 

(ACEEE, No. 55 at pp. 1–3; NEEP, No. 

61 at p. 4; NEMA, No. 81 at p. 23, 24; 

California Stakeholders, No. 2 at p. 2) 

ACEEE and the California Stakeholders 

also argued that DOE set a precedent for 

such a tiered, phased-in standard in 

2001 with residential clothes washers, 

when DOE issued a final rule making 

one efficiency level effective in 2004 

and second level effective in 2007. 

(California Stakeholders, No. 61 at p. 9; 

ACEEE, No. 55 at p. 2) 

DOE analyzed the impacts of a tiered, 

phased-in standard, as suggested by 

many stakeholders. Under such 

approach, DOE’s analysis showed a 

mitigation of manufacturer INPV, 

similar to a delayed effective date 

alternative scenario but to a lesser 

extent. Again, the lower capital costs 

(due to more time for the base-case 

migration away from T12s), time value 

of money effects, and longer retention of 

higher-margin sales, all mitigate the 

negative INPV impacts. DOE, however, 

again carefully reviewed the governing 

statute and has determined that it does 

not have the authority to implement 

tiered, phased-in standards under 

EPCA. 

DOE carefully evaluated the legality 

of tiered standards based on the 

language in EPCA. 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3) 

requires amended standards for GSFL 

and IRL to apply to products 

manufactured ‘‘on or after’’ the 36- 

month period beginning on the date 

such final rule is published. DOE 

interprets this provision to mean that 

the standard will be in place for covered 

lamps that are manufactured precisely 

three years after publication of the final 

rule and prospectively thereafter. DOE 

reasoned that it would be illogical to 

give separate meaning to the terms ‘‘on’’ 

and ‘‘after’’, an interpretation that could 

conceivably allow for a second-tier 

standard effective at some point 

subsequent to the date 36 months after 

the publication date of the rule, because 

this interpretation would also allow for 

a rule that requires compliance with the 

established standards on only the exact 

date 36 months from the publication 

date. Therefore, DOE concluded that 

section 6295(i)(3) of EPCA does not 

allow tiered standards for the final 

GSFL and IRL rule. This is in contrast 

to EPCA’s general service lamps 

provisions at 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(iv), 

where Congress explicitly directed DOE 

to consider phased-in effective dates. 

DOE notes that 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5), 

relating to ‘‘additional’’ GSFL lamps, 

contains a different formulation 

providing that the standards shall apply 

to products manufactured ‘‘after’’ a date 

that is 36 months after the date the rule 

is published. However, it is DOE’s 

understanding that the ‘‘additional’’ 

GSFL covered by subsection (i)(5) are 

not those products which significantly 

alter INPV or consumer LCC savings in 

this rulemaking. In light of the above, 

DOE chose not to adopt tiered standards 

for these lamps. 

2. Delayed Effective Date 

ACEEE and the California 

Stakeholders, as well as NEMA and 

Osram Sylvania, stated that DOE should 

consider various delayed effective dates, 

although the California Stakeholders 

suggested that this should be a last 

resort. (California Stakeholders, No. 61 

at p. 4; ACEEE, No. 55 at p. 2; NEMA, 

No. 81 at pp. 2, 24–26; Osram Sylvania, 

No. 84 at p. 2) 

DOE carefully evaluated the legality 

of delayed implementation dates based 

on the language in EPCA. DOE 

concluded that a delayed effective date 

which sets no standards for compliance 

on or about June 30, 2012, which is the 

anticipated date ‘‘on or after the 36- 

month period beginning on the date 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34144 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

such final rule is published,’’ would not 

be permissible under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 

6295(i)(3)). As in the discussion above 

for tiered standards, DOE interprets the 

language of 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3) to mean 

that a standard will be in place for 

covered lamps that are manufactured 

precisely three years after publication of 

the final rule and prospectively 

thereafter. This is again in contrast to 

EPCA’s general service lamps provisions 

at 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(iv), where 

Congress explicitly directed DOE to 

consider phased-in effective dates. DOE 

also carefully considered 42 U.S.C. 

6295(i)(5), which provides that the final 

rule for ‘‘additional’’ GSFL shall apply 

to products ‘‘manufactured after a date 

which is 36 months after the date such 

rule is published’’ and could potentially 

support a later effective date for 

‘‘additional’’ GSFL. However, it is 

DOE’s understanding that ‘‘additional’’ 

GSFL are not those products which 

significantly alter INPV or consumer 

LCC savings in this rulemaking. In light 

of the above, DOE chose not to use 

delayed effective dates for those lamps 

as recommended by commenters. 

3. Residential Exemption 

NEEP, GE and NEMA recommended 

various forms of residential exemptions 

and/or labeling for T12 lamps as 

alternate standard scenarios. (NEEP, No. 

61 at p. 4; NEMA, No. 81 at pp. 2, 24– 

26; (GE, No. 80 at pp. 1–3) ACEEE and 

the California Stakeholders opposed 

separate treatment for the residential 

sector through a bifurcated standard. 

(California Stakeholders, No. 61 at p. 9; 

ACEEE, No. 55 at p. 3; NEMA, No. 81 

at pp. 2, 24–26) 

DOE considered the option of having 

differentiated standards for residential 

consumers and commercial consumers. 

Absent a specific statutory directive 

(e.g., one conveying product labeling or 

packaging authority), it has long been 

DOE’s position that it regulates 

equipment, rather than product use. In 

general, DOE has sought to avoid 

interfering with manufacturing 

decisions related to product use, 

marketing, or packaging. This approach 

is also reflective of the inherent 

difficulties in enforcing product usage 

requirements and the potential 

loopholes that may be created. 

In the present case, DOE notes that in 

contrast to situations where it sets 

product classes whose efficiency-related 

differences (e.g., in terms of utility, 

capacity, type of energy use) warrant 

different standard levels, the lamps 

under consideration here have no 

significant technical differences as 

would support different standard levels. 

Given the identical nature of T12 lamps 

used in residential and commercial 

settings, it would be potentially easy for 

commercial customers to purchase and 

install T12 lamps marketed for 

residential use. DOE is concerned that 

this option could significantly 

undermine the energy savings potential 

to the Nation of the lamps standard. 

Therefore, DOE has decided not to 

consider such an approach further. 

4. Conclusions Regarding Alternative 

Standard Scenarios 

In considering whether to adopt a 

more stringent standard for GSFL than 

the proposed TSL3, DOE sought to 

explore various approaches (e.g., tiered 

standards, delayed effective dates) to 

mitigate the impacts on manufacturers 

and certain consumers. However, after 

careful examination of the relevant 

provisions of EPCA, for the reasons 

explained above, DOE has determined 

that none of these options is available. 

Accordingly, the effective date of this 

final rule for all covered product classes 

will be three years from the date of 

publication. 

J. Benefits and Burdens 

Since DOE opened the docket for this 

rulemaking, it has received more than 

80 written comments, with hundreds of 

signatories, from a diverse set of parties, 

including manufacturers and their 

representatives, state attorney generals, 

members of Congress, energy 

conservation advocates, consumer 

advocacy groups, private citizens, and 

electric and gas utilities. DOE also 

received more than 20,000 email form 

letter submissions recommending DOE 

strengthen the proposed energy 

conservation standards. All substantive 

comments on the analytic 

methodologies DOE used are discussed 

heretofore in sections of this final rule 

notice. DOE also received many 

comments related to the relative merits 

of various TSLs. Generally, these 

comments either stated a certain TSL 

was economic justified, technologically 

feasible, and maximized energy, or they 

argued how DOE should weight the 

various factors that go into making that 

determination. See section VII for a 

discussion of DOE’s analytic results and 

how it weighed those factors in 

establishing today’s final rule. 

PSI stated that DOE should adopt 

GSFL and IRL standards that align with 

or surpass the European Union’s ‘‘EcoDesign Standards for Energy-Using 

Product (EuP) Directive.’’ On the other 

hand, a private citizen wrote to DOE 

expressing that DOE’s proposed 

standards for GSFL and IRL will not 

save significant energy, will negatively 

impact the work of lighting designers, 

and may have a negative impact on the 

quality of work and living spaces; the 

citizen expressed that conservation in 

other areas could yield greater reduction 

in energy usage. (Private Citizen, No. 48 

at pp. 1–3) 

VII. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

DOE analyzed the costs and benefits 

of five TSLs each for the GSFL and IRL 

covered in today’s final rule. Table VII.1 

and Table VII.2 present the TSLs and 

the corresponding product class efficacy 

requirements for GSFL and IRL. See the 

engineering analysis in section V.B.4 of 

this final rule for a more detailed 

discussion of the efficacy levels. In this 

trial standard levels section, DOE 

presents the analytical results for the 

TSLs of all product classes that DOE 

analyzed, including scaled product 

classes. See chapter 5 of the final rule 

TSD for further information on 

representative and scaled product class 

efficacy levels. 

1. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

As discussed in section V.B.2, the 

following lamps with a CCT less than 

4,500K compose the five representative 

GSFL product classes: (1) 4-foot 

medium bipin; (2) 8-foot single pin 

slimline; (3) 8-foot recessed double 

contact HO lamps; (4) 4-foot miniature 

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

bipin T5 HO lamps. U-shaped lamps 

with a CCT less than 4,500K are a scaled 

product class. The six lamp types 

(including U-shaped lamps) with CCTs 

greater than or equal to 4500K compose 

six additional product classes, which 

are also scaled product classes. DOE 

developed TSLs that generally follow a 

trend of increasing efficacy by using 

higher-quality phosphors. The TSLs also 

represent a general move from higherwattage technologies to lower-wattage, 

lower-diameter lamps with higher 

efficacies. Table VII.1 shows the TSLs 

for GSFL. DOE composed each TSL 

utilizing the same methodology 

employed in the April 2009 NOPR. 

TSL5 represents all maximum 

technologically feasible GSFL efficacy 

levels, as in the April 2009 NOPR. 74 FR 

16920, 16980 (April 13, 2009). 

For this final rule, DOE revised the 

efficacy levels for 4-foot T5 MiniBP 

standard-output and high-output lamps 

to reflect testing at 25° C as well as 

manufacturing variability. The April 

2009 NOPR EL1 requirements for T5 

standard-output lamps have thus been 

revised from 103 lm/W to 86 lm/W, and 

the April 2009 NOPR EL2 requirements 

have been revised from 108 lm/W to 90 

lm/W. The April 2009 NOPR EL1 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34145 

requirements for T5 high-output lamps 

have been revised from 89 lm/W to 76 

lm/W. 74 FR 16920, 16980 (April 13, 

2009). The EPCA standard for GSFL in 

the representative product classes of 

this final rule are shown in Table I.3. 

Trial standard levels for all GSFL 

product classes in this final rule are 

shown in Table VII.1. 

TABLE VII.1—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR GSFL—EFFICACY LEVELS FOR ALL GSFL PRODUCT CLASSES

CCT Lamp type 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

≤4,500K ........................................................ 4-foot medium bipin (representative) .......... 78 81 85 89 93 

2-foot U-shaped ........................................... 70 72 76 84 87 

8-foot single pin slimline (representative) ... 86 92 95 97 98 

8-foot recessed double contact HO (representative).83 86 88 92 95 

4-foot T5 miniature bipin SO (representative).86 86 86 86 90 

4-foot T5 miniature bipin HO (representative).76 76 76 76 76 

>4,500K and ≤7,000K .................................. 4-foot medium bipin ..................................... 77 79 82 88 92 

2-foot U-shaped ........................................... 65 67 71 81 85 

8-foot single pin slimline .............................. 83 87 91 93 94 

8-foot recessed double contact HO ............ 80 83 84 88 91 

4-foot T5 miniature bipin SO ....................... 81 81 81 81 85 

4-foot T5 miniature bipin HO ....................... 72 72 72 72 72 

2. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

As discussed in section V.B.4, DOE 

has established five efficacy levels based 

on an equation relating efficacy to lamp 

wattage. As also discussed in section 

V.B.2, DOE only directly analyzed the 

standard-spectrum IRL with a diameter 

greater than 2.5 inches and voltage less 

than 125 volts; DOE then scaled 

minimum efficacy requirements to other 

product classes. This is consistent with 

what DOE did for the April 2009 NOPR. 

74 FR 16920, 16981 (April 13, 2009). 

The EPCA standard for IRL is shown 

in Table I.4. The efficacy levels for all 

IRL product classes are shown as 

coefficients for the efficacy level 

requirement equation A*P∧0.27 in Table 

VII.2 for the TSLs to which they 

correspond, where A is the coefficient 

shown in the table for a specific product 

class and TSL, and P represents the 

rated wattage of the lamp. TSL5 

represents the maximum 

technologically feasible level, as in the 

April 2009 NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 16981– 

2 (April 13, 2009). For this final rule, 

DOE revised the April 2009 NOPR 

efficacy levels for the representative IRL 

product class in order to account for IRL 

manufacturing variability, as described 

in chapter 5 of the TSD. 

TABLE VII.2—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR IRL-COEFFICIENTS OF EFFICACY LEVELS FOR ALL IRL PRODUCT CLASSES

Lamp wattage Lamp type Diameter 

(in inches) Voltage 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

40W–205W ............................ Standard-spectrum ................ > 2.5 ≥125V 5.3 5.5 6.2 6.8 7.4 

<125V1 4.6 4.8 5.4 5.9 6.4 

≤2.5 ≥125V 4.7 4.9 5.5 5.7 6.2 

<125V 4.0 4.2 4.8 5.0 5.4 

40W–205W ............................ Modified-spectrum ................. >2.5 ≥125V 4.5 4.7 5.3 5.8 6.3 

<125V 3.9 4.1 4.6 5.0 5.4 

≤2.5 ≥125V 4.0 4.1 4.6 4.9 5.3 

<125V 3.4 3.6 4.0 4.2 4.6 

1(Representative.) 

At the public meeting, Energy 

Solutions suggested that DOE present 

efficacy levels for IRL in terms of lumen 

output rather than wattage because 

lumen output is a more appropriate 

measure of the functional performance 

of a lamp. (Energy Solutions, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 94– 

95) DOE understands that the primary 

function of a lamp is to provide light for 

the consumers’ applications. Market 

research indicated that the most 

common IRL baselines on the market 

today provide three distinct levels of 

initial lumen output: 1,310 lumens from 

a 90W baseline, 1,050 lumens from a 

75W baseline, and 630 lumens from a 

50W baseline, respectively. Based on 

this understanding, DOE utilized a 

‘‘lumen package’’ perspective in the 

April 2009 NOPR to select and analyze 

more-efficacious replacements for these 

three IRL baselines such that their 

lumen output is no greater than 10% 

below the baseline lumen output. 74 FR 

16920, 16944 (April 13, 2009). DOE 

believes that the usage of lumen classes 

allows DOE to take into account 

consumers’ interests in light output 

when developing efficacy levels based 

on IRL wattage. Thus, DOE has not 

changed its presentation of efficacy 

levels for the final rule. 

B. Significance of Energy Savings 

To estimate the energy savings 

through 2042 due to potential standards, 

DOE compared the energy consumption 

of GSFL and IRL under the base case (no 

standards) to energy consumption of 

these products under each standards 

case (each TSL that DOE has 

considered). Table VII.3 and Table VII.4 

show the forecasted national energy 

savings (including rebound effect and 

HVAC interactions where applicable) in 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34146 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

quads (quadrillion BTU) at each TSL for 

GSFL and IRL. As discussed in section 

V.D.1, DOE models two base-case 

shipment scenarios and several 

standards-case shipment scenarios. For 

each lamp type, these scenarios 

combined produce eight possible sets of 

NES results. The tables below present 

the results of the two scenarios that 

represent the maximum and minimum 

energy savings resulting from all the 

scenarios analyzed. 

For GSFL, DOE presents ‘‘Existing 

Technologies, High Lighting Expertise, 

Shift’’ and ‘‘Emerging Technologies, 

Market Segment-Based Lighting 

Expertise, Roll-Up’’ in Table VII.3 as the 

scenarios that produce the maximum 

and minimum energy savings, 

respectively. Due to a larger reduction 

in the installed stock of lamps affected 

by standards, the Emerging 

Technologies base-case forecast results 

in lower energy savings than the 

Existing Technologies base-case 

forecast. In addition, because a portion 

of consumers purchasing non-energysaving, higher-lumen-output systems in 

the Market Segment-Based Lighting 

Expertise scenario, it results in lower 

energy savings than the High Lighting 

Expertise scenario. Finally, because in 

the Shift scenario more consumers move 

to higher-efficacy lamps than in the 

Roll-Up scenario, the Shift scenario 

results in higher energy savings than the 

Roll-Up scenario. 

Table VII.3 presents total national 

energy savings for each TSL (labeled as 

‘‘Total’’ savings). The table also reports 

national energy savings due to 

individually regulating each type of 

GSFL (presented next to the lamp type 

names), assuming no amended standard 

on all other lamp types. However, it is 

important to note that individual lamp 

type energy savings (due to separate 

regulation) do not sum to equal total 

energy savings achieved at the trial 

standard levels due to standardsinduced substitution effects between 

lamp types. Instead, these savings are 

provided merely to illustrate the 

approximate relative energy savings of 

each lamp type under a TSL. Please see 

the NOPR for a discussion of the affect 

of various TSLs on NES. 74 FR 16920, 

17005–06 (April 13, 2009). 

TABLE VII.3—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR GSFL 

TSL/EL Lamp type 

National energy savings 

(quad btu) 

Existing technologies, high lighting expertise, shift 

Emerging technologies, market 

segment-based 

lighting expertise, 

roll-up 

1 .............................................................. 4-foot MBP ......................................................................... 0.89 0.61 

8-foot SP Slimline ............................................................... 0.25 0.25 

8-foot RDC HO ................................................................... 0.17 0.02 

4-foot MiniBP SO ............................................................... 0.69 0.11 

4-foot MiniBP HO ............................................................... 0.96 0.53 

2-foot U-Shaped ................................................................. 0.04 0.03 

Total ............................................................................ 3.01 1.54 

2 .............................................................. 4-foot MBP ......................................................................... 0.99 0.75 

8-foot SP Slimline ............................................................... 0.28 0.27 

8-foot RDC HO ................................................................... 0.22 0.19 

4-foot MiniBP SO ............................................................... 0.69 0.11 

4-foot MiniBP HO ............................................................... 0.96 0.53 

2-foot U-Shaped ................................................................. 0.05 0.03 

Total ............................................................................ 3.19 1.88 

3 .............................................................. 4-foot MBP ......................................................................... 4.17 1.81 

8-foot SP Slimline ............................................................... 0.32 0.32 

8-foot RDC HO ................................................................... 0.23 0.19 

4-foot MiniBP SO ............................................................... 0.69 0.11 

4-foot MiniBP HO ............................................................... 0.96 0.53 

2-foot U-Shaped ................................................................. 0.19 0.08 

Total ............................................................................ 6.59 3.06 

4 .............................................................. 4-foot MBP ......................................................................... 6.96 2.30 

8-foot SP Slimline ............................................................... 0.37 0.23 

8-foot RDC HO ................................................................... 0.56 0.56 

4-foot MiniBP SO ............................................................... 0.69 0.11 

4-foot MiniBP HO ............................................................... 0.96 0.53 

2-foot U-Shaped ................................................................. 0.32 0.10 

Total ............................................................................ 9.94 3.83 

5 .............................................................. 4-foot MBP ......................................................................... 8.79 3.32 

8-foot SP Slimline ............................................................... 0.37 0.24 

8-foot RDC HO ................................................................... 0.62 0.57 

4-foot MiniBP SO ............................................................... 0.82 0.26 

4-foot MiniBP HO ............................................................... 0.96 0.53 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34147 

TABLE VII.3—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR GSFL—Continued 

TSL/EL Lamp type 

National energy savings 

(quad btu) 

Existing technologies, high lighting expertise, shift 

Emerging technologies, market 

segment-based 

lighting expertise, 

roll-up 

2-foot U-Shaped ................................................................. 0.40 0.15 

Total ............................................................................ 12.00 5.08 

For IRL, DOE presents ‘‘Existing 

Technologies, R–CFL Production 

Substitution, Shift’’ and ‘‘Emerging 

Technologies, BR Product Substitution, 

Roll-Up’’ in Table VII.4 as the scenarios 

that produce the maximum and 

minimum energy savings, respectively. 

Similar to GSFL, the Existing 

Technologies base-case forecast results 

in higher energy savings than the 

Emerging Technologies base-case 

forecast due to the greater installed 

stock of IRL affected by standards. The 

BR Product Substitution scenario, 

which includes migration to exempted 

BR lamps but not to R–CFL, results in 

lower energy savings than the R–CFL 

Product Substitution scenario, which 

accounts for the reverse effect. In 

addition, while the effect is greater for 

GSFL than for IRL, the Shift scenario 

(only affecting commercial consumers 

because DOE assumes residential 

consumers always purchase the lowest 

first-cost lamp) also represents higher 

energy savings than the Roll-Up 

scenario for IRL. As seen in the table 

below, TSL 5 achieves maximum energy 

savings for both scenarios. As discussed 

in section VI.C.1, DOE also analyzed a 

‘‘Baseline Lifetime Scenario.’’ Although 

this scenario considers shortened 

lifetimes as TSL 4 and TSL 5, national 

energy savings do not change because 

shipments remain the same as the 

normal lifetime scenario. 

TABLE VII.4—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMPS

TSL 

National energy savings 

(quads) 

Existing technologies, R–CFL 

product substitution, shift 

Emerging technologies, BR product substitution, 

roll-up 

1 ................................................................................................................................................................... 0.45 0.16 

2 ................................................................................................................................................................... 1.09 0.40 

3 ................................................................................................................................................................... 1.91 0.81 

4 ................................................................................................................................................................... 2.39 0.94 

5 ................................................................................................................................................................... 2.72 1.12 

C. Economic Justification 

1. Economic Impact on Consumers 

a. Life-Cycle Costs and Payback Period 

Consumers affected by new or 

amended standards usually experience 

higher purchase prices and lower 

operating costs. Generally, these 

impacts are best captured by changes in 

life-cycle costs. DOE designed the LCC 

analysis around lamp purchasing events 

and calculated the LCC savings relative 

to the baseline for each lamp 

replacement event separately in each 

lamp product class, as done for the 

April 2009 NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 16982 

(April 13, 2009). The separate 

computation of the impacts on each 

event and each product class allowed 

DOE to view the results of many 

subgroup populations in the LCC 

analyses. The following discussion 

presents salient results from the LCC 

analysis. When a standard results in 

‘‘positive LCC savings,’’ the life cycle 

cost of the standards-compliant lamp or 

lamp-and-ballast system is less than the 

life cycle cost of the baseline lamp or 

lamp-and-ballast system, and the 

consumer benefits economically. When 

a standard results in ‘‘negative LCC 

savings,’’ the life cycle cost of the 

standards-compliant lamp or lamp-andballast system is higher than the life 

cycle cost of the baseline lamp or lampand-ballast system, and the consumer is 

adversely affected economically. The 

results at some efficacy levels are 

presented as ranges, which reflect the 

results of multiple systems (i.e., 

multiple lamp-ballast pairings) that 

consumers could purchase to meet those 

specific efficacy levels. 

The LCC results shown in this notice 

reflect a subset of all of the lamp 

purchasing events analyzed by DOE, 

although they represent the most 

prevalent purchasing events. As done in 

the April 2009 NOPR, DOE is also 

presenting the installed prices of the 

lamp-and-ballast systems in order to 

allow comparisons of the up-front costs 

that consumers must bear when 

purchasing baseline or standards-case 

systems. 74 FR 16920, 16982 (April 13, 

2009). All of the LCC results shown in 

this notice were generated using the 

April 2009 AEO2009 reference case 

electricity price trend (which includes 

the impact of ARRA) as well as 

medium-range lamp and ballast prices. 

In many cases, DOE omitted Events IB 

(Lamp Failure: Lamp & Ballast 

Replacement) and IV (Ballast Retrofit) in 

this notice, because DOE believes these 

lamp purchase events to be relatively 

less frequent. In addition, DOE has 

chosen not to present detailed PBP 

results by efficacy level in this final rule 

notice because DOE believes that LCC 

results are a better measure of costeffectiveness. However, a full set of both 

LCC and PBP results for the systems 

DOE analyzed is available in chapter 8 

and appendix 8B of the TSD. Chapter 8 

presents LCC results for all lamp 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34148 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

purchasing events analyzed by DOE. 

Furthermore, chapter 8 includes the 

LCC results presented in this notice 

along with additional presented details, 

such as system design option details, 

start-year operating cost savings, and 

payback periods. Appendix 8B presents 

Monte Carlo simulation results 

performed by DOE as part of the LCC 

analysis and also presents sensitivity 

results, such as LCC savings under the 

AEO2009 high-economic-growth and 

low-economic-growth cases. 

i. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

Table VII.5 through Table VII.12 

present the results for the baseline 

lamps in each of the five GSFL product 

classes DOE analyzed (i.e., 4-foot 

medium bipin, 4-foot miniature bipin 

SO, 4-foot miniature bipin HO, 8-foot 

single pin slimline, and 8-foot recessed 

double contact HO). Not all baselines 

have suitable replacement options for 

every lamp purchasing event at every 

efficacy level. For instance, because 

DOE assumed that consumers wish to 

purchase systems or lamp replacements 

with a lumen output within 10 percent 

of their baseline system output, in some 

cases, the only available replacement 

options produce less light than this. 

Thus, the replacement options are 

considered unsuitable substitutions. 

These cases are marked with ‘‘LL’’ (less 

light) in the LCC results tables below. In 

some cases, when consumers who 

currently own a T12 system need to 

replace their lamps, no T12 energy 

saving lamp replacements are available. 

In these cases, in order to save energy, 

the consumers must switch to other 

options, such as a T8 lamp and 

appropriate ballast. These cases are 

marked with ‘‘NER’’ (no energy-saving 

replacement) in tables. 

Because some baseline lamps already 

meet higher efficacy levels (e.g., the 

baseline 32W 4-foot T8 MBP lamp 

achieves EL2), LCC savings at the levels 

below the baseline are zero. In these 

cases, ‘‘BAE’’ (baseline above efficacy 

level) is listed in the tables to indicate 

that the consumer makes the same 

purchase decision in the standards-case 

as they do in the base-case. Also, not all 

lamp purchase events apply for all 

baseline lamps or efficacy levels. For 

example, DOE assumed that the 

standards-induced retrofit event does 

not apply to the 32W T8 system, 

because it is already the most 

efficacious 4-foot medium bipin GSFL 

system. For these events, an ‘‘EN/A’’ 

(event not applicable) exists in the table. 

Finally, because LCC savings are not 

relevant when no energy conservation 

standard is established, ‘‘N/A’’ (not 

applicable) exists in the LCC savings 

column for the baseline system. 

Overall, based on the NIA model, 

DOE estimates that at TSL4 and TSL5 in 

2012, approximately 2 percent of 4-foot 

MBP shipments result in negative LCC 

savings, and 9 percent of shipments are 

associated with the high installed price 

increases due to forced retrofits. At 

TSL5, all 4-ft T5 miniature bipin 

standard output shipments result in 

positive LCC savings; For 8-foot SP 

slimline at TSL4 and TSL5, 

approximately 24 percent of 2012 

shipments would result in negative LCC 

savings, and 65 percent of shipments 

would be associated with the high 

installed price increases due to forced 

retrofits. DOE estimates that at TSL5 in 

2012, approximately 33 percent of 8-foot 

RDC HO shipments would result in 

negative LCC savings, and 86 percent of 

shipments would be associated with the 

high installed price increases due to 

forced retrofits. 

For 4-foot MiniBP T5 standard-output 

lamps, TSL4 would require these lamps 

to meet EL1, resulting in positive LCC 

savings of $1.10 for lamp replacement 

and $43.30 for new construction or 

renovation (seen in Table VII.9). At 

TSL5 (EL2 for standard output T5 

lamps), all consumers have available 

lamp designs which result in positive 

LCC savings of $1.10 (for lamp 

replacement) and $45.67 to $47.49 (for 

new construction or renovation). 

For 4-foot MiniBP T5 high-output 

lamps, TSL4 and TSL5 have identical 

life-cycle cost impacts: Consumers of 

high-output lamps who need only a 

lamp replacement would experience 

negative LCC savings of ¥$3.03 

(approximately 44 percent of shipments, 

according the NIA model). However, 

purchasing a T5 high-output system for 

new construction or renovation would 

result in positive LCC savings of $65.69 

to $67.06. 

Table VII.5 presents the findings of an 

LCC analysis on various 3-lamp 4-foot 

medium bipin GSFL systems operating 

in the commercial sector. The analysis 

period (based on the longest-lived 

baseline lamp’s lifetime) for this 

product class in the commercial sector 

is 5.5 years. As seen in the table, DOE 

analyzes three baseline lamps: (1) 40W 

T12; (2) 34W T12; and (3) 32W T8. For 

a complete discussion of the 4-foot MBP 

LCC results, see chapter 8 of the TSD 

and the April 2009 NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 

16984 (April 13, 2009). 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34149 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 

Table VII.7 presents the LCC results 

for a 4-foot medium bipin system 

operating in the residential sector under 

average operating hours. Under average 

operating hours, only the ballast failure 

event (Event III) applies because the 

ballast and fixture reach the end of their 

15 year life before the baseline lamp 

(which would otherwise have a lifetime 

of 19 years when operated for 791 hours 

per year) fails. DOE uses a 15-year 

analysis period, based on the effective 

service life of the lamp (limited by the 

fixture or ballast life). 74 FR 16920, 

16985 (April 13, 2009). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2ER14JY09.000</GPH>
34150 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.6—LCC RESULTS FOR A 2-LAMP FOUR-FOOT MEDIUM BIPIN GSFL SYSTEM OPERATING IN THE RESIDENTIAL

SECTOR WITH AVERAGE OPERATING HOURS

Baseline Efficacy level 

LCC savings Installed price 

2008$ 2008$ 

Event III: Ballast failure* Event III: Ballast 

failure 

40 Watt T12 ......................................... Baseline ............................................... N/A ....................................................... 51.38. 

EL1 ...................................................... 7.03 to 10.25 ....................................... 49.04 to 56.19. 

EL2 ...................................................... 6.82 to 19.17 ....................................... 50.51 to 56.39. 

EL3 ...................................................... 1.06 to 18.86 ....................................... 52.66 to 60.19. 

EL4 ...................................................... 18.57 to 24.36 ..................................... 52.96 to 56.15. 

EL5 ...................................................... 20.21 to 22.32 ..................................... 53.13 to 54.04. 

*Analysis period is 15.0 years. 

N/A: Not Applicable. 

In addition to conducting the LCC 

analysis under average operating hours, 

DOE also computed residential LCC 

results under high operating hours 

(1,210 hours per year) in order to 

analyze the economic impacts of the 

lamp failure event (Event I). Table VII.7 

presents these LCC and installed-price 

results for a 2-lamp four-foot medium 

bipin GSFL system under the lamp 

failure event and high operating hours. 

As seen in Table VII.7, DOE divides the 

residential GSFL lamp failure event into 

Events IA (Lamp Failure: Lamp 

Replacement) and IB (Lamp Failure: 

Lamp and Ballast Replacement). Event 

IA, presented also in the commercial 

sector analysis, solely models a lamp 

purchase (in response to lamp failure) in 

both the base case and standards case. 

With high operating hours, DOE 

calculates that the baseline lamp 

initially purchased with a ballast fails 

after 12.4 years. Thus, a replacement 

lamp will operate for only 2.6 additional 

years before the fixture is removed. To 

compute the results shown in Table 

VII.7, DOE assumes that residentialsector GSFL consumers will discard 

their replacement lamp when the fixture 

is removed and therefore uses a 2.6 year 

analysis period. 

TABLE VII.7—LCC RESULTS FOR A 2-LAMP FOUR-FOOT MEDIUM BIPIN GSFL SYSTEM OPERATING IN THE RESIDENTIAL

SECTOR WITH HIGH OPERATING HOURS

Baseline 

Efficacy level Installed price 

LCC savings 

2008$ 2008$ 

Event IA: Lamp 

replacement* 

Event IB: Lamp and ballast replacement* Event IA: Lamp replacement Event IB: Lamp and 

ballast replacement 

40 Watt T12 .......... Baseline ................ N/A .................................. N/A .................................. 4.13 ....................... 4.13. 

EL1 ........................ LL .................................... EN/A ................................ LL .......................... EN/A. 

EL2 ........................ LL .................................... EN/A ................................ LL .......................... EN/A. 

EL3 ........................ ¥5.53 .............................. EN/A ................................ 12.94 ..................... EN/A. 

EL4 ........................ NR ................................... ¥4.13 to ¥2.04 .............. NR ......................... 52.96 to 56.15. 

EL5 ........................ NR ................................... ¥3.52 to ¥2.87 .............. NR ......................... 53.13 to 54.04. 

*Analysis period is 2.6 years. 

N/A: Not Applicable; LL: Available Options Produce Less Light; EN/A: Event Not Applicable; NR: No Replacement. 

As discussed in section V.C.8, DOE 

analyzed additional residential-sector 

GSFL lamp failure LCC scenarios for 

this final rule based on the 

understanding that some residentialsector GSFL consumers may preserve 

their lamps during fixture end-of-life 

and then install those lamps on a new 

fixture instead of discarding them. 

Consumers exhibiting this behavior can 

operate lamps for their full lifetimes and 

thus will eventually experience a lamp 

failure even when operating with 

average operating hours. When operated 

for average operating hours, the baseline 

lamp has a lifetime of 19 years; 

therefore, DOE uses 19 years as the 

analysis period. This analysis shows 

that some residential consumers with 

T12 systems do in fact obtain LCC 

savings when forced to retrofit their T12 

ballast with a T8 system at EL4 and EL5. 

However, DOE also notes that the 

results of this analysis are highly 

dependent on the remaining years of 

lifetime left on the T12 ballast when the 

lamp is replaced. Therefore, as seen in 

Table VII.8 DOE computes LCC savings 

for several scenarios of remaining 

ballast life at the time of lamp 

replacement. At EL3, under the scenario 

where consumers retain their lamp 

upon ballast replacement, consumers 

obtain LCC savings. At EL4, consumers 

can achieve positive LCC savings if their 

ballast have less than 8 years of life 

remaining at the point of lamp failure. 

In other words, consumers who would 

need to purchase a ballast within 8 

years after replacing their lamp would 

benefit from a standard at EL4. At EL5, 

standards-case consumers can achieve 

positive LCC savings if their fixtures 

have less than 7 years of life remaining. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34151 

Table VII.9 presents the results for an 

electronically-ballasted 4-foot T5 

miniature bipin standard-output, 

baseline system operating in the 

commercial sector. Table VII.10 presents 

the results for an electronicallyballasted 4-foot T5 miniature bipin 

high-output baseline system operating 

in the industrial sector. For further 

discussion on the 4-foot MiniBP LCC 

results see the April 2009 NOPR and 

Chapter 8 of the TSD. 74 FR 16920, 

16987 (April 13, 2009). 

TABLE VII.9—LCC RESULTS FOR A 2-LAMP FOUR-FOOT MINIATURE BIPIN STANDARD OUTPUT GSFL SYSTEM OPERATING

IN THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR

Baseline Efficacy level 

LCC savings Installed price 

2008$ 2008$ 

Event IA: Lamp 

replacement* 

Event V: New construction/renovation* Event IA: Lamp 

replacement 

Event V: New 

construction/renovation 

28 Watt T5 .................... Baseline ........................ N/A N/A ................................ 9.75 71.87. 

EL1 ............................... NER 43.30 ............................. 13.66 75.78. 

EL2 ............................... 1.10 45.67 to 47.49 .............. 15.44 77.56 to 78.06. 

*Analysis period is 5.5 years. 

N/A: Not Applicable; NER: No Energy-Saving Replacement. 

TABLE VII.10—LCC RESULTS FOR A 2-LAMP FOUR-FOOT MINIATURE BIPIN HIGH OUTPUT GSFL SYSTEM OPERATING IN

THE INDUSTRIAL SECTOR

Baseline Efficacy level 

LCC savings Installed price 

2008$ 2008$ 

Event IA: Lamp 

replacement* 

Event V: New construction/renovation* Event IA: Lamp 

replacement 

Event V: New 

construction/renovation 

54 Watt T5 .................... Baseline ........................ N/A N/A ................................ 10.84 74.09. 

EL1 ............................... ¥3.03 65.69 to 67.06 .............. 20.61 79.31 to 83.87. 

* Analysis period is 3.9 years. 

N/A: Not Applicable; NER: No Energy-Saving Replacement. 

Table VII.11 presents the results for 

an 8-foot single-pin slimline GSFL 

system operating in the commercial 

sector. The analysis period is 4 years. 

For this product class, DOE analyzes 

three baseline lamps: (1) 75W T12; (2) 

60W T12; and (3) 59W T8. For further 

discussion on the 8-foot SP slimline 

LCC results, see the April 2009 NOPR 

and chapter 8 of the TSD. 74 FR 16920, 

16988 (April 13, 2009). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2ER14JY09.001</GPH>
34152 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Table VII.12 shows LCC results for an 

8-foot recessed double-contact GSFL 

system operating in the industrial 

sector. The analysis period for this 

product class is 2.3 years. DOE analyzes 

110W T12 and 95W T12 baseline lamps 

on magnetic ballasts. For further 

discussion on the 8-foot RDC HO LCC 

results see the April 2009 NOPR and 

chapter 8 of the TSD. 74 FR 16920, 

16990 (April 13, 2009). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2ER14JY09.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34153 

ii. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

Table VII.13 shows the commercial 

and residential sector LCC results for 

IRL. The results are based on the 

reference case April 2009 AEO2009 

electricity price forecast (which 

includes the impact of the ARRA) and 

medium-range lamp prices. The analysis 

period is 3.4 years for the residential 

sector and 0.9 years for the commercial 

sector. In general, the results of the LCC 

analysis are consistent with those 

presented in the April 2009 NOPR. 74 

FR 16920, 16991 (April 13, 2009). As 

discussed in section VI.C.1, DOE 

analyzed an additional scenario, called 

the Baseline Lifetime scenario, for the 

LCC analysis, NIA and MIA that 

modeled lamps at EL4 and EL5 with 

similar lifetimes to that of the baseline 

lamp lifetimes. The LCC results for both 

the Baseline Lifetime scenario and the 

Commercial Lifetime scenario (in which 

lamps at EL4 and EL5 have lifetimes of 

4,000 hours and 4,200 hours, 

respectively) are shown as ranges at EL4 

and EL5. As seen in Table VII.13, the 

lower range of LCC savings, 

representing the Baseline Lifetime 

scenario lamps, are negative for the 50W 

baseline in both sectors at EL5 and only 

in the commercial sector at EL4. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2ER14JY09.003</GPH>
34154 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.13—LCC RESULTS FOR INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMPS

LCC savings (2008$) Installed price (2008$) 

Baseline Efficacy level Event I: Lamp replacement/event V: New construction and renovation 

Commercial * Residential ** Commercial Residential 

90 Watt PAR38 ...................................... Baseline ............... N/A ....................... N/A ....................... 6.43 ...................... 5.33.

EL1 ...................... ¥0.12 .................. 0.14 ...................... 7.41 ...................... 6.31.

EL2 ...................... 3.72 to 6.12 ......... 3.19 to 4.94 ......... 7.88 to 8.06 ......... 6.78 to 6.96.

EL3 ...................... 6.01 ...................... 5.81 ...................... 8.06 ...................... 6.96.

EL4 ...................... 2.61 to 7.95 ......... 3.78 to 7.45 ......... 9.43 ...................... 8.33.

EL5 ...................... 4.26 to 9.14 ......... 5.65 to 9.10 ......... 9.43 to 10.02 ....... 8.33 to 8.92.

75 Watt PAR38 ...................................... Baseline ............... N/A ....................... N/A ....................... 6.43 ...................... 5.33.

EL1 ...................... ¥0.40 .................. ¥0.17 .................. 7.41 ...................... 6.31.

EL2 ...................... 3.17 to 5.76 ......... 2.57 to 4.54 ......... 7.88 to 8.06 ......... 6.78 to 6.96.

EL3 ...................... 4.64 ...................... 4.25 ...................... 8.06 ...................... 6.96.

EL4 ...................... 1.51 to 6.85 ......... 2.54 to 6.20 ......... 9.43 ...................... 8.33.

EL5 ...................... 2.42 to 7.30 ......... 3.56 to 7.01 ......... 9.43 to 10.02 ....... 8.33 to 8.92.

50 Watt PAR30 ...................................... Baseline ............... N/A ....................... N/A ....................... 5.80 ...................... 4.70.

EL1 ...................... ¥0.37 .................. ¥0.29 .................. 6.78 ...................... 5.68.

EL2 ...................... ¥0.07 to 2.74 ...... 0.11 to 2.36 ......... 7.25 to 7.43 ......... 6.15 to 6.33.

EL3 ...................... 0.63 ...................... 0.92 ...................... 7.43 ...................... 6.33.

EL4 ...................... ¥0.25 to 1.81 ...... 0.11 to 1.75 ......... 8.80 ...................... 7.70.

EL5 ...................... ¥3.17 to 1.36 ...... ¥1.64 to 1.51 ...... 8.80 to 9.39 ......... 7.70 to 8.29.

* Analysis period is 0.9 years. 

**Analysis period is 3.4 years. 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

Certain consumer subgroups may be 

disproportionately affected by 

standards. As done for the April 2009 

NOPR, DOE performed LCC subgroup 

analyses as part of its proposal for lowincome consumers, institutions of 

religious worship, and institutions that 

serve low-income populations. 74 FR 

16920, 16991 (April 13, 2009). See 

section V.C for a review of the inputs to 

the LCC analysis. DOE found the 

impacts on these consumer subgroups to 

be generally consistent with those 

presented in the April 2009 NOPR with 

one exception: for institutions that serve 

low-income populations, with updates 

to electricity prices in this final rule, 

consumers who in the base case 

purchase a 75W T12 replacement lamp, 

no longer obtain LCC savings. 74 FR 

16920, 16996 (April 13, 2009). For 

further detail on the consumer subgroup 

analysis, see chapter 12 of the TSD. 

2. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

DOE estimated the impact of amended 

energy conservation standards for 

covered products on the INPV of the 

industries that manufacture the 

products. The impact of amended 

standards on INPV consists of the 

difference between the INPV in the base 

case and the INPV in the standards case. 

INPV is the primary metric used in the 

MIA and represents one measure of the 

fair value of the GSFL and IRL 

industries in 2008$. For each industry 

affected by today’s rule, DOE calculated 

INPV by summing all of the net cash 

flows, discounted at the industry’s cost 

of capital or discount rate. 

Table VII.14 through Table VII.17 

show the changes in INPV that bound 

the range of impacts that DOE estimates 

would result from the TSLs considered 

for this final rule. 

TABLE VII.14—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR GSFL WITH THE FLAT MARKUP SCENARIO UNDER THE EXISTING

TECHNOLOGY BASE CASE—HIGH LIGHTING EXPERTISE—SHIFT IN EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV ........................................................ (2008$ millions) ...... 639 697 695 721 635 671 

Change in INPV ...................................... (2008$ millions) ...... .................. 58 56 82 ¥4 33 

(%) .......................... .................. 9.11% 8.83% 12.82% ¥0.64% 5.09% 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Product Conversion Costs.(2008$ millions) ...... .................. 3.3 8.8 8.8 11.6 29.6 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Capital Conversion Costs.(2008$ millions) ...... .................. 38.5 60.5 104.5 181.5 181.5 

Total Investment Required ............... (2008$ millions) ...... .................. 41.8 69.3 113.3 193.1 211.1 

TABLE VII.15—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR GSFL WITH THE FOUR-TIER MARKUP SCENARIO UNDER THE

EMERGING TECHNOLOGY BASE CASE—MARKET SEGMENT LIGHTING EXPERTISE—ROLLUP IN EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV ........................................................ (2008$ millions) ...... 527 662 629 432 365 316 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34155 

TABLE VII.15—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR GSFL WITH THE FOUR-TIER MARKUP SCENARIO UNDER THE

EMERGING TECHNOLOGY BASE CASE—MARKET SEGMENT LIGHTING EXPERTISE—ROLLUP IN EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS—Continued 

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

Change in INPV ...................................... (2008$ millions) ...... .................. 134 102 ¥95 ¥162 ¥211 

(%) .......................... .................. 25.47% 19.29% ¥18.08% ¥30.74% ¥40.04% 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Product Conversion Costs.(2008$ millions) ...... .................. 3.3 8.8 8.8 11.6 29.6 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Capital Conversion Costs.(2008$ millions) ...... .................. 38.5 60.5 104.5 181.5 181.5 

Total Investment Required ............... (2008$ millions) ...... .................. 41.8 69.3 113.3 193.1 211.1 

TABLE VII.16—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR IRL UNDER THE EXISTING TECHNOLOGIES BASE CASE—NO

PRODUCT SUBSTITUTION SCENARIO—SHIFT IN EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV ........................................................ (2008$ millions) ...... 301 293 233 221 199 190 

Change in INPV ...................................... (2008$ millions) ...... .................. (8) (68) (81) (102) (111) 

(%) .......................... .................. ¥2.80% ¥22.71% ¥26.78% ¥34.02% ¥36.90% 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Product Conversion Costs.(2008$ millions) ...... .................. $3 $3 $2 $3 $7 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Capital Conversion Costs.(2008$ millions) ...... .................. $32 $83 $134 $167 $185 

Total Investment Required ............... (2008$ millions) ...... .................. $35 $87 $137 $170 $192 

TABLE VII.17—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR IRL UNDER THE EMERGING TECHNOLOGY BASE CASE—PRODUCT

SUBSTITUTION—ROLL-UP IN EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV ........................................................ (2008$ millions) ...... 221 205 158 139 123 117 

Change in INPV ...................................... (2008$ millions) ...... .................. (15) (63) (81) (98) (104) 

(%) .......................... .................. ¥6.87% ¥28.58% ¥36.80% ¥44.36% ¥47.18% 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Product Conversion Costs.(2008$ millions) ...... .................. $3 $3 $2 $3 $7 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Capital Conversion Costs.(2008$ millions) ...... .................. $29 $77 $125 $155 $172 

Total Investment Required ............... (2008$ millions) ...... .................. $33 $81 $127 $158 $179 

The April 2009 NOPR provides a 

detailed discussion of the estimated 

impact of amended standards for GSFL 

and IRL on INPVs. 74 FR 16920, 16999– 

17003 (April 13, 2009). This qualitative 

discussion on the estimated impacts of 

amended GSFL and IRL standards in 

INPVs for the final rule can be found in 

chapter 13 of the TSD. 

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results 

for the IRL Lifetime Sensitivity 

For the final rule, DOE analyzed the 

effects of the Baseline Lifetime scenario 

as a sensitivity. The impacts of this 

scenario on INPV are presented below. 

For a full description of the scenario, 

see section VI.C.1 of today’s final rule. 

TABLE VII.18—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR IRL UNDER THE EXISTING TECHNOLOGIES BASE CASE—BR 

SUBSTITUTION SCENARIO—ROLL-UP IN EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION—BASELINE LIFETIME SCENARIO* 

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

4 5 

INPV ........................................................................................ (2008$ millions) ...................... 301 281 258 

Change in INPV ...................................................................... (2008$ millions) ...................... ........................ (21) (43) 

(%) .......................................... ........................ ¥6.81% ¥14.24% 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Product Conversion Costs.(2008$ millions) ...................... ........................ $3 $7 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34156 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.18—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR IRL UNDER THE EXISTING TECHNOLOGIES BASE CASE—BR 

SUBSTITUTION SCENARIO—ROLL-UP IN EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION—BASELINE LIFETIME SCENARIO*—Continued 

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

4 5 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Capital Conversion Costs.(2008$ millions) ...................... ........................ $167 $167 

Total Investment Required ............................................... (2008$ millions) ...................... ........................ $170 $174 

* The scenarios that bound the INPV results in the sensitivity scenario are different than the scenarios that bound the INPV results in the normal standards cases. 

TABLE VII.19—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR IRL UNDER THE EMERGING TECHNOLOGY BASE CASE—R–CFL 

PRODUCT SUBSTITUTION—SHIFT IN EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS—BASELINE LIFETIME SCENARIO* 

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

4 5 

INPV ........................................................................................ (2008$ millions) ...................... 221 160 171 

Change in INPV ...................................................................... (2008$ millions) ...................... ........................ (61) (49) 

(%) .......................................... ........................ ¥27.52% ¥22.35% 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Product Conversion Costs.(2008$ millions) ...................... $3 $7 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Capital Conversion Costs.(2008$ millions) ...................... $155 $155 

Total Investment Required ............................................... (2008$ millions) ...................... $158 $162 

* The scenarios that bound the INPV results in the sensitivity scenario are different than the scenarios that bound the INPV results in the normal standards cases. 

The sensitivity results show that 

decreasing the lifetime of the standardscompliant lamps at TSL 4 and TSL 5 

lowers the estimated range of INPV 

impacts relative to the no sensitivity 

results. In the base case, the lamps that 

meet TSL 4 and TSL 5 are premium 

products with longer life than standard 

HIR lamps. If manufacturers decreased 

the lifetime of the lamps in response to 

the energy conservation standards, the 

industry revenues in the standards case 

are greater due to higher total shipments 

at TSL 4 and TSL 5. The higher 

revenues help to mitigate the impacts of 

the significant capital conversion costs 

required to comply with the energy 

conservation standards. 

b. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

The April 2009 NOPR notes that one 

aspect of DOE’s assessment of 

manufacturer burden is the cumulative 

impact of multiple regulatory actions 

that affect manufacturers. 74 FR 16920, 

17003 (April 13, 2009). In addition to 

DOE’s energy conservation regulations 

for GSFL and IRL, DOE identified other 

requirements that manufacturers face for 

these and other products and equipment 

they manufacture in the three years 

before and after the anticipated effective 

date of the amended DOE regulations. 

Id. DOE believes that the EISA 2007 

requirements for GSIL are significant 

and could have the greatest cumulative 

burden on manufacturers, but that they 

will not pose insurmountable 

challenges. Id. 

Chapter 13 of the TSD addresses in 

greater detail the issue of cumulative 

regulatory burden. 

c. Impacts on Employment 

As discussed in the April 2009 NOPR, 

and for today’s final rule, DOE believes 

that amended energy conservation 

standards will not alter domestic 

employment levels of the GSFL 

industry. 74 FR 16920, 17003 (April 13, 

2009). During interviews with 

manufacturers, DOE learned that GSFL 

are produced on high-speed, fullyautomated lines. Production workers are 

not involved in the physical assembly of 

the final product (e.g., in inserting 

components, transferring partly 

assembled lamps, soldering lamp bases). 

The employment levels required for 

these tasks are a function of the total 

volume of the facility, not the labor 

content of the product mix produced by 

the plant. Since higher TSLs involve 

using more-efficient phosphors, 

employment will not be impacted 

because standards will not change the 

overall scale of the facility. 

As discussed in the April 2009 NOPR, 

and for today’s final rule, DOE believes 

that amended energy conservation 

standards will not significantly impact 

IRL direct employment. 74 FR 16920, 

17004 (April 13, 2009). The impact that 

new standards will have on 

employment is far less significant than 

the potential impact from emerging 

technologies. Both scenarios show that 

the absolute magnitudes of employment 

impacts due to standards are small. 

Whether standards have a positive or 

negative impact on employment is 

largely determined by the extent to 

which consumers elect to substitute IRL 

with other lamp technologies (such as 

R–CFL or exempted IRL) in the 

standards case. 

Further support for these conclusions 

is set forth in chapter 13 of the TSD. 

d. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

DOE stated its view in the April 2009 

NOPR, 74 FR 16920, 17004 (April 13, 

2009), that amended standards would 

not significantly affect GSFL production 

capacity. Over the long-term, any 

redesign of GSFL needed to meet 

standards would largely be a materials 

issue that would not affect 

manufacturing capacity. In the short 

term, although higher are expediting the 

shift from T12 shipments to T8 

shipments and require shutting down 

and retooling production lines, 

manufacturers are able to temporarily 

ramp up production before shutdowns 

occur to maintain shipments during 

retooling. For today’s final rule, DOE 

maintains its belief that amended energy 

conservation standards for GSFL will 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34157 

65As discussed in the April 2009 NOPR, 74 FR 

17004–05, DOE identified only manufacturer of 

covered GSFL or IRL that met the criteria to be 

classified as a small business. For further detail on 

DOE’s inquiry regarding small manufacturers, 

please see section VIII.B on the review under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

66OMB Circular A–4, section E (Sept. 17, 2003). 

not significantly impact manufacturing 

capacity. 

In the NOPR, DOE stated it did not 

believe there would be a capacity 

constraint at the proposed standard 

level. DOE stated that manufacturers 

could install additional coaters, 

purchase infrared burners from a 

supplier, and use existing excess 

capacity. These options would allow 

IRL manufacturers to maintain 

production capacity levels and continue 

to meet market demand. 74 FR 16920, 

17004 (April 13, 2009). In response to 

the April 2009 NOPR, manufacturers 

did raise concerns that the energy 

conservation standards in today’s final 

rule could result in a constrained 

market. However, none of the comments 

DOE received indicated that that the 

energy conservation standards would 

result in the unavailability of standardscompliant products. At worst, the 

energy conservation standards could 

result in a short-term disruption in 

which the one manufacturer that 

requested additional time in between 

the announcement and effective date 

does not supply covered IRL. DOE did 

not receive comment that would 

indicate the other manufacturers would 

not have the necessary volume of 

standards-compliant lamps by the 

effective date of the final rule. For 

today’s final rule, DOE maintains its 

belief that manufacturers will be able to 

maintain production capacity of covered 

IRLs and will be able to meet market 

demand. 

e. Impacts on Manufacturers That Are 

Small Businesses 

As discussed in the April 2009 NOPR, 

74 FR 16920, 17004 (April 13, 2009), 

DOE identified no small manufacturers 

of IRL but did identify one small 

manufacturer that produces covered 

GSFL and is unlikely to be significantly 

affected by today’s final rule.65 In 

response to the April 2009 NOPR, one 

small business requested it be included 

in DOE’s small business manufacturer 

impact analysis. For today’s final rule, 

DOE re-analyzed its list of potential 

small business manufacturers, including 

those that submitted comments. DOE 

still has not identified any small 

manufacturer of covered IRL. However, 

DOE continues to identify the one small 

manufacturer that produces covered 

GSFL. For a discussion of the impacts 

on small business manufacturers, see 

chapter 13 of the TSD and section VIII.B 

of today’s notice. 

3. National Net Present Value and Net 

National Employment 

The NPV analysis is a measure of the 

cumulative benefit or cost of standards 

to the Nation, discounted to $2008 

dollars. In accordance with the OMB’s 

guidelines on regulatory analysis,66

DOE calculated NPV using both a 7- 

percent and a 3-percent real discount 

rate. The 7-percent rate is an estimate of 

the average before-tax rate of return to 

private capital in the U.S. economy, and 

reflects the returns to real estate and 

small business capital, as well as 

corporate capital. DOE used this 

discount rate to approximate the 

opportunity cost of capital in the private 

sector because recent OMB analysis has 

found the average rate of return to 

capital to be near this rate. DOE also 

used the 3-percent rate to capture the 

potential effects of standards on private 

consumption (e.g., through higher prices 

for equipment and the purchase of 

reduced amounts of energy). This rate 

represents the rate at which society 

discounts future consumption flows to 

their present value. This rate can be 

approximated by the real rate of return 

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

yield on Treasury notes minus annual 

rate of change in the Consumer Price 

Index), which has averaged about 3 

percent on a pre-tax basis for the last 30 

years. 

The tables below show the forecasted 

net present value at each trial standard 

level for GSFL and IRL. As shown above 

for NES results, Table VII.20 presents 

the ‘‘Existing Technologies, High 

Lighting Expertise, Shift’’ scenario and 

the ‘‘Emerging Technologies, Market 

Segment-Based Lighting Expertise, Roll 

Up’’ scenario as the maximum and 

minimum NPVs for GSFL, respectively. 

In general, the NPV results at each trial 

standard level are a reflection of the lifecycle cost savings at the corresponding 

efficacy levels. As seen in section 

VII.C.1.a, for most lamp purchasing 

events and most baseline lamps, 

increasing efficacy levels generally 

result in increased LCC savings. See the 

April 2009 NOPR and chapter 11 of the 

TSD for a description of the effect of 

various TSLs on NPV. 74 FR 16920, 

17006–07 (April 13, 2009). 

TABLE VII.20—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE FOR GSFL 

TSL/EL Product class 

NPV (billion 2008$) 

Existing technologies, high 

lighting expertise, shift 

Emerging technologies, 

market segment-based 

lighting expertise, roll-up 

7% 

Discount 

3% 

Discount 

7% 

Discount 

3% 

Discount 

1 ............. 4-foot MBP ................................................................................................... 3.30 6.86 1.11 2.88 

8-foot SP Slimline ........................................................................................ 0.55 1.40 0.51 1.34 

8-foot RDC HO ............................................................................................ 0.54 0.88 ¥0.19 ¥0.24 

4-foot MiniBP SO ......................................................................................... 1.47 3.37 0.08 0.26 

4-foot MiniBP HO ........................................................................................ 2.22 4.81 1.19 2.63 

2-foot U-Shaped .......................................................................................... 0.15 0.31 0.05 0.13 

Total ...................................................................................................... 8.24 17.63 2.75 7.00

2 ............. 4-foot MBP ................................................................................................... 2.63 5.99 0.75 2.60 

8-foot SP Slimline ........................................................................................ 0.60 1.53 0.58 1.50 

8-foot RDC HO ............................................................................................ 0.68 1.09 0.77 1.20 

4-foot MiniBP SO ......................................................................................... 1.47 3.37 0.08 0.26 

4-foot MiniBP HO ........................................................................................ 2.22 4.81 1.19 2.63 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34158 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.20—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE FOR GSFL—Continued 

TSL/EL Product class 

NPV (billion 2008$) 

Existing technologies, high 

lighting expertise, shift 

Emerging technologies, 

market segment-based 

lighting expertise, roll-up 

7% 

Discount 

3% 

Discount 

7% 

Discount 

3% 

Discount 

2-foot U-Shaped .......................................................................................... 0.12 0.27 0.03 0.12 

Total ...................................................................................................... 7.73 17.07 3.41 8.31

3 ............. 4-foot MBP ................................................................................................... 9.40 20.06 2.68 7.05 

8-foot SP Slimline ........................................................................................ 0.82 1.82 0.82 1.82 

8-foot RDC HO ............................................................................................ 0.32 0.59 0.22 0.39 

4-foot MiniBP SO ......................................................................................... 1.47 3.37 0.08 0.26 

4-foot MiniBP HO ........................................................................................ 2.22 4.81 1.19 2.63 

2-foot U-Shaped .......................................................................................... 0.43 0.91 0.12 0.32 

Total ...................................................................................................... 14.81 31.80 5.18 12.60 

4 ............. 4-foot MBP ................................................................................................... 18.66 37.88 6.34 14.22 

8-foot SP Slimline ........................................................................................ 0.84 1.97 0.24 0.91 

8-foot RDC HO ............................................................................................ 1.87 3.17 1.87 3.17 

4-foot MiniBP SO ......................................................................................... 1.47 3.37 0.08 0.26 

4-foot MiniBP HO ........................................................................................ 2.22 4.81 1.19 2.63 

2-foot U-Shaped .......................................................................................... 0.85 1.72 0.29 0.65 

Total ...................................................................................................... 26.31 53.53 10.02 21.84 

5 ............. 4-foot MBP ................................................................................................... 22.79 45.79 6.12 14.24 

8-foot SP Slimline ........................................................................................ 0.84 1.97 0.33 1.07 

8-foot RDC HO ............................................................................................ 1.98 3.36 1.81 3.10 

4-foot MiniBP SO ......................................................................................... 1.91 4.29 0.32 0.91 

4-foot MiniBP HO ........................................................................................ 2.22 4.81 1.19 2.63 

2-foot U-Shaped .......................................................................................... 1.04 2.08 0.28 0.65 

Total ...................................................................................................... 30.93 62.55 10.05 22.57 

For IRL, DOE presents the ‘‘Existing 

Technologies, R–CFL Product 

Substitution, Shift’’ and ‘‘Emerging 

Technologies, BR Product Substitution, 

Roll-Up’’ scenarios as the maximum and 

minimum NPVs, respectively. As seen 

in Table VII.21, NPV increases with 

TSL, consistent with LCC savings 

generally increasing with efficacy level. 

In particular, for the BR Product 

Substitution scenario, the negative NPV 

at TSL1 results because the life-cycle 

cost savings at EL1 (the associated EL) 

are primarily negative. However, as seen 

in the R–CFL Product Substitution 

scenario, TSL1 achieves positive NPV 

due to primarily the increased 

movement to highly cost-effective R– 

CFLs. For further discussion of the NPV 

results see the April 2009 NOPR and 

chapter 11 of the TSD. 74 FR 16920, 

17006–07 (April 13, 2009). 

TABLE VII.21—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE FOR INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMPS

TSL 

NPV (billion 2008$) 

Existing technologies, R–CFL 

product substitution, shift 

Emerging technologies, BR 

product substitution, roll-up 

7% Discount 

rate 

3% Discount 

rate 

7% Discount 

rate 

3% Discount 

rate 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 0.45 1.11 ¥0.09 ¥0.04 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 4.59 8.94 2.08 3.93 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 6.34 12.50 3.04 5.84 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 9.06 17.81 4.20 8.02 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 10.16 20.01 4.90 9.38 

As discussed in section VI.C, DOE 

developed a Baseline Lifetime scenario 

(which it analyzed the LCC savings, 

NPV, and manufacturer impacts) to 

investigate the effects of shorter lamp 

lifetime at TSL4 and TSL5. DOE did not 

feel it necessary to apply this scenario 

to TSL1 through TSL3 because DOE 

already analyzes lamps with lifetimes 

similar to that of the baseline lamp 

lifetimes. Relative to the normal lifetime 

scenario, NPV decreases due to the 

significant increase in incremental 

equipment costs, since more lamps need 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34159 

to be shipped as they have shorter 

lifetimes. 

TABLE VII.22—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE FOR INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMPS—‘‘BASELINE

LIFETIME SCENARIO’’ 

TSL 

NPV (billion 2008$) 

Existing technologies, R–CFL 

product substitution, shift 

Emerging technologies, BR 

product substitution, roll-up 

7% Discount 

rate 

3% Discount 

rate 

7% Discount 

rate 

3% Discount 

rate 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 5.22 10.81 1.83 3.78 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 4.86 10.13 2.53 5.12 

DOE also estimated the national 

employment impacts that would result 

from each TSL. In addition to 

considering the direct employment 

impacts for the manufacturers of 

products covered in this rulemaking 

(discussed above), DOE also developed 

estimates of the indirect employment 

impacts of energy conservation 

standards on the economy in general. As 

Table VII.23 and Table VII.24 show, 

DOE estimates that any net monetary 

savings from GSFL and IRL standards 

would be redirected to other forms of 

economic activity. DOE also expects 

these shifts in spending and economic 

activity would affect the demand for 

labor. DOE estimated that net indirect 

employment impacts from energy 

conservation standards for GSFL and 

IRL would be positive (see Tables 

below), but very small relative to total 

national employment. This increase 

would likely be sufficient to fully offset 

any adverse impacts on employment 

that might occur in the lamp products 

industries. Earthjustice commented that 

the value of this additional employment 

should be monetized using a wage rate 

and included in the justification of the 

TSL selected. (Earthjustice, No. 60 at pg 

6) However, this would double count 

the consumer savings that are the source 

of the job creation. DOE believes it more 

appropriate to consider job benefits 

separately from the direct benefits of 

energy savings similar to DOE’s 

approach for considering environmental 

emissions benefits. For details on the 

employment impact analysis 

methodology and results, see chapter 15 

of the TSD accompanying this notice. 

TABLE VII.23—NET NATIONAL CHANGE IN INDIRECT EMPLOYMENT FOR GSFL, JOBS IN 2042 

Trial standard level 

Net national change in jobs (thousands) 

Existing technologies, shift, 

high expertise 

Emerging technologies, roll-up, 

market segment 

based expertise 

1 ................................................................................................................................................................... 12.0 6.5 

2 ................................................................................................................................................................... 12.2 5.5 

3 ................................................................................................................................................................... 15.1 10.7 

4 ................................................................................................................................................................... 18.4 13.3 

5 ................................................................................................................................................................... 19.6 15.5 

TABLE VII.24—NET NATIONAL CHANGE IN INDIRECT EMPLOYMENT FOR IRL, JOBS IN 2042 

Trial standard level 

Net national change in jobs (thousands) 

Existing technologies, shift, R– 

CFL substitution 

Emerging technologies, roll-up, 

BR lamp substitution 

1 ................................................................................................................................................................... 1.7 0.7 

2 ................................................................................................................................................................... 4.3 2.5 

3 ................................................................................................................................................................... 6.9 4.8 

4 ................................................................................................................................................................... 9.5 6.0 

5 ................................................................................................................................................................... 10.4 6.8 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

As indicated in sections IV.D.d and 

VI.B.4 of the April 2009 NOPR, DOE has 

concluded that TSLs it considered for 

GSFL and IRL would not lessen the 

utility or performance of any GSFL or 

IRL covered by this rulemaking. 74 FR 

16920, 17009 (April 13, 2009) 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

As discussed in the April 2009 NOPR, 

74 FR 16920, 16936, 17009 (April 13, 

2009), and in section IV.D.e of this 

preamble, DOE considers any lessening 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34160 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

of competition likely to result from 

standards; the Attorney General 

determines the impact, if any, of any 

such lessening of competition. 

The DOJ concluded that the GSFL 

standards contained in the proposed 

rule would not likely lead to a lessening 

of competition. DOJ has not determined 

the impact on competition of more 

stringent standards than those proposed 

in the April 2009 NOPR (DOJ, No. 77 at 

p. 1). Although DOJ did not evaluate the 

impacts on competition of TSL 4 for 

GSFL, DOE believes that TSL 4 does not 

raise competitive issues. For all product 

classes analyzed DOE found that all 

manufacturers offered product at TSL 4. 

Further, the product modifications 

needed to reach TSL 4 involve the use 

of more efficient phosphor blends 

which do not entail proprietary barriers. 

For IRL, DOJ concluded that the 

proposed TSL 4 could adversely affect 

competition. IRL standards proposed in 

the April 2009 NOPR would increase 

the minimum efficiency levels to the 

second highest level under 

consideration in this rulemaking. DOJ 

commented that the IRL market is 

highly concentrated, with three 

domestic manufacturers. Based on its 

review, DOJ stated that it appears that 

only two of the large manufacturers 

identified may currently manufacture 

IRLs that would meet the new standard 

and that these firms produce only 

limited quantities of such products for 

high-end applications. The current 

producers may not have the capacity to 

meet demand. In addition, one of these 

manufacturers uses proprietary 

technology currently unavailable to 

other manufacturers. Given the capital 

investments new entrants or providers 

would be required to make, and the 

potential that manufacturers may have 

to obtain proprietary technology, there 

is a risk that one or more IRL 

manufacturers will not produce 

products that meet the proposed 

standard. Note also that the National 

Impact Analysis does not consider the 

possibility of lessened competition 

effects, and so, depending on their 

magnitude, such effects may negatively 

impact the Net Present Value of the 

standards. DOJ requested that DOE 

consider the possibility of new 

technology in this area as it settles on 

standards in this field. (DOJ, No. 77 at 

pp. 1–2) 

DOE agrees with DOJ that the IRL 

market is highly concentrated, with 

three major manufacturers supplying 

the vast majority of the U.S. market. 

However, for the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

stated that all manufacturers produced 

at least one lamp that met TSL 4, even 

though one manufacturer did not 

produce a full line of product at this 

efficacy. 74 FR 16920, 17003 (April 13, 

2009). 

In the NOPR, DOE indicated that it 

believed manufacturers could maintain 

production capacity levels and continue 

to meet market demand at the proposed 

IRL standard (TSL 4). DOE noted that 

the current volume of these improved 

HIR lamps is many times lower than the 

volume of standard halogen lamps for 

all three major manufacturers. DOE used 

market research and analysis of HIR 

capsule production, and interviews with 

manufacturers of lamps and suppliers of 

HIR capsules and coating decks to 

analyze if manufacturers of IRL would 

be able to supply the market if lamp 

manufacturers outsourced all or part of 

their capsule production. In the NOPR, 

DOE stated it did not believe there 

would be a capacity constraint at the 

proposed standard level. DOE stated 

that manufacturers could install 

additional coaters, purchase infrared 

burners from a supplier, and use 

existing excess capacity. All these stated 

options would allow IRL manufacturers 

to maintain production capacity levels 

and continue to meet market demand 

for all IRL standard levels. 74 FR 16920, 

17004 (April 13, 2009). 

For today’s final rule, DOE did not 

receive comments that indicated that 

the energy conservation standards 

would result in the unavailability of 

standards-compliant products. DOE did 

receive comments about the potential 

for a short-term market disruption. One 

major manufacturer requested 

additional time in between the 

announcement and effective date to 

allow more time to stabilize improved 

HIR manufacturing before the regulation 

mandates the improved technology. 

(OSI, No. 84 at p. 1) Another major 

manufacturer responded to April 2009 

NOPR by commenting that TSL 4 allows 

the continued manufacture and sale of 

energy efficient products to the market 

and that these products have also been 

proven manufacturable by at least two 

major lighting companies. (Philips, No. 

75 at p. 1) In its individual comment, 

the third major manufacturer did not 

comment on its intention to make the 

required capital investments. DOE 

believes that this manufacturer will not 

have difficulty supplying at least part of 

the market at the proposed standards 

because this manufacturer currently has 

a full line of products at both TSL 4 and 

TSL 5. Although DOE received 

comments that there could be a 

constrained market, other comments 

suggest that this constraint will at worst 

be a short-term problem. However, since 

all three large manufacturers currently 

manufacture product at the efficacies 

required by today’s final rule, a shortterm constraint would not be a 

competitive issue. 

DOE does not believe manufacturers 

will have to obtain proprietary 

technology to meet the energy 

conservation standards set forth by 

today’s rule. As stated in section VI.B.2, 

all major manufacturers have access to 

alternative technology pathways to meet 

TSL 4 without the use of proprietary 

technology. In the April 2009 NOPR, 

DOE stated that all major manufacturers 

produce two or more lamps that exceed 

TSL 4, some of which are not dependent 

on proprietary technology. DOE listed 

alternative technologies to meet TSL 4 

including other non-patented types of 

improved reflectors and higherefficiency IR coatings. 74 FR 16920, 

16945 (April 13, 2009). DOE did not 

receive additional information or 

comments that would indicate that the 

identified alternative technologies 

necessary to meet energy conservation 

standards set forth by today’s final rule 

will lead to any lessening of 

competition. Section VI.B of today’s 

final rule further discusses alternative 

technology pathways and proprietary 

technology. 

The Attorney General’s response is 

reprinted at the end of today’s 

rulemaking. 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve 

Energy 

Improving the energy efficiency of 

GSFL and IRL, where economically 

justified, would likely improve the 

security of the Nation’s energy system 

by reducing overall demand for energy, 

thus reducing the Nation’s reliance on 

foreign sources of energy. Reduced 

demand might also improve the 

reliability of the electricity system, 

particularly during peak-load periods. 

As a measure of this reduced demand, 

DOE expects the energy savings from 

the adopted standards to eliminate the 

need for approximately 1.8 to 6.2 

gigawatts (GW) of generating capacity 

for GFSL and up to 200 to 1,100 

megawatts (MW) for IRL by 2042. 

Enhanced energy efficiency also 

produces environmental benefits in the 

form of reduced emissions of air 

pollutants and greenhouse gases 

associated with energy production. 

Table VII.25 and Table VII.26 provide 

DOE’s estimate of cumulative CO2, NOX, 

and Hg emissions reductions that would 

result from the TSLs considered in this 

rulemaking. The expected energy 

savings from these GSFL and IRL 

standards may also reduce the cost of 

maintaining nationwide emissions 

standards and constraints. In the 

environmental assessment (EA; chapter 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34161 

67 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). 68North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 

2008). 

69 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 70See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (DC 

Cir. 2008). 

16 of the TSD accompanying this 

notice), DOE reports estimated annual 

changes in CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions 

attributable to each TSL. 

TABLE VII.25—SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR GSFL 

[Cumulative reductions for products sold from 2012 to 2042] 

TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 

(i) Existing Technologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise 

CO2 (MMT) ..................................................... .................. 130.3 133.9 296.6 487.6 552.0 

NOX (kt) ......................................................... .................. 11.7 10.0 17.0 36.8 58.1 

Hg (t) .............................................................. low ........... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Hg (t) .............................................................. high .......... 2.0 2.4 4.8 7.3 8.8 

Emerging Technologies, Roll Up, Market Segment Based Lighting Expertise 

CO2 (MMT) ..................................................... .................. 66.4 86.0 148.3 174.6 262.0 

NOX (kt) ......................................................... .................. 1.9 5.1 7.3 11.0 12.9 

Hg (t) .............................................................. low ........... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Hg (t) .............................................................. high .......... 1.2 1.4 2.3 2.8 4.0 

TABLE VII.26—SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR IRL 

[(Cumulative reductions for products sold from 2012 to 2042)] 

TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 

Existing Technologies, Shift, R–CFL Substitution 

CO2 (MMT) ..................................................... .................. 19.8 48.9 85.1 105.7 118.1 

NOX (kt) ......................................................... .................. 1.9 5.5 7.6 8.4 9.3 

Hg (t) .............................................................. low ........... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Hg (t) .............................................................. high .......... 0.3 0.7 1.3 1.7 1.8 

Emerging Technologies, Roll Up, BR Lamp Substitution 

CO2 (MMT) ..................................................... .................. 7.5 19.1 37.8 44.0 53.3 

NOX (kt) ......................................................... .................. 1.3 3.2 5.4 6.4 8.1 

Hg (t) .............................................................. low ........... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Hg (t) .............................................................. high .......... 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.8 

MMt = million metric tons. 

kt = thousand metric tons. 

t = metric tons. 

NOTE: The derivation for the emission ranges are described below. 

As discussed in section IV.I of this 

final rule, DOE does not report SO2

emissions reductions from power plants 

because reductions from an energy 

conservation standard would not affect 

the overall level of SO2 emissions in the 

United States due to the emissions caps 

for SO2. 

NOX emissions from 28 eastern States 

and the District of Columbia (DC) are 

limited under the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR), published in the Federal 

Register on May 12, 2005.67 Although 

CAIR has been remanded to EPA by the 

D.C. Circuit, it will remain in effect 

until it is replaced by a rule consistent 

with the Court’s December 23, 2008, 

opinion in North Carolina v. EPA.68

Because all States covered by CAIR 

opted to reduce NOX emissions through 

participation in cap-and-trade programs 

for electric generating units, emissions 

from these sources are capped across the 

CAIR region. 

For the 28 eastern States and D.C. 

where CAIR is in effect, no NOX

emissions reductions will occur due to 

the permanent cap. Under caps, 

physical emissions reductions in those 

States would not result from the energy 

conservation standards under 

consideration by DOE, but standards 

might have produced an 

environmentally related economic 

impact in the form of lower prices for 

emissions allowance credits, if they 

were large enough. However, DOE 

determined that in the present case, 

such standards would not produce an 

environmentally related economic 

impact in the form of lower prices for 

emissions allowance credits, because 

the estimated reduction in NOX

emissions or the corresponding 

allowance credits in States covered by 

the CAIR cap would be too small to 

affect allowance prices for NOX under 

the CAIR. In contrast, new or amended 

energy conservation standards would 

reduce NOX emissions in those 22 States 

that are not affected by CAIR. As a 

result, the NEMS–BT does forecast 

emission reductions from the proposed 

amended standards considered in 

today’s final rule. 

In the April 2009 NOPR, however, 

DOE provided a different estimate of 

NOX reductions because DOE assumed 

that the CAIR rule had been vacated. 

This is because the CAIR rule was 

vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit (DC 

Circuit) in its July 11, 2008 decision in 

North Carolina v. Environmental 

Protection Agency.69 Although the D.C. 

Circuit, in a December 23, 2008, 

opinion,70 decided to allow the CAIR 

rule to remain in effect until it is 

replaced by a rule consistent with the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34162 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

71 70 FR 28606 (May 18, 2005). 

72 517 F.3d 574 (DC Cir. 2008). 

73Energy Information Administration, Annual 

Energy Outlook 2009 (March 2009), page 18. 

74 During the preparation of its review of the state 

of climate science, the IPCC identified various 

estimates of the present value of reducing CO2

emissions by 1 ton over the life that these emissions 

would remain in the atmosphere. The estimates 

reviewed by the IPCC spanned a range of values. 

Absent a consensus on any single estimate of the 

monetary value of CO2 emissions, DOE used the 

estimates identified by the study cited in 

‘‘Summary for Policymakers,’’ prepared by Working 

Group II of the IPCC’s ‘‘Fourth Assessment Report,’’ 

to estimate the potential monetary value of CO2

reductions likely to result from standards 

considered in this rulemaking. According to IPCC, 

the mean social cost of carbon (SCC) reported in 

studies published in peer-reviewed journals was 

$43 per ton of carbon. This translates into about $12 

per ton of CO2. The literature review (Tol 2005) 

from which this mean was derived did not report 

the year in which these dollars were denominated. 

However, DOE understands this estimate was for 

the year 1995 denominated in 1995$. Updating that 

estimate to 2007$ yields a SCC for the year 1995 

of $15 per ton of CO2. 

court’s earlier opinion, DOE retained its 

analysis of NOX emissions reductions 

based on an assumption that the CAIR 

rule was not in effect because: (1) The 

NOPR rulemaking was sufficiently 

advanced at the time that the December 

23, 2008, opinion was issued that 

revisiting the analysis would have 

caused undue delays; and (2) neither the 

July 11, 2008, nor the December 23, 

2008, decisions of the D.C. Circuit 

changed the standard-setting proposals 

offered in the NOPR. 

Thus, for the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

established a range of NOX reductions 

based on low and high emission rates 

(in metric kilotons of NOX emitted per 

terawatt-hour (TWh) of electricity 

generated) derived from the AEO2008. 

DOE anticipated that, in the absence of 

the CAIR Rule’s trading program, the 

new or amended conservation standards 

would reduce NOX emissions 

nationwide not just in 22 statues. 

As noted in section IV.I, DOE was 

able to estimate the changes in Hg 

emissions associated with an energy 

conservation standard as follows. DOE 

notes that the NEMS–BT model used for 

the NOPR, used as an integral part of 

today’s rulemaking, does not estimate 

Hg emission reductions due to new 

energy conservation standards, as it 

assumed that Hg emissions would be 

subject to EPA’s CAMR.71 CAMR would 

have permanently capped emissions of 

mercury for new and existing coal-fired 

plants in all States by 2010. As with SO2

and NOX, DOE assumed that under such 

a system, energy conservation standards 

would have resulted in no physical 

effect on these emissions, but might 

have resulted in an environmentally 

related economic benefit in the form of 

a lower price for emissions allowance 

credits if those credits were large 

enough. DOE estimated that the change 

in the Hg emissions from energy 

conservation standards would not be 

large enough to influence allowance 

prices under CAMR. 

On February 8, 2008, the DC Circuit 

issued its decision in New Jersey v. 

Environmental Protection Agency 72 to 

vacate CAMR. In light of this 

development and because the NEMS– 

BT model could not be used to directly 

calculate Hg emission reductions, DOE 

used the Hg emission rates discussed 

below to calculate emissions reductions 

in the NOPR. This same methodology is 

used for the Final Rule as well due to 

the continued fluid environment ‘‘* * * 

with many States planning to enact new 

laws or make existing laws more 

stringent.’’ 73 The NEMS–BT has only 

rough estimates of mercury emissions, 

and it was felt that the range of 

emissions used in the NOPR remain 

appropriate given these circumstances. 

Therefore, rather than using the 

NEMS–BT model, DOE established a 

range of Hg rates to estimate the Hg 

emissions that could be reduced 

through standards. DOE’s low estimate 

assumed that future standards would 

displace electrical generation only from 

natural gas-fired power plants, thereby 

resulting in an effective emission rate of 

zero. (Under this scenario, coal-fired 

power plant generation would remain 

unaffected.) The low-end emission rate 

is zero because natural gas-fired power 

plants have virtually zero Hg emissions 

associated with their operation. 

Earthjustice stated that basing the low 

end of the range on the displacement of 

only gas-fired power plants was 

inconsistent with DOE’s utility impact 

analysis (Earthjustice, No. 60 at pg. 

8–9). DOE believes that the estimate 

should provide the full range of possible 

outcomes and has selected the low and 

high values to bracket the uncertainties 

associated with estimating mercury 

emission reductions. 

DOE’s high estimate, which assumed 

that standards would displace only coalfired power plants, was based on an 

estimate of the 2006 nationwide 

mercury emission rate from AEO2008. 

(Under this scenario, DOE assumed that 

gas-fired power plant generation would 

remain unaffected and that no future 

reductions in the rate of mercury 

emissions from such sources would 

occur.) Because power plant emission 

rates are a function of local regulation, 

scrubbers, and the mercury content of 

coal, it is extremely difficult to identify 

a precise high-end emission rate. 

Therefore, the most reasonable high 

estimate is based on the assumption that 

all displaced coal generation would 

have been emitting at the 2006 average 

emission rate for coal generation as 

specified by the April Update to 

AEO2009. This is viewed as a high 

estimate because it is likely that future 

emission controls will be installed at 

coal-fired power plants which will 

reduce their average emission rate. As 

noted previously, because virtually all 

mercury emitted from electricity 

generation is from coal-fired power 

plants, DOE based the emission rate on 

the tons of mercury emitted per TWh of 

coal-generated electricity. Based on the 

emission rate for 2006, DOE derived a 

high-end emission rate of 0.0255 tons 

per TWh. To estimate the reduction in 

mercury emissions, DOE multiplied the 

emission rate by the reduction in coalgenerated electricity due to the 

standards considered in the utility 

impact analysis. These changes in Hg 

emissions are small, ranging from 0.2 to 

1.0 percent of the national base-case 

emissions forecast by NEMS–BT for 

GFSL, depending on the TSL and 

scenario, and less than 0.2 percent for 

all IRL levels. 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

considered accounting for a monetary 

benefit of CO2 emission reductions 

associated with standards. To put the 

potential monetary benefits from 

reduced CO2 emissions into a form that 

would likely be most useful to decision 

makers and interested parties, DOE used 

the same methods it used to calculate 

the net present value of consumer cost 

savings. DOE converted the estimated 

yearly reductions in CO2 emissions into 

monetary values that represented the 

present value, in that year, of future 

benefits resulting from that reduction in 

emissions, which were then discounted 

from that year to the present using both 

3-percent and 7-percent discount rates. 

In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to use the range $0 to $20 per 

ton for the year 2007 in 2007$. 74 FR 

16920, 17012 (April 13, 2009). These 

estimates were originally derived to 

represent the lower and upper bounds 

of the costs and benefits likely to be 

experienced in the United States. The 

lower bound was based on an 

assumption of no benefit and the upper 

bound was based on an estimate of the 

mean value of worldwide impacts due 

to climate change that was reported by 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC).74 DOE expected that 

such domestic values would be 10% or 

less of comparable global values; 

however, there were no consensus 

estimates for the U.S. benefits likely to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34163 

75 ‘‘Climate Change 2007—Impacts, Adaptation 

and Vulnerability.’’ Contribution of Working Group 

II to the ‘‘Fourth Assessment Report’’ of the IPCC, 

17. Available at www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4- 

wg2.htm (last accessed Aug. 7, 2008). 

76Richard S.J. Tol (2008), The social cost of 

carbon: Trends, outliers, and catastrophes, 

Economics—the Open-Access, Open-Assessment EJournal, 2 (25), 1–24. 

77U.S. EPA, Technical Support Document on 

Benefits of Reducing GHG Emissions, June 12, 2008. 78Estimates of SCC are assumed to increase over 

time since future emissions are expected to produce 

larger incremental damages as physical and 

economic systems become more stressed as the 

magnitude of climate change increases. Although 

most studies that estimate economic damages 

caused by increased GHG emissions in future years 

produce an implied growth rate in the SCC, neither 

the rate itself nor the information necessary to 

derive its implied value is commonly reported. 

Given the limited amount of debate thus far about 

the appropriate growth rate of the SCC, applying a 

rate of 3%/yr seems appropriate at this stage. This 

value is consistent with the range recommended by 

IPCC (2007). 

result from CO2 emission reductions. 

Because U.S.-specific estimates were 

unavailable, DOE used the global mean 

value as an upper bound U.S. value. 

Given the uncertainty surrounding 

estimates of the social cost of carbon, 

DOE previously concluded that relying 

on any single estimate may be 

inadvisable because that estimate will 

depend on many assumptions. Working 

Group II’s contribution to the ‘‘Fourth 

Assessment Report’’ of the IPCC notes 

the following: 

The large ranges of SCC are due in the large 

part to differences in assumptions regarding 

climate sensitivity, response lags, the 

treatment of risk and equity, economic and 

non-economic impacts, the inclusion of 

potentially catastrophic losses, and discount 

rates.75

Because of this uncertainty, DOE used 

the SCC value from Tol (2005), which 

was presented in the IPCC’s ‘‘Fourth 

Assessment Report’’ and provided a 

comprehensive meta-analysis of 

estimates for the value of SCC. 74 FR 

16920, 17012 (April 13, 2009). 

NRDC and Earthjustice and NY et al. 

commented that DOE should use global, 

rather than U.S. based estimates for CO2

values (NRDC, Issue Paper, No. 82 at p. 

13 and NY et al., Attachment, No. 88 at 

p. 3). NY et al. recommended DOE use 

$80 per short ton CO2 ($88 metric) in 

2009$ based on recent meta-analysis of 

GHG abatement cost analyses published 

by international agencies and 

multinational consultancies. NY et al., 

also criticized the range of CO2 values 

used in the NOPR and recommended 

the use of a long-run marginal 

abatement cost of CO2 for monetizing 

CO2 emission reductions, rather than 

the damage costs given the highly 

uncertain nature of the latter (NY et al., 

No. 88, p. 9–10). 

DOE continues to use SCC values in 

today’s final rule. DOE has not adopted 

using an abatement cost because the 

actual costs of reducing CO2 emissions 

are highly variable. They range from 

negative costs, such as energy efficiency 

improvement measures that produce net 

economic benefits, to hundreds of 

dollars per ton of CO2, such as emission 

reductions that might require the early 

abandonment of large capital 

investments in power plants, industrial 

facilities or buildings. In order to 

identify a specific marginal cost per ton 

of CO2 reduced usually requires the 

establishment of key parameters, such 

as the scope of the emissions covered, 

the quantity of emission reductions to 

be achieved and the timeframe for the 

achievement of these reductions. These 

parameters must be determined through 

legislative or regulatory processes. 

Moreover, the use of SCC is consistent 

with the IPCC Fourth Assessment 

Report. However, if a nationwide 

regulatory mandate is established to 

limit or reduce U.S. greenhouse gas 

emissions, the marginal costs of 

reducing emissions that are imposed by 

such a mandate might be the basis for 

valuing such emission reductions in the 

future. 

For today’s final rule, DOE is relying 

on an updated range of values 

consistent with that presented in the 

Model Year 2011 fuel economy standard 

final rule issued by the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA): $2, $33 and $80 per ton. In 

the MY 2011 fuel economy standard 

final rule, NHTSA relied on a range of 

estimates representing the uncertainty 

surrounding global values of the SCC, 

while also encompassing, at the low 

end, possible domestic values. These 

three values encompass much of the 

variability in the estimates of the global 

value of the SCC. The lower end of this 

range, $2, also approximates possible 

mean value for domestic benefits. The 

middle of the range, $33, is equal to the 

mean value in Tol (2008) and the high 

end of the range, $80, represents one 

standard deviation above the mean 

global value. 74 FR 14196, 14346 

(March 30, 2009). 

The global value of $33 is based on 

Tol’s (2008) expanded and updated 

survey of 211 estimates of the global 

SCC.76 Tol’s 2008 survey encompasses a 

larger number of estimates for the global 

value of reducing carbon emissions than 

its previously-published counterpart, 

Tol (2005), and continues to represent 

the only recent, publicly-available 

compendium of peer-reviewed estimates 

of the SCC that has itself been peerreviewed and published. 

The domestic value ($2) was 

developed by NHTSA by using the 

mean estimate of the global value of 

reduced economic damages from 

climate change resulting from reducing 

CO2 emissions as a starting point; 

estimating the fraction of the reduction 

in global damages that is likely to be 

experienced within the U.S.; and 

applying this fraction to the mean 

estimate of global benefits from 

reducing emissions to obtain an 

estimate of the U.S. domestic benefits 

from lower GHG emissions. NHTSA 

constructed the estimate of the U.S. 

domestic benefits from reducing CO2

emissions using estimates of U.S. 

domestic and global benefits from 

reducing greenhouse gas emissions 

developed by EPA and reported in 

EPA’s Technical Support Document 

accompanying its advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking on motor vehicle 

CO2 emissions.77

A complete discussion of NHTSA’s 

analysis is available in Chapter VIII of 

the Final Regulatory Analysis of the 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy for 

MY 2011 Passenger Cars and Light 

Trucks (NHTSA, March 2009). 

After considering comments and the 

currently available information and 

analysis, which was reflected in the 

approach employed by NHTSA, DOE 

concluded that it was appropriate to 

consider the global benefits of reducing 

CO2 emissions, as well as the domestic 

benefits. Consequently, DOE considered 

in its decision-process for this final rule 

the potential benefits resulting from 

reduced CO2 emissions valued at $2, 

$33 and $80. The resulting range is 

based on current peer-reviewed 

estimates of the value of SCC and, DOE 

believes, fairly represents the 

uncertainty surrounding the global 

benefits resulting from reduced CO2

emissions and, at the $2 level, also 

encompasses the likely domestic 

benefits, DOE also concluded, based on 

the most recent Tol analysis, that it was 

appropriate to escalate these values at 

3%78 per year to represent the expected 

increases, over time, of the benefits 

associated with reducing CO2 and other 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

The tables below present the resulting 

estimates of the potential range of net 

present value benefits associated with 

reducing CO2 emissions. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34164 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

79The Update to the AEO2009 based version of 

NEMS–BT includes the representation of CAIR. 

80Office of Management and Budget Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, ‘‘2006 Report to 

Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal 

Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, 

Local, and Tribal Entities,’’ Washington, DC (2006). 

TABLE VII.27—ESTIMATES OF VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR GSFL UNDER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS AT

SEVEN-PERCENT AND THREE-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATES

GSFL 

TSL 

Estimated cumulative CO2

(MMt) emission 

reductions 

Value of estimated CO2 emission reductions 

(billion 2008$) at 7% discount rate 

Value of estimated CO2 emission reductions 

(billion 2008$) at 3% discount rate 

CO2 value of 

$2/ton CO2

CO2 value of 

$33/ton CO2

CO2 value of 

$80/ton CO2

CO2 value of 

$2/ton CO2

CO2 value of 

$33/ton CO2

CO2 value of 

$80/ton CO2

1 ........................ 66 to 130 ......... 0.1 to 0.1 ......... 1.1 to 2.1 ......... 2.6 to 5.1 ......... 0.1 to 0.3 ......... 2.3 to 4.5 ......... 5.6 to 10.9. 

2 ........................ 86 to 134 ......... 0.1 to 0.1 ......... 1.5 to 2.2 ......... 3.6 to 5.3 ......... 0.2 to 0.3 ......... 3.0 to 4.6 ......... 7.2 to 11.2. 

3 ........................ 148 to 297 ....... 0.2 to 0.3 ......... 2.5 to 4.9 ......... 6.1 to 11.9 ....... 0.3 to 0.6 ......... 5.1 to 10.3 ....... 12.5 to 24.9. 

4 ........................ 175 to 488 ....... 0.2 to 0.5 ......... 3.1 to 8.4 ......... 7.5 to 20.4 ....... 0.4 to 1.0 ......... 6.0 to 16.9 ....... 14.7 to 40.9. 

5 ........................ 262 to 552 ....... 0.3 to 0.6 ......... 4.6 to 9.6 ......... 11.1 to 23.4 ..... 0.6 to 1.2 ......... 9.1 to 19.1 ....... 22.0 to 46.4. 

TABLE VII.28—ESTIMATES OF VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR IRL UNDER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS AT

SEVEN-PERCENT AND THREE-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATES

IRL 

TSL 

Estimated cumulative CO2

(MMt) emission 

reductions 

Value of estimated CO2 emission reductions (billion 

2008$) at 7% discount rate 

Value of estimated CO2 emission reductions (billion 

2008$) at 3% discount rate 

CO2 value of 

$2/ton CO2

CO2 value of 

$33/ton CO2

CO2 value of 

$80/ton CO2

CO2 value of 

$2/ton CO2

CO2 value of 

$33/ton CO2

CO2 value of 

$80/ton CO2

1 ........................ 7 to 20 ............. 0.0 to 0.0 ......... 0.1 to 0.3 ......... 0.3 to 0.8 ......... 0.0 to 0.0 ......... 0.3 to 0.7 ......... 0.6 to 1.7. 

2 ........................ 19 to 49 ........... 0.0 to 0.1 ......... 0.4 to 0.8 ......... 0.8 to 2.1 ......... 0.0 to 0.1 ......... 0.7 to 1.7 ......... 1.6 to 4.1. 

3 ........................ 38 to 85 ........... 0.0 to 0.1 ......... 0.7 to 1.5 ......... 1.7 to 3.6 ......... 0.1 to 0.2 ......... 1.3 to 2.9 ......... 3.2 to 7.1. 

4 ........................ 44 to 106 ......... 0.0 to 0.1 ......... 0.8 to 1.8 ......... 1.9 to 4.4 ......... 0.1 to 0.2 ......... 1.5 to 3.7 ......... 3.7 to 8.9. 

5 ........................ 53 to 118 ......... 0.1 to 0.1 ......... 1.0 to 2.0 ......... 2.3 to 4.9 ......... 0.1 to 0.2 ......... 1.8 to 4.1 ......... 4.5 to 9.9. 

DOE is well aware that scientific and 

economic knowledge about the 

contribution of CO2 and other green 

house gas emissions (GHG) to changes 

in the future global climate and the 

potential resulting damages to the world 

economy continues to evolve rapidly. 

Thus, any value placed in this 

rulemaking on reducing CO2 emissions 

is subject to likely change. 

The Department of Energy, together 

with other Federal agencies, is 

reviewing various methodologies for 

estimating the monetary value of 

reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse 

gas emissions. This review will consider 

the comments on this subject that are 

part of the public record for this and 

other rulemakings, as well as other 

methodological assumptions and issues, 

such as whether the appropriate values 

should represent domestic U.S. benefits, 

as well as global benefits (and costs). 

Given the complexity of the many issues 

involved, this review is ongoing. 

However, consistent with DOE’s legal 

obligations, and taking into account the 

uncertainty involved with this 

particular issue, DOE has included in 

this final rule the most recent values 

and analyses employed in a rulemaking 

by another Federal agency. 

DOE also investigated the potential 

monetary benefit of reduced SO2, NOX, 

and Hg emissions from the TSLs it 

considered. As previously stated, DOE’s 

initial analysis assumed the presence of 

nationwide emission caps on SO2 and 

Hg, and caps on NOX emissions in the 

28 States covered by CAIR. In the 

presence of these caps, DOE concluded 

that no physical reductions in power 

sector emissions would occur, but that 

the standards could put downward 

pressure on the prices of emissions 

allowances in cap-and-trade markets. 

Estimating this effect is very difficult 

because of factors such as credit 

banking, which can change the 

trajectory of prices. DOE has concluded 

that the effect from energy conservation 

standards on SO2 allowance prices is 

likely to be negligible based on runs of 

the NEMS–BT model. See chapter 16 of 

the TSD accompanying this notice for 

further details. 

Because the courts have decided to 

allow the CAIR rule to remain in effect, 

projected annual NOX allowances from 

NEMS–BT are relevant.79 As noted 

above, standards would not produce an 

economic impact in the form of lower 

prices for emissions allowance credits 

in the 28 eastern States and D.C. 

covered by the CAIR cap. New or 

amended energy conservation standards 

would reduce NOX emissions in those 

22 States that are not affected by CAIR. 

For the area of the United States not 

covered by CAIR, DOE estimated the 

monetized value of NOX emissions 

reductions resulting from each of the 

TSLs considered for today’s final rule 

based on environmental damage 

estimates from the literature. Available 

estimates suggest a very wide range of 

monetary values for NOX emissions, 

ranging from $370 per ton to $3,800 per 

ton of NOX from stationary sources, 

measured in 2001$ (equivalent to a 

range of $432 per ton to $4,441 per ton 

in 2007$).80

For Hg emissions reductions, DOE 

estimated the national monetized values 

resulting from the TSLs considered for 

today’s rule based on environmental 

damage estimates from the literature. 

DOE conducted research for today’s 

final rule and determined that the 

impact of mercury emissions from 

power plants on humans is considered 

highly uncertain. However, DOE 

identified two estimates of the 

environmental damage of mercury based 

on two estimates of the adverse impact 

of childhood exposure to methyl 

mercury on IQ for American children, 

and subsequent loss of lifetime 

economic productivity resulting from 

these IQ losses. The high-end estimate 

is based on an estimate of the current 

aggregate cost of the loss of IQ in 

American children that results from 

exposure to mercury of U.S. power plant 

origin ($1.3 billion per year in year 

2000$), which works out to $32.6 

million per ton emitted per year 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34165 

81Trasande, L., et al., ‘‘Applying Cost Analyses to 

Drive Policy that Protects Children,’’ 1076 Ann. 

N.Y. Acad. Sci. 911 (2006). 

82Ted Gayer and Robert Hahn, ‘‘Designing 

Environmental Policy: Lessons from the Regulation 

of Mercury Emissions,’’ Regulatory Analysis 05–01, 

AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, 

Washington, DC (2004). A version of this paper was 

published in the Journal of Regulatory Economics 

in 2006. The estimate was derived by backcalculating the annual benefits per ton from the net 

present value of benefits reported in the study. 

(2007$).81 The low-end estimate is $0.66 

million per ton emitted (in 2004$) or 

$0.729 million per ton (in 2007)$. DOE 

derived this estimate from a published 

evaluation of mercury control using 

different methods and assumptions from 

the first study, but also based on the 

present value of the lifetime earnings of 

children exposed.82 Table VI.28 and 

Table VI.29 present the resulting 

estimates of the potential range of 

present value benefits associated with 

reduced national NOX and Hg emissions 

from the TSLs DOE considered. 

TABLE VII.29—ESTIMATES OF SAVINGS FROM NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR GSFL 

TSL Estimated cumulative NOX

(kt) emission reductions 

Value of estimated NOX emission 

reductions (million 2008$) at 7% 

discount rate 

Value of estimated NOX emission 

reductions (million 2008$) at 3% 

discount rate 

1 ..................................................... 1.9 to 11.7 .................................... $0.7 to $23.8 ................................ $0.8 to $34.5. 

2 ..................................................... 5.1 to 10.0 .................................... $1.5 to $21.9 ................................ $1.9 to $30.4. 

3 ..................................................... 7.3 to 17.0 .................................... $2.2 to $41.1 ................................ $2.7 to $54.7. 

4 ..................................................... 11.0 to 36.8 .................................. $4.2 to $107.2 .............................. $4.6 to $132.4. 

5 ..................................................... 12.9 to 58.1 .................................. $5.0 to $125.6 .............................. $5.5 to $173.9. 

TABLE VII.30—ESTIMATES OF SAVINGS FROM NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR IRL 

TSL Estimated cumulative NOX

(kt) emission reductions 

Value of estimated NOX emission 

reductions (million 2007$) at 7% 

discount rate 

Value of estimated NOX emission 

reductions (million 2007$) at 3% 

discount rate 

1 ..................................................... 1.3 to 1.9 ...................................... $0.3 to $4.6 .................................. $0.4 to $6.0. 

2 ..................................................... 3.2 to 5.5 ...................................... $0.8 to $13.8 ................................ $1.1 to $17.9. 

3 ..................................................... 5.4 to 7.6 ...................................... $1.5 to $19.7 ................................ $1.9 to $25.2. 

4 ..................................................... 6.4 to 8.4 ...................................... $1.8 to $24.4 ................................ $2.2 to $30.0. 

5 ..................................................... 8.1 to 9.3 ...................................... $2.2 to $27.0 ................................ $2.7 to $33.1. 

TABLE VII.31—ESTIMATES OF SAVINGS FROM HG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR GSFL 

TSL Estimated cumulative 

Hg (tons) emission reductions 

Value of estimated Hg emission 

reductions (million 2007$) at 7% 

discount rate 

Value of estimated Hg emission 

reductions (million 2007$) at 3% 

discount rate 

1 ..................................................... 0.0 to 2.0 ...................................... $0 to $16.5 ................................... $0 to $32.7. 

2 ..................................................... 0.0 to 2.4 ...................................... $0 to $20.3 ................................... $0 to $39.6. 

3 ..................................................... 0.0 to 4.8 ...................................... $0 to $41.4 ................................... $0 to $80.2. 

4 ..................................................... 0.0 to 7.3 ...................................... $0 to $67.7 ................................... $0 to $125.6. 

5 ..................................................... 0.0 to 8.8 ...................................... $0 to $84.5 ................................... $0 to $154.4. 

TABLE VII.32—ESTIMATES OF SAVINGS FROM HG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR IRL 

TSL Estimated cumulative Hg 

(tons) emission reductions 

Value of estimated Hg emission 

reductions (million 2007$) at 7% 

discount rate 

Value of estimated Hg emission 

reductions (million 2007$) at 3% 

discount rate 

1 ..................................................... 0.0 to 0.3 ...................................... $0 to $2.7 ..................................... $0 to $5.2. 

2 ..................................................... 0.0 to 0.7 ...................................... $0 to $6.7 ..................................... $0 to $12.5. 

3 ..................................................... 0.0 to 1.3 ...................................... $0 to $11.7 ................................... $0 to $22.1. 

4 ..................................................... 0.0 to 1.7 ...................................... $0 to $15.0 ................................... $0 to $28.1. 

5 ..................................................... 0.0 to 1.8 ...................................... $0 to $16.0 ................................... $0 to $30.2. 

7. 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) and 6316(e)(1)) In 

adopting today’s standards, the 

Secretary considered the potential for 

GSFL and IRL standards to adversely 

affect low-income consumers, 

institutions of religious worship, 

historical facilities, institutions that 

serve low-income populations, and 

consumers of T12 electronic ballasts. 

D. Conclusion 

EPCA contains criteria for prescribing 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards. It provides that any such 

standard for GSFL and IRL 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)) As stated above, in 

determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, the Secretary 

must determine whether the benefits of 

the standards exceed its burdens 

considering the seven factors discussed 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34166 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

83 DOE notes that it did not eliminate higherefficiency fill gases from further consideration as a 

technology under the screening analysis, because that technology may be appropriate for low-wattage 

lamp applications. 

in section IV.D. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) A determination of 

whether a standard level is 

economically justified is not made 

based on any one of these factors in 

isolation. The Secretary must weigh 

each of these seven factors in total in 

determining whether a standard is 

economically justified. Further, the 

Secretary may not establish an amended 

standard if such standard would not 

result in ‘‘significant conservation of 

energy,’’ or ‘‘is not technologically 

feasible or economically justified.’’ (42 

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

As discussed in section V.A.1, DOE 

established a separate set of TSLs for 

GSFL and for IRL. Therefore, DOE 

analyzed each lamp type (GSFL or IRL) 

separately when considering various 

TSLs and eventually proposing 

standards. The following discussion 

briefly explains the development of the 

TSLs, consideration of the TSLs 

(starting with the most stringent) under 

the statutory factors, and the conclusion 

as to the GSFL standards and IRL 

standards that most improve energy 

efficiency that DOE has determined 

would most improve energy-efficiency 

and would be technologically feasible 

and economically justified. 

For GSFL, DOE considered five TSLs 

in the April 2009 NOPR, with TSL5 

being the most stringent level for which 

DOE performed full analyses. 74 FR 

16920, 16979–82 (April 13, 2009). It is 

noted that DOE also considered the 

potential for a standard level beyond 

TSL5 that would require GSFL to use a 

higher-efficiency gas fill composition, 

which would have been the maximum 

technologically feasible level. Although 

more-efficient fill gases (often including 

higher molecular weight gases) are 

appropriate for and are currently used 

in some lamp applications, DOE is also 

aware employing this technology can 

cause lamp instability resulting in 

striations or flickering in some 

circumstances. DOE’s research indicated 

that a potential standard level that 

would require the use of higherefficiency fill gases would significantly 

reduce (or in some cases eliminate) the 

utility and performance of the covered 

GSFL. DOE concluded on this basis that 

a level with such an adverse impact on 

product utility would not be 

economically justified.83 (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) and (3)(B)) Having 

made this determination, there was no 

need to perform additional analyses 

relevant to the other statutory criteria. 

(See section I.A.2 for additional detail.) 

Consequently, TSL5 represents the 

most-efficient level analyzed for GSFL. 

For IRL, DOE’s engineering analysis 

considered the maximum 

technologically feasible level, which 

would require the use of a silver 

reflector. However, this level utilized a 

proprietary technology that represents a 

unique pathway to achieving that 

efficiency level. Accordingly, DOE 

determined that such level was likely to 

have significant anti-competitive effects 

on the markets for such lamps and 

ultimately concluded that it is not 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B)) Therefore, TSL5, which 

does not require installation of the 

proprietary silver reflector, represents 

the most efficient level analyzed for IRL. 

(See sections VI.B and VII.A.2 of this 

notice for more information on 

maximum technologically feasible 

levels and other efficacy levels DOE 

analyzed.) 

DOE then considered the impacts of 

standards at each trial standard level 

that was identified and analyzed, 

beginning with the most efficient level, 

to determine whether the given level 

was economically justified. DOE then 

considered less efficient levels until it 

reached the highest level that meets the 

key statutory criteria in terms of being 

technologically feasible, economically 

justified, and saving a significant 

amount of energy. 

DOE discusses the benefits and/or 

burdens of each trial standard level in 

the following sections. DOE bases its 

discussion on quantitative analytical 

results for each trial standard level 

(presented in section VII) such as 

national energy savings, net present 

value (discounted at 7 percent and 3 

percent), emissions reductions, industry 

net present value, life-cycle cost, and 

consumers installed price increases. In 

addition to providing a summary of 

results, DOE discusses below the lifecycle cost and consumer installed price 

increase results for each product class 

and baseline, where appropriate. 

Beyond the quantitative results, DOE 

also considers other burdens and 

benefits that affect economic 

justification, including how the impacts 

of standards on competition, supply 

constraints, and lamp input prices may 

affect the economic benefits and 

burdens presented. 

1. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

Conclusion 

In addition to the results presented 

above, DOE also calculates the 

annualized benefits and costs of each 

TSL. The table below presents these 

values for GSFL. 

TABLE VII.33—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS FOR GSFL 

TSL Category Unit 

Primary estimate Low estimate High estimate 

7% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 

1 ...... Benefits 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2008$ ........... 650 741 445 504 855 978 

Annualized Quantified ...................................... CO2 (Mt) ....... 2 .73 2 .98 1 .83 2 .01 3 .64 3 .96 

NOX (kT) ...... 0 .37 0 .28 0 .17 0 .10 0 .57 0 .46 

Hg (T) ........... 0 .02 0 .03 0 .00 0 .00 0 .05 0 .06 

Costs 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2008$ ........... 123 80 181 128 64 31 

Net Benefits/Costs 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2008$ ........... 527 661 264 375 791 946 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34167 

TABLE VII.33—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS FOR GSFL—Continued 

TSL Category Unit 

Primary estimate Low estimate High estimate 

7% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 

2 ...... Benefits 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2008$ ........... 761 842 586 633 936 1051 

Annualized Quantified ...................................... CO2 (Mt) ....... 3 .22 3 .41 2 .68 2 .73 3 .76 4 .08 

NOX (kT) ...... 0 .45 0 .33 0 .38 0 .25 0 .52 0 .40 

Hg (T) ........... 0 .03 0 .04 0 .00 0 .00 0 .07 0 .07 

Costs 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2008$ ........... 224 160 255 186 192 134 

Net Benefits/Costs 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2008$ ........... 537 683 330 448 744 918 

3 ...... Benefits 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2008$ ........... 1528 1663 1017 1089 2038 2237 

Annualized Quantified ...................................... CO2 (Mt) ....... 6 .50 6 .89 4 .51 4 .67 8 .49 9 .11 

NOX (kT) ...... 0 .76 0 .55 0 .55 0 .37 0 .98 0 .73 

Hg (T) ........... 0 .07 0 .07 0 .00 0 .00 0 .14 0 .15 

Costs 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2008$ ........... 577 484 522 417 633 550 

Net Benefits/Costs 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2008$ ........... 950 1179 495 671 1405 1688 

4 ...... Benefits 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2008$ ........... 2302 2420 1329 1387 3275 3452 

Annualized Quantified ...................................... CO2 (Mt) ....... 10 .48 10 .60 5 .76 5 .69 15 .20 15 .52 

NOX (kT) ...... 1 .78 1 .19 1 .03 0 .63 2 .54 1 .76 

Hg (T) ........... 0 .11 0 .11 0 .00 0 .00 0 .22 0 .23 

Costs 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2008$ ........... 582 425 378 230 786 621 

Net Benefits/Costs 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2008$ ........... 1720 1994 951 1158 2489 2831 

Incremental Net Benefits/Costs Relative to TSL3 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2008$ ........... 770 815 456 487 1084 1143 

5 ...... Benefits 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2008$ ........... 2850 2988 1738 1811 3961 4165 

Annualized Quantified ...................................... CO2 (Mt) ....... 12 .95 13 .07 8 .33 8 .41 17 .57 17 .73 

NOX (kT) ...... 2 .10 1 .53 1 .21 0 .75 2 .98 2 .31 

Hg (T) ........... 0 .14 0 .14 0 .00 0 .00 0 .27 0 .28 

Costs 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2009$ ........... 911 737 783 613 1039 861 

Net Benefits/Costs 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2009$ ........... 1939 2251 955 1197 2922 3304 

Incremental Net Benefits/Costs Relative to TSL4 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2008$ ........... 219 257 4 39 433 473 

Note: Annualized values are for the period from 2012 to 2042. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34168 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

a. Trial Standard Level 5 

For GSFL, DOE first considered the 

most efficient level, TSL5, which would 

save an estimated total of 5.1 to 12.0 

quads of energy through 2042—a 

significant amount of energy. For the 

Nation as a whole, TSL5 would have a 

net savings of $10.0 billion to $30.9 

billion at a 7-percent discount rate and 

$22.6 billion to $62.6 billion at a 3- 

percent discount rate. The emissions 

reductions at TSL5 are estimated at 262 

to 552 MMt of CO2, 13 to 58 kt of NOX, 

up to 9 metric tons of Hg. Total 

generating capacity in 2042 is estimated 

to decrease compared to the reference 

case by 2.7 to 7.3 GW under TSL5. The 

monetized values of emissions 

reductions are estimated at $5.0 to 

$125.6 million for NOX and up to $84.5 

million for Hg at a 7-percent discount 

rate and $5.5 to $173.9 million for NOX

and up to $154.4 million for Hg at a 3- 

percent discount rate. The estimated 

benefits of reducing CO2 emissions 

using the mid-range of the CO2 value 

(using $33 per ton) is $4.6 to $9.6 billion 

and $9.1 to $19.1 billion at 7-percent 

and 3-percent discount rates 

respectively. The full range of likely 

benefits of CO2 emission reductions is 

$0.3 billion to $23.4 billion at a 7- 

percent discount rate and $0.6 billion to 

$46.4 billion at a 3-percent discount 

rate. 

The impacts on manufacturers at 

TSL5 result from the commoditization 

of high-efficacy lamps and the need to 

convert all T12 lines to T8 lines, 

requiring a capital investment of $211 

million. The projected change in 

industry value ranges from a decrease of 

$211 million to an increase of $33 

million. The extent of the industry 

impacts is driven primarily by how 

successful manufacturers will be in 

maintaining their current gross margins 

at near their current levels as efficient 

products become commoditized. 

Currently, manufacturers obtain higher 

margins for more-efficient products; 

therefore, to avoid the higher end of the 

anticipated impacts, manufacturers are 

likely to have to find new ways to 

differentiate GSFL to maintain full 

product lines. At TSL5, DOE recognizes 

the risk of very large negative impacts 

if the high end of the range of impacts 

is reached, resulting in a net loss of 40 

percent in INPV. 

At TSL5, DOE projects that most 

GSFL consumers would experience lifecycle cost savings. The following 

discussion summarizes the specific lifecycle cost impacts of TSL5 on the 

separate product classes and baseline 

lamps. 

Table VII.5 presents the findings of an 

LCC analysis on various three-lamp, 4- 

foot medium bipin GSFL systems 

operating in the commercial sector. 

Regardless of the baseline lamp 

currently employed, consumers have 

lamp designs available which result in 

positive LCC savings at TSL5. At this 

standard level, users of 40W or 34W 4- 

foot MBP T12 baseline lamps installed 

on a magnetic ballast who need to 

replace their lamp would incur the cost 

of a lamp and ballast replacement 

($65.96 to $73.94) because no T12 lamp 

currently meets the efficacy 

requirements of TSL5. Comparing this 

cost of lamp-and-ballast replacements to 

the cost of only baseline lamp 

replacements ($11.65 to $14.50) results 

in installed price increases of $52.83 to 

$59.44. These ranges in prices depend 

on the specific baseline lamps 

previously owned by consumers and the 

specific combinations of lamps and 

ballasts they select in the standards 

case. However, over the life of the lamp, 

these consumers would save $13.93 to 

$24.16. 

Table VII.6 presents LCC results for a 

two-lamp 4-foot MBP system operating 

in the residential sector under average 

operating hours. The results are 

presented for a system operating 40W 

T12 lamps with a magnetic ballast, as 

this configuration is typical of the 

installed base of residential GSFL 

systems. As discussed in the NOPR, 

DOE believes that the vast majority of 

lamps sold in the residential market are 

sold with new ballasts or luminaires. 74 

FR 16920, 16951 (April 13, 2009) At 

TSL5, residential consumers are 

expected to purchase T8 lamps with 

electronic ballasts in lieu of the T12 

lamps with magnetic ballasts that they 

would purchase absent standards. These 

consumers would see LCC savings of 

$20.21 to $22.32. DOE recognizes that 

not all residential GSFL lamps would be 

sold in conjunction with a new ballast 

or luminaire in the base case. In 

particular, consumers with higher 

operating hours or consumers who 

choose to not discard their lamps upon 

fixture or ballast replacement may need 

to replace their lamp on an existing 

system. However, at TSL5, there are no 

standards-compliant T12 replacement 

lamps available. As seen in Table VII.8, 

the consumer economics of retrofitting a 

T12 system with a T8 system for a 

residential 4-foot MBP system depend 

on the remaining life of the T12 ballast. 

For those consumers who replace a T12 

system with less than 7 years of life 

remaining in 2012, the LCC savings are 

positive. Those consumers who have 

greater than 7 years of life remaining in 

their T12 systems in 2012 will 

experience negative LCC savings. 

Considering an average system life of 15 

years, and estimating that 10 percent of 

T12 lamps sold to residential sector are 

replacement lamps, DOE calculates that 

fewer than 6 percent of current 

purchasers of T12 lamps in the 

residential sector will experience 

increases in LCC. The first-costs 

increase for residential consumers 

forced to retrofit to T8 systems would be 

$49.00 to $49.91 ($53.13 to $54.04 for an 

installed T8 system compared to $4.13 

for two new T12 lamp). 

With regard to 4-foot MBP consumer 

subgroups, all consumer subgroups 

analyzed achieve similar LCC savings to 

the average consumer with the 

exception of commercial consumers 

who own 40W or 34W 4-foot MBP T12 

lamps installed on electronic ballasts. 

These consumers, upon lamp failure, 

are forced to retrofit their existing 

ballasts, resulting in negative LCC 

savings of ¥$12.43 to ¥$7.00. Overall, 

based on the NIA, DOE estimates that at 

TSL5 in 2012, less than 2 percent of 4- 

foot MBP shipments result in negative 

LCC savings, and 9 percent of shipments 

are associated with the high installed 

price increases due to forced retrofits. 

Table VII.11 presents the findings of 

an LCC analysis on various two-lamp, 8- 

foot SP slimline GSFL systems operating 

in the commercial sector. Except for 

consumers who purchase reducedwattage 60W T12 lamps absent 

standards (and experience a lamp 

failure), all other consumers have 

available lamp designs that result in 

positive LCC savings at TSL5. At this 

standard level, users of 75W or 60W 8- 

foot SP slimline T12 baseline lamps 

installed on a magnetic ballast who 

need to replace their lamp would incur 

the cost of a lamp and ballast 

replacement ($97.41 to $98.80) because 

no T12 lamp currently meets the 

efficacy requirements of TSL5. 

Comparing the cost of a lamp-andballast replacement to the cost of only 

a baseline lamp replacement ($11.77 to 

$16.79) results in an installed price 

increase of $82.01 to $87.03. In 

addition, users of 60W T12 lamps who 

need to replace their lamp experience 

negative LCC savings of ¥$15.81 to 

¥$13.89. On the other hand, over the 

life of the lamp, users of 75W T12 lamps 

who require a lamp replacement would 

save $9.68. 

With regard to 8-foot SP slimline 

consumer subgroups, all consumer 

subgroups analyzed achieve similar LCC 

savings to the average consumer with 

the exception of consumers of T12 

lamps operating in religious 

institutions, consumers of T12 lamps 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34169 

operating in institutions that serve lowincome populations, and users of T12 

lamps installed on electronic ballasts. 

These consumers, upon lamp failure, 

are forced to retrofit their existing 

ballasts, resulting in negative LCC 

savings. In particular, consumers in 

institutions of religious worship (which 

have low operating hours in comparison 

with the average commercial-sector 

consumer) and consumers in 

institutions serving low income 

populations (experience negative LCC 

savings of ¥$30.56 to ¥$0.44. 

Consumers with T12 lamps installed on 

electronic ballasts experience negative 

LCC savings of ¥$33.55 to ¥$15.82. 

Overall, based on the NIA model, DOE 

estimates that at TSL5 in 2012, 

approximately 24 percent of 8-foot SP 

slimline shipments would result in 

negative LCC savings, and 65 percent of 

shipments would be associated with the 

high installed price increases due to 

forced retrofits. 

Table VII.12 presents the findings of 

an LCC analysis on various two-lamp, 8- 

foot RDC HO GSFL systems operating in 

the industrial sector. With the exception 

of consumers who purchase reducedwattage 95W T12 lamps absent 

standards (and purchase a lamp in 

response to a lamp failure), all other 

consumers have available lamp designs 

that result in positive LCC savings at 

TSL5. At this standard level, users of 

110W or 95W 8-foot RDC HO T12 

baseline lamps installed on a magnetic 

ballast who need to replace their lamp 

would incur the cost of a lamp and 

ballast replacement ($131.38) because 

no T12 lamp currently meets the 

efficacy requirements of TSL5. 

Comparing the cost of a lamp-andballast replacement to the cost of only 

a baseline lamp replacement ($14.46 to 

$20.51) results in an installed price 

increase of $110.87 to $116.92. Users of 

95W T12 lamps who need to replace 

their lamp experience negative LCC 

savings of ¥$7.97. On the other hand, 

over the life of the lamp, users of 110W 

T12 lamps who require a lamp 

replacement would save $13.07. 

With regard to 8-foot RDC HO 

consumer subgroups, all consumer 

subgroups analyzed achieve similar LCC 

savings to the average consumer except 

consumers who own T12 lamps 

installed on electronic ballasts. These 

consumers, upon lamp failure, are 

forced to retrofit their existing ballasts, 

resulting in negative LCC savings of 

¥$20.50 to ¥$5.31. Overall, based on 

the NIA model, DOE estimates that at 

TSL5 in 2012, approximately 33 percent 

of 8-foot RDC HO shipments would 

result in negative LCC savings, and 86 

percent of shipments would be 

associated with the high installed price 

increases due to forced retrofits. 

Table VII.9 and Table VII.10 present 

the LCC analyses on two-lamp 4-foot 

MiniBP T5 standard-output and highoutput systems, respectively. The 

standard-output system is modeled as 

operating in the commercial sector, and 

the high-output system is modeled as 

operating in the industrial sector. The 

baseline lamps for these systems are the 

model 28W and 54W halophosphor 

lamps, respectively, as discussed in 

section V.B.3. At TSL5 (EL2 for standard 

output T5 lamps), all consumers of 

standard output lamps have available 

lamp designs which result in positive 

LCC savings of $1.10 (for lamp 

replacement) and $45.67 to $47.49 (for 

new construction or renovation). At 

TSL5 (EL1 for high output T5 lamps), 

consumers of high-output lamps who 

need only a lamp replacement would 

experience negative LCC savings of 

¥$3.03. However, purchasing a T5 

high-output system for new 

construction or renovation would result 

in positive LCC savings of $65.69 to 

$67.06. 

At TSL 5, the demand for rare-earth 

phosphors is significantly increased 

compared to current levels. DOE 

understands that it is difficult to predict 

the effects of new energy conservation 

standards on rare earth phosphor 

demand. However, DOE is sensitive to 

the trade vulnerability inherent in the 

concentrated geographical location of 

these resources and the possible 

incentives for manufacturers to relocate 

production (and associated 

employment) outside the U.S. It is 

particularly challenging to draw a line 

below which the risks are manageable 

and above which the risks become 

unacceptable. DOE notes that in its 

comments, NEMA views TSL 3 as a 

level that allows manufacturers to retain 

the flexibility needed to manage the 

impact of increased worldwide rare 

earth phosphor usage. In their 

comments, NEMA provided their 

estimate of the relative increase in rare 

earth phosphor demand for each TSL. 

This analysis showed the impacts at 

TSL 3 and TSL 4 to be very similar, 

increases of 230 percent and 250 

percent, respectively. In contrast, the 

impacts at estimated by NEMA at TSL 

5 are shown to be significantly larger at 

350 percent. DOE concludes from this 

that NEMA perceives considerably 

larger risks at TSL 5 than at TSL 4 or 

TSL 3. 

At TSL 5, product availability is also 

a concern, particularly the elimination 

of reduced-wattage 25W lamps, due to 

increased standard levels. DOE agrees 

with comments received that 25W 

lamps are valuable energy-saving 

products, because they provide a simple 

pathway to energy savings that does not 

require ballast replacements or design 

assistance. (California Stakeholders, No. 

63 at p. 9) As demonstrated in DOE’s 

national impact analysis, the level of 

expertise required to implement certain 

design choices is a key factor in 

determining energy savings, as well as 

consumer and national NPV benefits. 

In summary, after carefully 

considering the analysis discussed 

above and weighing the benefits and 

burdens of TSL5, the Secretary has 

determined the following: At TSL 5, the 

benefits of energy savings, emissions 

reductions (both in terms of physical 

reductions and the monetized value of 

those reductions, including the likely 

U.S. and global benefits of reduced 

emissions of CO2), and the positive net 

economic savings to the Nation (over 31 

years) is outweighed by the economic 

burden on some consumers (as 

indicated by the large increase in total 

installed cost), the potentially large 

reduction in INPV for manufacturers 

resulting from large conversion costs 

and reduced gross margins, the 

elimination of certain low-wattage 

lamps, and the risks associated with 

significantly increased demand for rareearth phosphors. Consequently, the 

Secretary has concluded that TSL 5 is 

not economically justified. 

b. Trial Standard Level 4 

Next, DOE considered TSL 4, which 

would save an estimated total of 3.8 to 

9.9 quads of energy through 2042—a 

significant amount of energy. For the 

Nation as a whole, TSL4 would have a 

net savings of $10.0 billion to $26.3 

billion at a 7-percent discount rate and 

$21.8 billion to $53.5 billion at a 3- 

percent discount rate. The emissions 

reductions at TSL4 are estimated at 175 

to 488 MMt of CO2, 11 to 37 kt of NOX, 

and up to 7.3 metric tons of Hg. Total 

generating capacity in 2042 is estimated 

to decrease compared to the reference 

case by 1.8 to 6.2 GW under TSL4. The 

monetized values of emissions 

reductions are estimated at $4.2 to 

$107.2 million for NOX and up to $67.7 

million for Hg at a 7-percent discount 

rate and $4.6 to $132.4 million for NOX

and up to $125.6 million for Hg at a 3- 

percent discount rate. The estimated 

benefits of reducing CO2 emissions 

using the mid-range of the CO2 value 

(using $33 per ton) is $3.1 to $8.4 billion 

and $6.0 to $16.9 billion at 7-percent 

and 3-percent discount rates 

respectively. The full range of likely 

benefits of CO2 emission reductions is 

$0.2 billion to $20.4 billion at a 7- 

percent discount rate and $0.4 billion to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34170 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

$40.9 billion at a 3-percent discount 

rate. 

Similar to TSL5, the level of impacts 

on manufacturers would depend 

primarily on their ability to differentiate 

their product offerings to offset the 

reduced range of efficacy levels. TSL 4 

would also require a complete 

conversion of all T12 4-foot MBP, 8-foot 

SP slimline, and 8-foot RDC HO lines to 

T8 lines, a capital investment of $193 

million. The projected change in 

industry value ranges from a decrease of 

$162 million to a decrease of $4 million. 

Because manufacturers have a broader 

range of efficiency available at TSL 4 

than at TSL 5 (thereby permitting 

greater product differentiation and 

increased gross margins), DOE believes 

the impacts at TSL 4 will be 

significantly less than at TSL 5 and that 

the high range of impacts is less likely 

to occur. 

As seen in Table VII.5 through Table 

VII.12, at TSL4, DOE projects that 4-foot 

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

HO consumers would experience 

similar life-cycle cost savings and 

increases as they would experience at 

TSL5. Like TSL5, most consumers who 

own T12 ballasts prior to 2012 at TSL4 

would likely experience negative 

economic impacts, either through lifecycle cost increases or by large increases 

in total installed cost. For 4-foot MiniBP 

T5 standard-output lamps, TSL4 would 

require these lamps to meet EL1, 

resulting in positive LCC savings of 

$1.10 for lamp replacement and $43.30 

for new construction or renovation (seen 

in Table VII.9). For 4-foot MiniBP T5 

high-output lamps, TSL4 would require 

the same efficacy level (EL1) as TSL5, 

resulting in identical life-cycle cost 

impacts. 

At TSL 4, the demand for rare-earth 

phosphors, although significantly 

increased compared to current levels, is 

similar to the demand at TSL 3, a level 

that manufacturers have suggested 

would allow them to retain the 

flexibility needed to manage the impacts 

of increased worldwide rare earth 

phosphor usage. In consideration of the 

small increased demand of rare-earth 

phosphors over a level that industry has 

indicated to be acceptable, DOE believes 

that risks of trade vulnerability and 

potential relocation of lamp production 

overseas in response to a standard 

adopted at TSL4 are low. 

In contrast to TSL5, at TSL 4, 

consumers have several energy-saving 

lamp options including the reducedwattage 25W and 30W 4-foot MBP 

lamps. The presence of these lamps on 

the market provides consumers with 

more simple pathways to achieving 

energy savings. As demonstrated in 

DOE’s national impact analysis, the 

level of expertise required to implement 

certain design choices is a key factor in 

determining energy savings, as well as 

consumer and national NPV benefits. 

In summary, after carefully 

considering the analysis discussed 

above and weighing the benefits and 

burdens of TSL4, the Secretary has 

determined the following: At TSL4, the 

benefits of energy savings, emissions 

reductions (both in terms of physical 

reductions and the monetized value of 

those reductions, including the likely 

U.S. and global benefits of reduced 

emissions of CO2), and the positive net 

economic savings to the Nation (over 31 

years) outweighs the economic burden 

on some consumers (as indicated by the 

large increase in total installed cost), the 

potential reduction in INPV for 

manufacturers, and the risks associated 

with increased demand for rare earth 

phosphors. Consequently, the Secretary 

has concluded that TSL4 offers the 

maximum improvement in efficacy that 

is technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and will result 

in significant conservation of energy. 

Therefore, DOE is adopting the energy 

conservation standards for GSFL at trial 

standard level 4. 

2. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

Conclusion 

In addition to the results presented 

above, DOE also calculates the 

annualized benefits and costs of each 

TSL. The table below presents these 

values for GSFL. 

TABLE VII.34—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS FOR IRL 

TSL Category Unit 

Primary estimate Low estimate High estimate 

7% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 

1 ...... Benefits 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2008$ ........... 120 130 68 72 173 188 

Annualized Quantified ...................................... CO2 (Mt) ....... 0 .43 0 .43 0 .24 0 .24 0 .62 0 .63 

NOX (kT) ...... 0 .09 0 .07 0 .07 0 .05 0 .11 0 .08 

Hg (T) ........... 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .01 0 .01 

Costs 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2008$ ........... 103 100 77 74 129 127 

Net Benefits/Costs 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2008$ ........... 18 29 ¥9 ¥2 44 61 

2 ...... Benefits 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2008$ ........... 293 313 176 182 410 443 

Annualized Quantified ...................................... CO2 (Mt) ....... 1 .1 1 .1 0 .66 0 .63 1 .53 1 .56 

NOX (kT) ...... 0 .26 0 .19 0 .21 0 .14 0 .32 0 .23 

Hg (T) ........... 0 .01 0 .01 0 .00 0 .00 0 .02 0 .02 

Costs 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2008$ ........... ¥33 ¥39 ¥28 ¥32 ¥39 ¥46 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34171 

TABLE VII.34—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS FOR IRL—Continued 

TSL Category Unit 

Primary estimate Low estimate High estimate 

7% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 

Net Benefits/Costs 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2008$ ........... 326 352 203 215 449 489 

3 ...... Benefits 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2008$ ........... 531 603 349 389 712 817 

Annualized Quantified ...................................... CO2 (Mt) ....... 1 .97 1 .98 1 .29 1 .25 2 .66 2 .7 

NOX (kT) ...... 0 .42 0 .3 0 .37 0 .26 0 .47 0 .33 

Hg (T) ........... 0 .02 0 .02 0 .00 0 .00 0 .04 0 .04 

Costs 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2008$ ........... 72 71 52 50 92 92 

Net Benefits/Costs 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2008$ ........... 459 532 297 339 620 725 

4 ...... Benefits 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2008$ ........... 650 696 406 424 894 968 

Annualized Quantified ...................................... CO2 (Mt) ....... 2 .39 2 .4 1 .51 1 .45 3 .28 3 .35 

NOX (kT) ...... 0 .51 0 .35 0 .45 0 .31 0 .58 0 .4 

Hg (T) ........... 0 .02 0 .02 0 .00 0 .00 0 .05 0 .05 

Costs 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2008$ ........... 118 106 227 218 9 ¥6 

.... Net Benefits/Costs 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2008$ ........... 532 590 179 207 885 973 

Incremental Net Benefits/Costs Relative to TSL3 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2008$ ........... 73 58 ¥118 ¥132 265 248 

5 ...... Benefits 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2008$ ........... 750 802 480 502 1020 1103 

Annualized Quantified ...................................... CO2 (Mt) ....... 2 .76 2 .76 1 .83 1 .76 3 .69 3 .75 

NOX (kT) ...... 0 .59 0 .4 0 .54 0 .37 0 .65 0 .44 

Hg (T) ........... 0 .02 0 .03 0 .00 0 .00 0 .05 0 .05 

Incremental Costs 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2008$ ........... 126 116 232 222 26 9 

Net Benefits/Costs 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2008$ ........... 621 687 247 280 994 1093 

.... Incremental Net Benefits/Costs Relative to TSL4 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ............ 2008$ ........... 89 97 68 73 109 120 

Note: Annualized values are for the period from 2012 to 2042. 

a. Trial Standard Level 5 

For IRL, DOE first considered the 

most efficient level, TSL5, which would 

save an estimated total of 1.12 to 2.72 

quads of energy through 2042—a 

significant amount of energy. For the 

Nation as a whole, TSL5 would have a 

net savings of $4.9 billion to $10.2 

billion at a 7-percent discount rate and 

$9.4 billion to $20.0 billion at a 3- 

percent discount rate. The emissions 

reductions at TSL5 are estimated at 53 

to 118 MMt of CO2, 8 to 9 kt of NOX, 

and up to 2 metric tons of Hg. Total 

generating capacity in 2042 is estimated 

to decrease compared to the reference 

case by 300 to 1400 MW under TSL5. 

The monetized values of emissions 

reductions are estimated at $2.2 to $27.0 

million for NOX and up to $16.0 million 

for Hg at a 7-percent discount rate and 

$2.7 to $33.1 million for NOX and up to 

$30.2 million for Hg at a 3-percent 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34172 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

discount rate. The estimated benefits of 

reducing CO2 emissions using the midrange of the CO2 value (using $33 per 

ton) is $1.0 to 2.0 billion and $1.8 to 

$4.1 billion at 7-percent and 3-percent 

discount rates respectively. The full 

range of likely benefits of CO2 emission 

reductions is $0.1 billion to $4.9 billion 

at a 7-percent discount rate and $0.1 

billion to $9.9 billion at a 3-percent 

discount rate. 

As seen in Table VII.13, regardless of 

the baseline lamp purchased absent 

standards, commercial-sector consumers 

have available lamp designs at TSL5 

which would result in positive LCC 

savings ranging from $1.36 to $9.14, 

while residential-sector consumers have 

available lamp designs which would 

result in positive LCC savings ranging 

from $1.51 to $9.10. 

The projected change in industry 

value at TSL5 would range from a 

decrease of $104 million to $111 

million, or a net loss of 37 to 47 percent 

in INPV. The range in impacts is 

attributed in part to uncertainty 

concerning the future share of emerging 

technologies in the IRL market, as well 

as the expected migration to R–CFL and 

exempted IRL technologies under 

standards. 

DOE based TSL5 on commerciallyavailable IRL which employ a silver 

reflector, an improved IR coating, and a 

filament design that results in a lifetime 

of 4,200 hours. To DOE’s knowledge, 

only one manufacturer currently sells 

products that meet TSL5. In addition, it 

is DOE’s understanding that the silver 

reflector is a proprietary technology that 

all manufacturers may not be able to 

employ. However, DOE considered 

TSL5 in its analysis because it believes 

that there is an alternate, nonproprietary pathway to achieve this 

level. This pathway consists in 

redesigning the filament to achieve 

higher-temperature operation and, thus, 

reducing lifetime to 2,500 hours. 

DOE conducted a complete set of 

analyses to capture the economic 

impacts of a TSL5 lamp designed to 

operate with a lifetime of 2500 hours 

instead of 4200 hours. Whereas the 

energy savings and emission reductions 

do not change for the Nation as a whole, 

a reduced-life lamp would result in 

much reduced net savings (NPV) of 

$2.53 billion to $4.86 billion at a 7- 

percent discount rate and $10.1 billion 

to $5.1 billion at a 3-percent discount 

rate. As seen in Table VII.13, as 

compared to one of the baseline lamps 

purchased absent standards, consumers 

would experience negative LCC savings, 

ranging from –$3.17 (in the commercial 

sector) to –$1.64 (in the residential 

sector), at TSL5. Because reduced lamp 

life results in greater IRL shipments, the 

projected change in industry value 

would be greatly reduced to a decrease 

of $43 million to $49 million, or a net 

loss of 14 to 22 percent in INPV. 

The reduced LCC savings at TSL 5 for 

the reduced-life lamps brings added 

concern to the issue of hot shock, which 

is when vibrations that occur while the 

lamp is energized cause premature lamp 

failure. It is DOE’s understanding that 

hot shock can reduce lamp life by 25 

percent to 30 percent for some 

consumers. For a lamp rated at 2500 

hours, this means that service life could 

be reduced to 1750 hours. As 

demonstrated in Tables Table VI.1 and 

Table VI.2, DOE expects that a lamp 

with price and efficacy associated with 

TSL5 and a lifetime of 1750 hours 

would result in negative LCC savings for 

the vast majority of consumers. 

Furthermore, DOE is also concerned 

about the possible lessening of 

competition at TSL5. Only one 

manufacturer currently sells product 

that meets TSL5. This commerciallyavailable product employs a proprietary 

technology, and while DOE has some 

evidence that alternative nonproprietary technologies may be used to 

meet this level, these alternative 

technologies have not been 

manufactured in large quantities and 

questions remain as to their cost and 

performance, as discussed above. 

Because DOE has not been able to verify 

manufacturer costs associated with 

these alternative technologies, it is 

possible that these approaches may not 

be cost-competitive with the currentlyavailable product employing the 

proprietary technology. While DOE 

recognizes that a 2500-hour lamp at TSL 

5 is technologically feasible and would 

not require the use of proprietary 

technologies, the LCC results show that 

these shortened-life lamps are likely to 

be less attractive to consumers and, 

therefore, at a competitive disadvantage. 

In summary, after carefully 

considering the analysis discussed 

above and weighing the benefits and 

burdens of TSL5, the Secretary has 

determined the following: At TSL5, the 

benefits of energy savings, emissions 

reductions (both in terms of physical 

reductions and the monetized value of 

those reductions, including the likely 

U.S. and global benefits of reducing CO2

emissions), the positive net economic 

savings to the Nation (over 31 years) is 

outweighed by the large capital 

conversion costs that could result in a 

reduction in INPV for manufacturers, 

possible negative LCC savings for some 

consumers of 2500-hour lamps, and the 

possible lessening of competition. 

Consequently, the Secretary has 

concluded that TSL5 is not 

economically justified. 

b. Trial Standard Level 4 

Next, DOE considered TSL4, which 

would save an estimated total of 0.94 to 

2.39 quads of energy through 2042—a 

significant amount of energy. For the 

Nation as a whole, TSL4 would have a 

net savings of $4.20 billion to $9.06 

billion at a 7-percent discount rate and 

$17.8 billion to $8.0 billion at a 3- 

percent discount rate. The emissions 

reductions at TSL4 are estimated at 44 

to 106 MMt of CO2, 6.4 to 8.4 kt of NOX, 

and up to 2 metric tons of Hg. Total 

generating capacity in 2042 is estimated 

to decrease compared to the reference 

case by 200 to 1,100 MW under TSL4. 

The monetized values of emissions 

reductions are estimated at $1.8 to $24.4 

million for NOX and up to $15.0 million 

for Hg at a 7-percent discount rate and 

$2.2 to $30.0 million for NOX and up to 

$28.1 million for Hg at a 3-percent 

discount rate. The estimated benefits of 

reducing CO2 emissions using the midrange of the CO2 value (using $33 per 

ton) is $0.8 to $1.8 billion and $1.5 to 

$3.7 billion at 7-percent and 3-percent 

discount rates respectively. The full 

range of likely benefits of CO2 emission 

reductions is $50 million to $4.4 billion 

at a 7-percent discount rate and $0.1 

billion to $8.9 billion at a 3-percent 

discount rate. 

The projected change in industry 

value at TSL4 would range from a 

decrease of $98 million to $102 million, 

or a net loss of 34 to 44 percent in INPV. 

The range in impacts is attributed in 

part to uncertainty concerning the 

future share of emerging technologies in 

the IRL market, as well as the expected 

migration to R–CFL and exempted IRL 

technologies under standards. 

As seen in Table VII.13, regardless of 

the baseline lamp currently employed, 

commercial-sector consumers have 

available lamp designs at TSL4 which 

would result in positive LCC savings 

ranging from $1.81 to $7.95, while 

residential-sector consumers have 

available lamp designs which would 

result in positive LCC savings ranging 

from $1.75 to $7.45. 

DOE does not believe TSL4 requires 

the use of a single proprietary 

technology. To DOE’s knowledge, two 

manufacturers currently sell a full-range 

of lamp wattages that meet TSL4. Unlike 

TSL5, where it is possible that some 

manufacturers would not be able to 

achieve the level without lowering lamp 

lifetime, DOE believes that the existence 

of multiple technology pathways to 

TSL4 would not necessarily result in the 

reduction in lamp lifetime at TSL4. 

However, DOE also recognizes that 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34173 

manufacturers may choose to sell 

products with reduced lifetimes. 

Therefore, DOE conducted a complete 

set of analyses to capture the economic 

impacts of a TSL4 lamp designed to 

operate with a lifetime of 2500 hours 

and 3000 hours instead of 4000 hours. 

Whereas the energy savings and 

emission reductions do not change for 

the Nation as a whole, a reduced-life 

lamp would result in much reduced net 

savings (NPV) of $1.83 billion to $5.22 

billion at a 7-percent discount rate and 

$10.8 billion to $3.8 billion at a 3- 

percent discount rate. As seen in Table 

VII.13, as compared to one of the 

baseline lamps purchased absent 

standards, commercial consumers 

would experience small negative LCC 

savings of ¥$0.25 at TSL4. Because 

reduced lamp life results in greater IRL 

shipments, the projected change in 

industry value would be greatly reduced 

to a decrease of $21 million to $61 

million, or a net loss of 7 to 28 percent 

in INPV. 

Hot shock is less of a concern at TSL4 

than at TSL5. DOE understands that 

manufacturers may choose to reduce 

their negative impacts by providing 

lamps with lifetimes less than 4000 

hours at TSL4. However, because 4000- 

hour TSL4 lamps can be produced 

without the use of proprietary 

technologies, manufacturers may be able 

to implement technological changes in 

their lamps to prevent hot shock, while 

retaining lifetimes above 3000 hours. 

In addition, competitive impacts are 

less severe at TSL4 than at TSL5. To 

DOE’s knowledge, two of the three 

major manufacturers of IRL currently 

sell a full product line (across common 

wattages) that meet this potential 

standard level. It is DOE’s 

understanding that the third 

manufacturer employs a technology 

platform that, due to the positioning of 

the filament in the HIR capsule, is 

inherently less efficient. Therefore, it is 

likely that in order to meet TSL4, this 

manufacturer would have to make 

higher investments than the other 

manufacturers, placing it at a 

competitive disadvantage. This 

manufacturer has commented that it 

could manufacture products at TSL4 if 

the standards implementation lead time 

were extended by an additional one 

year. While DOE recognizes the 

challenges inherent in gaining access to 

technology and building capacity 

needed to begin production, as detailed 

in section VI.D.1 of this notice, DOE 

does not have the statutory authority to 

extend the implementation period. 

In summary, after considering the 

analysis discussed above and comments 

on the April 2009 NOPR, and weighing 

the benefits and burdens of TSL4, the 

Secretary has determined the following: 

At TSL4, the benefits of energy savings, 

emissions reductions (both in terms of 

physical reductions and the monetized 

value of those reductions, including the 

likely U.S. and global benefits of 

reduced CO2 emissions), the positive net 

economic savings to the Nation (over 31 

years), and positive life-cycle cost 

savings outweighs the reduction in 

INPV for manufacturers. Consequently, 

the Secretary has concluded that TSL4 

offers the maximum improvement in 

efficacy that is technologically feasible 

and economically justified, and will 

result in significant conservation of 

energy. Therefore, DOE is adopting the 

energy conservation standards for IRL at 

trial standard level 4. 

VIII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

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 it intends to address that 

warrants agency action such as today’s 

final rule (including, where applicable, 

the failures of private markets or public 

institutions), and to assess the 

significance of that problem in 

evaluating whether any new regulation 

is warranted. DOE included a 

description of market failures in its 

April 2009 NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 17018– 

19 (April 13, 2009). DOE believes, in 

this final rule, that these market failures 

continue to persist. 

In addition, because today’s 

regulatory action is a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of 

Executive Order 12866, section 6(a)(3) 

of that Executive Order requires DOE to 

prepare and submit for review to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) an 

assessment of the costs and benefits of 

today’s rule. Accordingly, DOE 

presented to OIRA for review the draft 

final rule and other documents prepared 

for this rulemaking, including a 

regulatory impact analysis (RIA). These 

documents are included in the 

rulemaking record and are available for 

public review in the Resource Room of 

DOE’s Building Technologies Program, 

950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th Floor, 

Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–9127, 

between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

Carlins Consulting stated that 

regulations were not necessary for 

consumers to adopt energy efficient 

lighting because the marketplace has 

provided the consumer with adequate 

options to choose a proper light source 

for any application given many 

variables. Specifically, the commenter 

cited the shift in office lighting from 

incandescent to fluorescent, then from 

T12 fluorescent lamps to T8 fluorescent 

lamps, the extinction of mercury vapor 

lamps after the introduction of metal 

halide lamps, and most recently—the 

popularity of lighting controls as 

evidence of the marketplace and 

economic incentives leading to the 

creation of energy efficient products. 

(Carlins Consulting, No. 57 at p. 1) 

In response, the April 2009 NOPR 

contained a summary of the RIA, which 

evaluated the extent to which major 

alternatives to standards for GSFL and 

IRL could achieve significant energy 

savings at reasonable cost, as compared 

to the effectiveness of the proposed rule. 

74 FR 16920, 17019–22 (April 13, 2009). 

The complete RIA (Regulatory Impact 

Analysis for Proposed Energy 

Conservation Standards for General 

Service Fluorescent Lamps and 

Incandescent Reflector Lamps) is 

contained in the TSD prepared for 

today’s rule. The RIA consists of: (1) A 

statement of the problem addressed by 

this regulation, and the mandate for 

government action; (2) a description and 

analysis of the feasible policy 

alternatives to this regulation; (3) a 

quantitative comparison of the impacts 

of the alternatives; and (4) the national 

economic impacts of today’s standards. 

DOE sought additional information to 

further develop its analysis (i.e., 

information to verify estimates of the 

percentages of consumers purchasing 

efficient lighting and the extent to 

which consumers will continue to 

purchase more-efficient lighting in 

future years), and to conduct additional 

analyses in support of its conclusions 

(i.e., data on the correlation between the 

efficacy of existing lamps, usage 

patterns, and associated electricity 

price), but received no additional 

information or data in response to the 

April 2009 NOPR. 

The major alternatives to the 

standards that DOE analyzed are: (1) No 

new regulatory action; (2) consumer 

rebates; (3) consumer tax credits; (4) 

manufacturer tax credits; (5) voluntary 

energy-efficiency targets; (6) bulk 

government purchases; and (7) early 

replacement. Each of these alternatives 

was analyzed in the RIA, with the 

exception of early replacement, because 

DOE found that the lifetimes of the 

lamps analyzed are too short for early 

replacement to result in significant 

savings. As explained in the April 2009 

NOPR, DOE determined that none of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34174 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

84See http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/

documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf. 

85 Dun and Bradstreet provides independent 

research regarding company cash flows, revenues, 

employees, and credit-worthiness. 

these alternatives would save as much 

energy or have an NPV as high as the 

proposed standards, TSL3 for GSFL and 

TSL4 for IRL. That same conclusion 

applies to the standards in today’s rule. 

DOE has determined that none of the 

alternatives save as much energy or 

have an NPV as high as the adopted 

standards, TSL4 for GSFL and TSL4 for 

IRL. (DOE further notes that for GSFL, 

the final rule standard set at TSL4 

would save more energy and have a 

higher NPV than the proposed standard 

at TSL3.) Also, several of the 

alternatives would require new enabling 

legislation, since authority to carry out 

those alternatives does not presently 

exist. Additional detail on the 

regulatory alternatives is found in the 

RIA report in the TSD. 

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 for any rule that by law must 

be proposed for public comment, and a 

final regulatory flexibility analysis 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. A 

regulatory flexibility analysis examines 

the impact of the rule on small entities 

and considers alternative ways of 

reducing negative impacts. Also, 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:// 

www.gc.doe.gov. 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) classifies manufacturers of GSFL 

and IRL as small businesses if they have 

1,000 or fewer employees.84 DOE used 

this small business size standard, 

published at 65 FR 30386 (May 15, 

2000) and codified at 13 CFR part 121, 

to determine whether any small entities 

would be required to comply with 

today’s rule. The size standard is listed 

by North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code and 

industry description. GSFL and IRL 

manufacturing are classified under 

NAICS 335110, ‘‘Electric Lamp Bulb 

and Part Manufacturing.’’ 

As explained in the April 2009 NOPR, 

DOE reviewed the proposed rule under 

the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the procedures and 

policies published on February 19, 2003 

(68 FR 7990). On the basis of that 

review, DOE certified that the proposed 

rule, if promulgated, ‘‘would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities.’’ 74 

FR 16920, 17022–23 (April 13, 2009). 

Therefore, DOE did not prepare an 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis for 

the proposed rule. DOE set forth its 

certification to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the SBA and the statement 

of factual basis for that certification. 

DOE received comments from 

Tailored Lighting Inc. in response to the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act discussion in 

the April 2009 NOPR. Tailored Lighting 

Inc. stated that DOE incorrectly 

characterizes the small business 

manufactures in the market by not 

including Tailored Lighting Inc. and 

possibly other businesses like it. 

(Tailored Lighting Inc., No. 73 at p. 2) 

For the April 2009 NOPR, DOE 

conducted an extensive characterization 

of the GSFL and IRL industries and 

presented its findings for review and 

comment. In its characterization, DOE 

found that the majority of covered GSFL 

and IRL are manufactured by three large 

companies. A very small percentage of 

the market is manufactured by either 

large or small companies that primarily 

specialize in lamps not covered by this 

rulemaking. 74 FR 16920, 17022–23 

(April 13, 2009). 

During its market survey for the April 

2009 NOPR, DOE created a list of every 

company that manufactures covered and 

non-covered GSFL and IRL for sale in 

the United States. DOE also asked 

stakeholders and industry 

representatives if they were aware of 

any other small manufacturers. DOE 

then reviewed publicly-available data 

and contacted companies on its list, as 

necessary, to determine whether they 

met the SBA’s definition of a small 

business manufacturer in the GSFL or 

IRL industries. In total, DOE contacted 

57 companies that could potentially be 

small businesses. During initial review 

of the 57 companies in its list, DOE 

either contacted or researched each 

company to determine if it sold covered 

GSFL and IRL. Research included 

reviewing each company’s product 

catalogs and reviewing company’s 

independent research reports.85 Based 

on its research, DOE screened out 

companies that did not offer lamps 

covered by this rulemaking or if 

research reports indicated they were 

large manufacturers. Initially, DOE 

estimated that only 12 out of 57 

companies listed were potentially small 

business manufacturers of covered 

products. 74 FR 16920, 17023 (April 13, 

2009). Out of those 12 companies, DOE 

interviewed the four companies that 

consented to be interviewed. From these 

interviews, DOE determined that one 

manufacturer was not a small business. 

Two of the companies sold covered 

products, but were not manufacturers. 

The remaining company was the small 

business manufacturer DOE identified 

in the NOPR. 

For today’s final rule, DOE contacted 

the remaining eight companies again 

and conducted additional research. Out 

of the eight other companies, DOE 

determined that seven did not 

manufacture covered products or were 

not the manufacturer of the covered 

products that they offered. DOE was 

unable to determine if the remaining 

company was a small business 

manufacturer. 

DOE also reviewed the product 

offerings of Tailored Lighting to 

determine whether that company is a 

small business manufacturer impacted 

by this rule. DOE determined that 

Tailored Lighting Inc is not a ‘‘small 

business’’ manufacturer within the 

context of the present rulemaking 

because it does not currently 

manufacture covered products. 

For the final rule, DOE continued to 

indentify the small GSFL manufacturer 

discussed in the April 2009 NOPR as 

the only small business manufacturer of 

products covered by this rulemaking. In 

the April 2009 NOPR, DOE found that 

the small manufacturer of covered GSFL 

shared some of the same concerns about 

energy conservation standards as large 

manufacturers. DOE summarized the 

key issues in the April 2009 NOPR. 74 

FR 16920, 16974–75 (April 13, 2009). 

However, the small manufacturer was 

less concerned about the potential of 

standards to severely harm its business. 

Because the small manufacturer is more 

focused on specialty products not 

covered by this rulemaking, covered 

GSFL represents a smaller portion of its 

revenue and product portfolio. In 

addition, this manufacturer stated that it 

is possible to pass along cost increases 

to consumers, thereby limiting margin 

impacts due to energy conservation 

standards. 

DOE could not use the GSFL GRIM to 

model the impacts of energy 

conservation standards on the small 

business manufacturer of covered GSFL. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34175 

The GSFL GRIM models the impacts on 

GSFL manufacturers if concerns about 

margin pressure and significant capital 

investments necessitated by standards 

are realized. The small manufacturer 

did not share these concerns, and, 

therefore, the GRIM model would not be 

representative of the identified small 

business manufacturer. Like large 

manufacturers, the small business 

manufacturer stated that more-efficient 

products earn a premium; however, 

unlike larger manufacturers, the small 

manufacturer stated that it could pass 

costs along to its customers (a statement 

expected to apply to both the proposed 

TSL3 and the final rule’s TSL4). Since 

the GSFL GRIM models the financial 

impact of the standards commoditizing 

premium products, it is not 

representative of the small business 

manufacturer because the small 

business manufacturer did not share 

these concerns. Because of its focus on 

specialized products, the small 

manufacturer was more concerned 

about being able to offer the products to 

their customers than the impact on its 

bottom line. For further information 

about the scenarios modeled in the 

GRIM, see section V.F of today’s notice 

and chapter 13 of the TSD. 

DOE reviewed the standard levels 

considered in today’s final rule under 

the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the procedures and 

policies published on February 19, 

2003. On the basis of the foregoing, DOE 

reaffirms the certification. Therefore, 

DOE has not prepared a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis for this rule. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

DOE stated in the April 2009 NOPR 

that this rulemaking would impose no 

new information and recordkeeping 

requirements, and that OMB clearance 

is not required under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

74 FR 16920, 17023 (April 13, 2009). 

DOE received no comments on this in 

response to the April 2009 NOPR, and, 

as with the proposed rule, today’s rule 

imposes no information and 

recordkeeping requirements. Therefore, 

DOE has taken no further action in this 

rulemaking with respect to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

DOE prepared an environmental 

assessment of the impacts of today’s 

standards, which it published as chapter 

16 within the TSD for the final rule. 

DOE found the environmental effects 

associated with today’s standards for 

GSFL and IRL to be not significant, and, 

therefore, it is issuing a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) pursuant to 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), 

the regulations of the Council on 

Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 

1500–1508), and DOE’s regulations for 

compliance with the NEPA (10 CFR part 

1021). The FONSI is available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have Federalism implications. In 

accordance with DOE’s statement of 

policy describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of regulations that have 

Federalism implications, 65 FR 13735 

(March 14, 2000), DOE examined the 

proposed rule and determined that the 

rule would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the National Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. 74 FR 

16920, 17023 (April 13, 2009). DOE 

received no comments on this issue in 

response to the April 2009 NOPR, and 

its conclusions on this issue are the 

same for the final rule as they were for 

the proposed rule. This statement 

remains true even though DOE has 

adopted energy conservation standards 

for GSFL in this final rule (TSL4) that 

are at a higher level than those proposed 

(TSL3). Therefore, DOE is taking no 

further action in today’s final rule with 

respect to Executive Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), 

imposes on 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. 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 

regulations meet the relevant standards 

of Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

As indicated in the April 2009 NOPR, 

DOE reviewed the proposed rule under 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

(UMRA), which imposes requirements 

on Federal agencies when their 

regulatory actions will have certain 

types of impacts on State, local, and 

Tribal governments and the private 

sector. 74 FR 16920, 17024 (April 13, 

2009). DOE concluded that, although 

this rule would not contain an 

intergovernmental mandate, it may 

result in expenditure of $100 million or 

more in one year by the private sector. 

Id. Therefore, in the April 2009 NOPR, 

DOE addressed the UMRA requirements 

that it prepare a statement as to the 

basis, costs, benefits, and economic 

impacts of the proposed rule, and that 

it identify and consider regulatory 

alternatives to the proposed rule. Id. 

DOE received no comments concerning 

the UMRA in response to the April 2009 

NOPR, and its conclusions on this issue 

are the same for the final rule as they 

were for the proposed rule. This 

statement remains true even though 

DOE has adopted energy conservation 

standards for GSFL in this final rule 

(TSL4) that are at a higher level than 

those proposed (TSL3). Therefore, DOE 

is taking no further action in today’s 

final rule with respect to the UMRA. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act of 1999 

DOE determined that, for this 

rulemaking, it need not prepare a 

Family Policymaking Assessment under 

Section 654 of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

(Pub. L. 105–277). Id. DOE received no 

comments concerning Section 654 in 

response to the April 2009 NOPR, and, 

therefore, takes no further action in 

today’s final rule with respect to this 

provision. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34176 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that the proposed rule 

would not result in any takings which 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 74 FR 16920, 17024 (April 

13, 2009). DOE received no comments 

concerning Executive Order 12630 in 

response to the April 2009 NOPR, and, 

today’s final rule also would not result 

in any takings which might require 

compensation under the Fifth 

Amendment. Therefore, DOE takes no 

further action in today’s final rule with 

respect to this Executive Order. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act of 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

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

for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. The OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed 

today’s final rule under the OMB and 

DOE guidelines and has concluded that 

it is consistent with applicable policies 

in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to the OIRA a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

significant energy action. DOE 

determined that the proposed rule was 

not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ within 

the meaning of Executive Order 13211 

because the rule, which sets energy 

efficiency standards for covered GSFL 

and IRL, would not have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, nor has it 

been designated as a significant energy 

action by the Administrator of OIRA. 74 

FR 16920, 17024 (April 13, 2009). 

Accordingly, DOE did not prepare a 

Statement of Energy Effects on the 

proposed rule. DOE received no 

comments on this issue in response to 

the April 2009 NOPR. As with the 

proposed rule, DOE has concluded that 

today’s final rule is not a significant 

energy action within the meaning of 

Executive Order 13211. This statement 

remains true even though DOE has 

adopted energy conservation standards 

for GSFL in this final rule (TSL4) that 

are at a higher level than those proposed 

(TSL3). Accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects 

on the rule. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004, the OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology, issued its Final 

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer 

Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 

14, 2005). The purpose of the Bulletin 

is to enhance the quality and credibility 

of the Government’s scientific 

information. The Bulletin establishes 

that certain scientific information shall 

be peer reviewed by qualified specialists 

before it is disseminated by the Federal 

Government. As indicated in the April 

2009 NOPR, this includes influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions, such as the analyses 

in this rulemaking. 74 FR 16920, 17024– 

25 (April 13, 2009). 

As more fully set forth in the April 

NOPR, DOE conducted formal peer 

reviews of the energy conservation 

standards development process and 

analyses, and has prepared a Peer 

Review Report pertaining to the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

analyses. The ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Standards Rulemaking Peer Review 

Report,’’ dated February 2007, has been 

disseminated and is available at: http:// 

www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/peer_review.html. 

M. Congressional Notification 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will 

submit to Congress a report regarding 

the issuance of today’s final rule. DOE 

also will submit the supporting analyses 

to the Comptroller General in the U.S. 

Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) and make them available to each 

House of Congress. 

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, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovermental relations, Small 

businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 26, 

2009. 

Cathy Zoi, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, chapter II, subchapter D, of 

Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, 

Parts 430 is amended as set forth below: 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 2. Section 430.2 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘colored 

fluorescent lamp,’’ ‘‘fluorescent lamp,’’ 

and ‘‘rated wattage’’ to read as follows: 

§ 430.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Colored fluorescent lamp means a 

fluorescent lamp designated and 

marketed as a colored lamp and not 

designed or marketed for general 

illumination applications with either of 

the following characteristics: 

(1) A CRI less than 40, as determined 

according to the method set forth in CIE 

Publication 13.3 (incorporated by 

reference; see § 430.3); or 

(2) A correlated color temperature less 

than 2,500K or greater than 7,000K as 

determined according to the method set 

forth in IESNA LM–9 (incorporated by 

reference; see § 430.3). 

* * * * * 

Fluorescent lamp means a low 

pressure mercury electric-discharge 

source in which a fluorescing coating 

transforms some of the ultraviolet 

energy generated by the mercury 

discharge into light, including only the 

following: 

(1) Any straight-shaped lamp 

(commonly referred to as 4-foot medium 

bipin lamps) with medium bipin bases 

of nominal overall length of 48 inches 

and rated wattage of 25 or more; 

(2) Any U-shaped lamp (commonly 

referred to as 2-foot U-shaped lamps) 

with medium bipin bases of nominal 

overall length between 22 and 25 inches 

and rated wattage of 25 or more; 

(3) Any rapid start lamp (commonly 

referred to as 8-foot high output lamps) 

with recessed double contact bases of 

nominal overall length of 96 inches; 

(4) Any instant start lamp (commonly 

referred to as 8-foot slimline lamps) 

with single pin bases of nominal overall 

length of 96 inches and rated wattage of 

52 or more; 

(5) Any straight-shaped lamp 

(commonly referred to as 4-foot 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34177 

miniature bipin standard output lamps) 

with miniature bipin bases of nominal 

overall length between 45 and 48 inches 

and rated wattage of 26 or more; and 

(6) Any straight-shaped lamp 

(commonly referred to 4-foot miniature 

bipin high output lamps) with miniature 

bipin bases of nominal overall length 

between 45 and 48 inches and rated 

wattage of 49 or more. 

* * * * * 

Rated wattage means: 

(1) With respect to fluorescent lamps 

and general service fluorescent lamps: 

(i) If the lamp is listed in ANSI C78.81 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3) 

or ANSI C78.901 (incorporated by 

reference; see § 430.3), the rated wattage 

of a lamp determined by the lamp 

designation of Clause 11.1 of ANSI 

C78.81 or ANSI C78.901; 

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

C78.81 (incorporated by reference; see 

§ 430.3), the wattage of a lamp when 

operated on a reference ballast for 

which the lamp is designed; or 

(iii) If the lamp is neither listed in one 

of the ANSI standards referenced in 

(1)(i) of this definition, nor a residential 

straight-shaped lamp, the electrical 

power of a lamp when measured 

according to the test procedures 

outlined in Appendix R to subpart B of 

this part. 

(2) With respect to general service 

incandescent lamps and incandescent 

reflector lamps, the electrical power 

measured according to the test 

procedures outlined in Appendix R to 

subpart B of this part. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 430.3 is amended by: 

■ A. Removing paragraph (c)(1); 

■ B. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(2) 

through (13) as (c)(1) through (12); 

■ C. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraph (c)(1); and 

■ D. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(c)(5), add ‘‘430.32,’’ after ‘‘430.2,’’. 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 430.3 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) ANSI C78.3–1991 (‘‘ANSI C78.3’’), 

American National Standard for 

Fluorescent Lamps-Instant-start and 

Cold-Cathode Types-Dimensional and 

Electrical Characteristics, approved July 

15, 1991; IBR approved for § 430.32. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Appendix R to Subpart B of Part 

430 is amended by adding paragraphs 

4.1.2.3, 4.1.2.4, and 4.1.2.5 to read as 

follows: 

Appendix R to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring 

Average Lamp Efficacy (LE) and Color 

Rendering Index (CRI) of Electric 

Lamps 

* * * * * 

4.1.2.3 8-foot slimline lamps shall be 

operated using the following reference ballast 

settings: 

(a) T12 lamps: 625 volts, 0.425 amps, and 

1280 ohms. 

(b) T8 lamps: 625 volts, 0.260 amps, and 

1960 ohms. 

4.1.2.4 8-foot high output lamps shall be 

operated using the following reference ballast 

settings: 

(a) T12 lamps: 400 volts, 0.800 amps, and 

415 ohms. 

(b) T8 lamps: 450 volts, 0.395 amps, and 

595 ohms. 

4.1.2.5 4-foot miniature bipin standard 

output or high output lamps shall be 

operated using the following reference ballast 

settings: 

(a) Standard Output: 329 volts, 0.170 

amps, and 950 ohms. 

(b) High Output: 235 volts, 0.460 amps, 

and 255 ohms. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 430.32 is amended by 

revising paragraph (n) to read as 

follows: 

§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation 

standards and effective dates. 

* * * * * 

(n) General service fluorescent lamps 

and incandescent reflector lamps. (1) 

Except as provided in paragraphs (n)(2) 

and (n)(3) of this section, each of the 

following general service fluorescent 

lamps manufactured after the effective 

dates specified in the table shall meet or 

exceed the following lamp efficacy and 

CRI standards: 

Lamp type Nominal lamp 

wattage Minimum CRI 

Minimum 

average lamp 

efficacy 

(lm/W) 

Effective date 

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

≤35W 45 75.0 Nov. 1, 1995. 

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

8-foot slimline ..................................................................................... ≤35W 45 64.0 Nov. 1, 1995. 

>65W 69 80.0 May 1, 1994. 

>65W 45 80.0 May 1, 1994. 

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

≤100W 45 80.0 May 1, 1994. 

(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) Each of the following general 

service fluorescent lamps manufactured 

after July 14, 2012, shall meet or exceed 

the following lamp efficacy standards 

shown in the table: 

Lamp type Correlated color temperature 

Minimum 

average 

lamp 

efficacy 

(lm/W) 

4-foot medium bipin ..................................................................................... ≤4,500K ......................................................................... 89 

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

2-foot U-shaped ........................................................................................... ≤4,500K ......................................................................... 84 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
34178 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Lamp type Correlated color temperature 

Minimum 

average 

lamp 

efficacy 

(lm/W) 

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

8-foot slimline .............................................................................................. ≤4,500K ......................................................................... 97 

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

8-foot high output ........................................................................................ ≤4,500K ......................................................................... 92 

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

4-foot miniature bipin standard output ........................................................ ≤4,500K ......................................................................... 86 

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

4-foot miniature bipin high output ............................................................... ≤4,500K ......................................................................... 76 

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

(4) Except as provided in paragraph 

(n)(5) of this section, each of the 

following incandescent reflector lamps 

manufactured after November 1, 1995, 

shall meet or exceed the lamp efficacy 

standards shown in the table: 

Nominal lamp wattage 

Minimum 

average lamp 

efficacy 

(lm/W) 

40–50 .............................. 10.5 

51–66 .............................. 11.0 

67–85 .............................. 12.5 

86–115 ............................ 14.0 

116–155 .......................... 14.5 

Nominal lamp wattage 

Minimum 

average lamp 

efficacy 

(lm/W) 

156–205 .......................... 15.0 

(5) Each of the following incandescent 

reflector lamps manufactured after 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 ≥125V 6.8*P0.27

<125V 5.9*P0.27

≤2.5 ≥125V 5.7*P0.27

<125V 5.0*P0.27

40–205 ....................... Modified Spectrum ......................................................................... >2.5 ≤125V 5.8*P0.27

<125V 5.0*P0.27

≤2.5 ≥125V 4.9*P0.27

<125V 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. 

(6) (i)(A) Subject to the exclusions in 

paragraph (n)(6)(ii) of this section, the 

standards specified in this section shall 

apply to ER incandescent reflector 

lamps, BR incandescent reflector lamps, 

BPAR incandescent reflector lamps, and 

similar bulb shapes on and after January 

1, 2008. 

(B) Subject to the exclusions in 

paragraph (n)(6)(ii) of this section, the 

standards specified in this section shall 

apply to incandescent reflector lamps 

with a diameter of more than 2.25 

inches, but not more than 2.75 inches, 

on and after June 15, 2008. 

(ii) The standards specified in this 

section shall not apply to the following 

types of incandescent reflector lamps: 

(A) Lamps rated at 50 watts or less 

that are ER30, BR30, BR40, or ER40 

lamps; 

(B) Lamps rated at 65 watts that are 

BR30, BR40, or ER40 lamps; or 

(C) R20 incandescent reflector lamps 

rated 45 watts or less. 

Appendix 

[The following letter from the Department 

of Justice will not appear in the Code of 

Federal Regulations.] 

Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 

Main Justice Building, 950 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530– 

0001, (202) 514–2401/(202) 616–2645(f), 

antitrust.atr@usdoj.gov, http:// 

www.usdoj.gov/atr. 

June 15, 2009. 

Warren Belmar, Esq., 

Deputy General Counsel for Energy Policy, 

Department of Energy, Washington, DC 

20585. 

Dear Deputy General Counsel Belmar: I am 

responding to your letter seeking the views 

of the Attorney General about the potential 

impact on competition of proposed amended 

energy conservation standards for general 

service fluorescent lamps (‘‘GSFL’’) and 

incandescent reflector lamps (‘‘IRL’’). Your 

request was submitted pursuant to Section 

325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended, (‘‘ECPA’’), 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(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, leaving consumers with fewer 

competitive alternatives, placing certain 

manufacturers of a product at an unjustified 

competitive disadvantage compared to other 

manufacturers, or by inducing avoidable 

inefficiencies in production or distribution of 

particular products. 

We have reviewed the proposed standards 

contained in the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) (74 FR 16920, April 

13, 2009) and the supplementary information 

submitted to the Attorney General, and 

attended the February 3, 2009 public hearing 

on the proposed standards. 

Based on this review, the Department of 

Justice does not believe that the proposed 

standard for GSFLs would likely lead to a 

lessening of competition. Our review has 

focused upon the standards DOE has 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34179 

proposed adopting; we have not determined 

the impact on competition of more stringent 

standards than those proposed in the NOPR. 

With respect to IRLs, the Department 

is concerned that the proposed Trial 

Standard Level 4 could adversely affect 

competition. The NOPR would increase 

the minimum efficiency levels for IRLs 

to the second highest level under 

consideration in this rulemaking. The 

IRL market is highly concentrated, with 

three domestic manufacturers. Based on 

our review, it appears that only two of 

these firms may currently manufacture 

IRLs that would meet the new standard. 

It is our understanding that these firms 

produce only limited quantities of such 

products for high-end applications. The 

current producers may not have the 

capacity to meet demand. In addition, 

one of these manufacturers uses 

proprietary technology currently 

unavailable to other manufacturers. 

Given the capital investments new 

entrants or providers would be required 

to make, and the potential that 

manufacturers may have to obtain 

proprietary technology, there is a risk 

that one or more IRL manufacturers will 

not produce products that meet the 

proposed standard. We request that the 

Department of Energy consider the 

possibility of new technology in this 

area as it settles on standards in this 

field. 

Sincerely, 

Christine A. Varney, 

Assistant Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. E9–15710 Filed 7–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2