[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 106 (Friday, June 4, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29954-29964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11583]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 106 / Friday, June 4, 2021 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 29954]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE-2019-BT-STD-0040]
RIN 1904-AE52
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Consumer Products/Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment; Early
Assessment Review; Ceiling Fan Light Kits
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is undertaking an
early assessment review for amended energy conservation standards for
ceiling fan light kits (``CFLKs'') to determine whether to amend
applicable energy conservation standards for this product.
Specifically, through this request for information (``RFI''), DOE seeks
data and information to evaluate whether amended energy conservation
standards would result in significant savings of energy; be
technologically feasible; and be economically justified. DOE welcomes
written comments from the public on any subject within the scope of
this document (including those topics not specifically raised), as well
as the submission of data and other relevant information concerning
this early assessment review.
DATES: Written comments and information will be accepted on or before
July 6, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested
persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2019-BT-
STD-0040, by any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: to [email protected]. Include docket number
EERE-2019-BT-STD-0040 in the subject line of the message.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section III of this document.
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions
through a variety of mechanisms, including postal mail and hand
delivery/courier, the Department has found it necessary to make
temporary modifications to the comment submission process in light of
the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. DOE is currently suspending receipt of
public comments via postal mail and hand delivery/courier. If a
commenter finds that this change poses an undue hardship, please
contact Appliance Standards Program staff at (202) 586-1445 to discuss
the need for alternative arrangements. Once the Covid-19 pandemic
health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates resuming all of its
regular options for public comment submission, including postal mail
and hand delivery/courier.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at https://www.regulations.gov. All documents
in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index.
However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly
available.
The docket web page can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0040. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section III for information on how to submit
comments through https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Stephanie Johnson, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1943. Email:
[email protected].
Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2588. Email:
[email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
B. Rulemaking History
II. Request for Information
A. Significant Savings of Energy
1. Energy Use Analysis
2. Shipments
3. National Impact Analysis
B. Product Classes
C. Technological Feasibility
1. Technology Assessment
2. Screening Analysis
3. Efficiency Analysis
C. Economic Justification
1. Cost Analysis
2. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
3. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
III. Submission of Comments
I. Introduction
DOE has established an early assessment review process to conduct a
more focused analysis to evaluate, based on statutory criteria, whether
a new or amended energy conservation standard is warranted. Based on
the information received in response to the RFI and DOE's own analysis,
DOE will determine whether to proceed with a rulemaking for a new or
amended energy conservation standard. If DOE makes an initial
determination that a new or amended energy conservation standard would
satisfy the applicable statutory criteria, or DOE's analysis is
inconclusive, DOE would undertake the preliminary stages of a
rulemaking to issue a new or amended energy conservation standard. If
DOE makes an initial determination based upon available evidence that a
new or amended energy conservation standard would not meet the
applicable statutory criteria, DOE would engage in notice and comment
rulemaking before issuing a final determination that new or
[[Page 29955]]
amended energy conservation standards are not warranted.
A. Authority and Background
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part B \2\ of EPCA established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. These products
include ceiling fan light kits (``CFLKs''), the subject of this
document. (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff); 42 U.S.C. 6291(50)) EPCA prescribed
energy conservation standards for these products, and authorized DOE to
consider whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(2)-(5))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020).
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially
of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy
conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal
preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with
the procedures and other provisions set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6297(d).
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered products. EPCA requires that any new or
amended energy conservation standard prescribed by the Secretary of
Energy (``Secretary'') be designed to achieve the maximum improvement
in energy or water efficiency that is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) The Secretary may not
prescribe an amended or new standard that will not result in
significant conservation of energy, or is not technologically feasible
or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
EPCA also requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance
of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE evaluate the
energy conservation standards for each type of covered product,
including those at issue here, and publish either a notice of
determination that the standards do not need to be amended, or a notice
of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') that includes new proposed energy
conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate).
(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) DOE is publishing this RFI in accordance with
the 6-year lookback requirement.
B. Rulemaking History
EPCA initially established individual energy conservation standards
for three groups of CFLKs manufactured on or after January 1, 2007: (1)
Those having medium screw base sockets (``Medium Screw Base product
class''); (2) those having pin-based sockets for fluorescent lamps
(``Pin-Based product class''); and (3) any CFLKs other than those
included in the Medium Screw Base product class or the Pin-Based
product class, including candelabra screw base sockets (``Other Base
Type product class''). (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(2)-(4)) In a technical
amendment published on October 18, 2005, DOE codified the EPCA
requirements for the Medium Screw Base and Pin-Based product classes.
70 FR 60407, 60413. EPCA also specified that if DOE did not issue a
final rule on energy conservation standards for Other Base Type product
class CFLKs by January 1, 2007, a 190 watt (``W'') limit would apply to
those products manufactured after January 1, 2009. (42 U.S.C.
6295(ff)(4)(C)) DOE did not issue a final rule on standards for CFLKs
by that date, and published a technical amendment that codified EPCA's
requirements for Other Base Type product class CFLKs, which applied to
such CFLKs manufactured on or after January 1, 2009. 72 FR 1270, 1273-
1274 (Jan. 11, 2007). In another technical amendment final rule to
adopt updates to EPCA from the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007, DOE added a provision that CFLKs with sockets for pin-based
fluorescent lamps must be packaged with lamps to fill all sockets. 74
FR 12058, 12069 (Mar. 3, 2009). (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(4)(C)(ii))
On January 6, 2016, DOE published a final rule adopting amended
performance standards for CFLKs manufactured on or after January 7,
2019. 81 FR 580 (``January 2016 Final Rule''). The January 2016 Final
Rule established a minimum efficacy requirement for all CFLKs,
expressed in lumens per watt (``lm/W'') that is applicable based on the
lumen output of each basic model of lamp packaged with the basic model
of CFLK or each basic model of integrated solid-state lighting
(``SSL'') in the CFLK basic model. Id. at 81 FR 581. Subsequently, DOE
published a final rule that changed the compliance date from January 7,
2019 to January 21, 2020 to comply with Public Law 115-161, ``Ceiling
Fan Energy Conservation Harmonization Act'' (the ``Act''), which was
signed into law on April 3, 2018. 83 FR 22587 (May 16, 2018). The Act
amended the compliance date for the CFLK standards to establish a
single compliance date for the energy conservation standards for both
CFLKs and ceiling fans. Id. The current energy conservation standards
are located in title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'')
part 430, Sec. 430.32(s)(6).
On December 24, 2015, DOE published a final rule (``December 2015
Final Rule'') updating the CFLK test procedure. 80 FR 80209. The
currently applicable DOE test procedure for CFLKs appears at 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendices V and V1 (``appendices V and V1'').
II. Request for Information
DOE is publishing this RFI to collect data and information during
the early assessment review to inform its decision, consistent with its
obligations under EPCA, as to whether the Department should proceed
with an energy conservation standards rulemaking. Below DOE has
identified certain topics for which information and data are requested
to assist in the evaluation of the potential for amended energy
conservation standards. DOE also welcomes comments on other issues
relevant to its early assessment that may not specifically be
identified in this document.
A. Significant Savings of Energy
The January 2016 Final Rule established an energy conservation
standard for CFLKs that is expected to result in 0.049 quadrillion
British thermal units (``quads'') of full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') energy
savings over a 30-year period. 81 FR 580, 582. Additionally, in the
January 2016 Final Rule, DOE estimated that an energy conservation
standard established at an efficiency level equivalent to that achieved
using the maximum available technology (``max-tech'') would have
resulted in 0.070 quads of FFC energy savings.\3\ 81 FR 580, 620.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Table V.10 outlines the Cumulative national Energy Savings
for CFLKs during a 30 year period. The max-tech trial standard level
was TSL 4, which DOE estimated would result in 0.070 quads of FFC
energy. 81 FR 580, 620.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29956]]
While DOE's request for information is not limited to the following
issues, DOE is particularly interested in comments, information, and
data on the following.
1. Energy Use Analysis
The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual
energy consumption of CFLKs at different efficiencies in representative
U.S. homes and commercial buildings, and to assess the energy savings
potential of increased CFLK efficacy. To develop annual energy use
estimates in the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE multiplied CFLK input
power by the hours of use (``HOU'') per year. The energy use analysis
estimates the range of energy use of CFLKs in the field (i.e., as they
are actually used by consumers). 81 FR 580, 598.
In the January 2016 Final Rule, to determine the average HOU of
CFLKs in the residential sector, DOE used data from various field
metering studies of GSL operating hours in the residential sector. To
account for any difference in CFLK HOU compared to GSL HOU, DOE
considered two factors: (1) The relative HOU for GSLs installed in
ceiling light fixtures compared to all GSLs based on data from the
Residential Lighting End-Use Consumption Study (``RLEUCS''),\4\ and (2)
the HOU associated with the specific room types in which CFLKs are
installed based on installation location data from a Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory survey of ceiling fan and CFLK owners (``LBNL
survey'') \5\ and room-specific HOU data from RLEUCS. DOE assumed that
CFLK operating hours do not vary by light source technology. DOE
estimated that CFLKs are used an average of 2.0 hours per day in the
residential sector. 81 FR 580, 598.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ DNV KEMA Energy and Sustainability and Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory. Residential Lighting End-Use Consumption Study:
Estimation Framework and Initial Estimates. 2012. (Last accessed
December 5, 2019.) https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/2012_residential-lighting-study.pdf.
\5\ Kantner, C.L.S., S.J. Young, S.M. Donovan, and K. Garbesi.
Ceiling Fan and Ceiling Fan Light Kit Use in the U.S.--Results of a
Survey on Amazon Mechanical Turk. 2013. Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory: Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-6332E. (Last accessed June
14, 2016.) http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/3r67c1f9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the commercial sector, the HOU for CFLKs in commercial
buildings were developed using lighting data for 15 commercial building
types obtained from the 2010 U.S. Lighting Market Characterization
(``LMC'').\6\ For each commercial building type presented in the LMC,
DOE determined average HOU based on the fraction of installed lamps
utilizing each of the light source technologies typically used in CFLKs
and the HOU for each of these light source technologies. A national-
average HOU for the commercial sector was then estimated by weighting
the building-specific HOU for lamps used in CFLKs by the relative floor
space of each building type as reported in the 2003 Energy Information
Administration (``EIA'') Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey
(``CBECS'').\7\ 81 FR 580, 598-599. DOE calculated that, nationwide,
CFLKs are used an average of 10.7 hours per day in the commercial
sector (see chapter 6 of the January 2016 Final Rule technical support
document [``TSD''] \8\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Navigant Consulting, Inc. 2010 U.S. Lighting Market
Characterization. 2012. U.S. Department of Energy: Washington, DC
(Last accessed May 4, 2020.) https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/2010-lmc-final-jan-2012.pdf.
\7\ U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration.
2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS). 2003.
(Last accessed June 15, 2016.) https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2003/index.cfm?view=microdata.
\8\ Available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2012-BT-STD-0045-0121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the January 2016 Final Rule TSD, DOE did not consider the
industrial sector in the analysis because DOE determined that CFLKs are
designed almost solely for the low-volume (i.e. low air flow) ceiling
fan market, which are not suitable for the large spaces characteristic
of most industrial buildings (see chapter 6 of the January 2016 Final
Rule TSD).
DOE developed its estimate of the power consumption of CFLKs by
scaling the input power and lumen output of the representative lamp
units from the engineering analysis to account for the lumen output of
CFLKs in the market. DOE estimated average CFLK lumen output based on a
weighted average of CFLK models from data collected in 2014 from in-
store shelf surveys and product offerings on the internet. DOE
estimated the market share of each identified CFLK model based on
price. 81 FR 580, 599.
In the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE assumed that the only lighting
controls used with CFLKs are dimmers. DOE further assumed that CFLKs
did not have dimmable CFLs due to technical issues associated with CFL
dimmability. DOE estimated CFLKs with dimmable incandescent and LED
light sources to be an equal fraction and total 11 percent, and assumed
that dimmable CFLKs have an average energy reduction of 30 percent. DOE
used these percentages for both the residential and commercial sector
in determining the energy consumption. 81 FR 580, 599. (See chapter 6
of the January 2016 Final Rule TSD).
For further details regarding the prior energy use methodology, see
chapter 6 of the January 2016 Final Rule TSD.
Issue 1: DOE requests comments on whether the methodology and data
sources for determining residential and commercial HOU for CFLKs need
to be changed, beyond updating to more recent versions of the sources
if updated versions exist.
Issue 2: DOE seeks feedback on its methodology used to determine
impact of lighting controls for CFLKs in the January 2016 Final Rule,
and whether it is appropriate for future potential analyses.
Issue 3: DOE requests information on the percent of CFLKs that
incorporate lighting controls, the types of lighting controls
incorporated, and data on how the controls affect typical energy
consumption.
2. Shipments
DOE develops shipments forecasts of CFLKs to calculate the national
impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on energy
consumption. DOE shipment projections are based on available historical
data and an analysis of key market drivers for each product. Historical
shipment data are used to build up a product stock and to calibrate the
shipments model.
The shipments model projects shipments over a 30-year analysis
period for the base case (no-new-standards) and for all standards
cases. In the January 2016 Final Rule, shipments were calculated for
the residential and commercial sectors by assigning 95 percent of
shipments to the residential sector and 5 percent to the commercial
sector. DOE further assumed in its analysis that CFLKs are primarily
found on standard and hugger ceiling fans. DOE also assumed that the
distribution of CFLKs by light source technology in the commercial
sector is the same as the light source technology distribution in the
residential sector. 81 FR 580, 603. Specifically, the January 2016
Final Rule projected the breakout of shipments across years 2017
through 2020, as shown in Table II.1. (See January 2016 Final Rule
Ceiling Fan Light Kits Final Rule National Impact Analysis (NIA)
Spreadsheets.\9\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2012-BT-STD-0045-0123.
[[Page 29957]]
Table II.1--Projected CFLK Shipments From the January 2016 Final Rule
(Millions of units)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 2018 2019 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
17.2 17.6 17.7 18.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For further details regarding the prior shipments analysis, see chapter
9 of the January 2016 Final Rule TSD.
Issue 4: DOE seeks feedback on how the shipments in the years shown
in Table II.1 compare to actual shipments of CFLKs in those years. DOE
also requests data and information on historical shipments of CFLKs
and/or suggestions for data sources to use.
Issue 5: DOE requests information on the percent of CFLKs sold with
a ceiling fan versus without a ceiling fan and the percent of CFLKs
sold into the residential sector versus the commercial sector. DOE also
requests feedback on whether these percentages have changed over time
or whether they are expected to change in the future.
Issue 6: DOE requests information on any potential market trends
that may affect future shipments of CFLKs and/or ceiling fans. DOE also
seeks information regarding data that might reasonably and
substantively inform the distribution forecast of efficacy levels for
CFLKs.
3. National Impact Analysis
The purpose of the national impact analysis (``NIA'') is to
estimate the aggregate impacts of potential efficiency standards at the
national level. DOE evaluates the impacts of potential amended
standards by comparing a no-new-standards-case projection with
standards-case projections. The no-new-standards-case projection
characterizes energy use and consumer costs in the absence of amended
energy conservation standards, whereas the standards-case projections
make the same characterizations while eliminating products from the
market that don't meet the standard. DOE develops market share
distributions for CFLKs at each efficacy level (``EL'') in the no-new-
standards case and each of the standards cases in its shipments
analysis.
Table II.2 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used in the NIA
for the January 2016 Final Rule. See chapter 10 of the January 2016
Final Rule TSD for further details.
Table II.2--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the National Impact
Analysis in the January 2016 Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments.................... Annual shipments from shipments model.
No-new-standards Case Estimated by market-share module of
Forecasted Efficacies. shipments model including impact of SSL
incursion.
Standards Case Forecasted Estimated by market-share module of
Efficacies. shipments model including impact of SSL
incursion.
Annual Energy Consumption per Annual weighted-average values are a
Unit. function of energy use at each EL,
including impacts of replacing CFLK
lamps over the CFLK lifetime.
Total Installed Cost per Unit Annual weighted-average values are a
function of cost at each EL.
Incorporates projection of future LED
lamp prices based on historical data.
Annual Energy Cost per Unit.. Annual weighted-average values as a
function of the annual energy
consumption per unit and energy prices.
Repair and Maintenance Cost Annual values do not change with EL.
per Unit. Replacement lamp costs are calculated
for each EL over the analysis period.
Energy Prices................ AEO 2015 forecasts (to 2040) and
extrapolation through 2048.
Energy Site-to-Primary and A time-series conversion factor based on
full fuel cycle (FFC) AEO 2015.
Conversion.
Discount Rate................ Three and seven percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 7: DOE requests whether the methodologies employed in the NIA
for the January 2016 Final Rule remain appropriate. If not, DOE
requests information and data on changes to the methodologies that
should be considered.
Issue 8: DOE requests feedback on whether potential standards for
CFLKs may cause consumers to purchase non-CFLK lighting products.
B. Product Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
may divide covered products into product classes by the type of energy
used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify
a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making a determination
whether capacity or another performance-related feature justifies a
different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of
the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE deems appropriate.
(Id.)
CFLKs manufactured on or after January 21, 2020, must be packaged
with lamps to fill all sockets, and each basic model of lamp packaged
with the basic model of CFLK and each basic model of integrated SSL in
the CFLK basic model must meet a minimum efficacy (specified in lm/W)
that is determined based on the lumen output of the basic model of lamp
or integrated SSL. 10 CFR 430.32(s)(6). CFLKs are not separated into
product classes for the purpose of the minimum efficacy requirement.
For CFLKs with medium screw base sockets that are packaged with compact
fluorescent lamps (``CFLs''), the CFLs must meet specified lumen
maintenance, rapid cycle stress, and lifetime requirements. 10 CFR
430.32(s)(6)(i). CFLKs with pin base fluorescent lamps must use an
electronic ballast. 10 CFR 430.32(s)(6)(ii).
Issue 9: DOE requests feedback on whether the current single
product class for CFLKs under the minimum efficacy requirements is
appropriate. Specifically, DOE requests feedback on whether integrated
SSL circuitry offers features not available in light emitting diode
(``LED'') lamps that may be packaged with a CFLK and whether such
features impact the efficacy of integrated SSLs as compared to LEDs (if
efficacy is impacted, please quantify the impact).
Issue 10: DOE seeks information regarding any new product classes
it should consider for inclusion in its analysis. Specifically, DOE
requests information on the performance-related features (e.g., base
type, lamp length, etc.) that provide unique consumer utility and data
detailing the corresponding impacts on efficacy that would justify
separate product classes (i.e., explanation for why the presence
[[Page 29958]]
of these performance-related features would decrease efficacy).
C. Technological Feasibility
During the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE considered a number of
technology options that manufacturers could use to reduce energy
consumption in CFLKs. 81 FR 580, 591.
Issue 11: DOE seeks comment on any changes to these technology
options that could affect whether DOE could propose a ``no-new-
standards'' determination, such as an insignificant increase in the
range of efficiencies and performance characteristics of these
technology options. DOE also seeks comment on whether there are any
other technology options that
Issue 12: DOE should consider in its analysis.
While DOE's request for information is not limited to the following
issues, DOE is particularly interested in comment, information, and
data on the following.
1. Technology Assessment
In analyzing the feasibility of potential new or amended energy
conservation standards, DOE uses information about existing and past
technology options and prototype designs to help identify technologies
that manufacturers could use to meet and/or exceed a given set of
energy conservation standards under consideration. In consultation with
interested parties, DOE intends to develop a list of technologies to
consider in its analysis. That analysis will likely include a number of
the technology options DOE previously considered during its most recent
rulemaking for CFLKs. A complete list of those prior options appears in
Table II.3.
Table II.3--Technology Options for CFLKs Considered in the January 2016
Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of technology
Lamp type option Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFL...................... Highly Emissive Improved electrode
Electrode Coatings. coatings allow
electrons to be more
easily removed from
electrodes, reducing
lamp power and
increasing overall
efficacy.
Higher-Efficiency Fill gas compositions
Lamp Fill Gas improve cathode
Composition. thermionic emission or
increase mobility of
ions and electrons in
the lamp plasma.
Higher-Efficiency Techniques to increase
Phosphors. the conversion of
ultraviolet (``UV'')
light into visible
light.
Glass Coatings..... Coatings on inside of
bulb enable the
phosphors to absorb
more UV energy, so that
they emit more visible
light.
Multi-Photon Emitting more than one
Phosphors. visible photon for each
incident UV photon.
Cold Spot Improve cold spot design
Optimization. to maintain optimal
temperature and improve
light output.
Improved Ballast Use of higher-grade
Components. components to improve
efficiency of
integrated ballasts.
Improved Ballast Better circuit design to
Circuit Design. improve efficiency of
integrated ballasts.
Change in Replace CFL with LED
Technology. technology.
LED lamp................. Efficient Down New high-efficiency
Converters. wavelength conversion
materials, such as
optimized phosphor
conversion, quantum-
dots, have the
potential for creating
warm-white LEDs with
improved spectral
efficiency, high color
quality, and improved
thermal stability.
Improved Package Novel package
Architectures. architectures such as
color mixing (RGB+) and
hybrid architecture to
improve package
efficacy.
Improved Emitter The development of
Materials. efficient red, green,
or amber LED emitters,
will allow for
optimization of
spectral efficiency
with high color quality
over a range of
correlated color
temperature (CCT) and
which also exhibit
color and efficiency
stability with respect
to operating
temperature.
Alternative Alternative substrates
Substrate such as gallium nitride
Materials. (GaN), silicon carbide
to enable high-quality
epitaxy for improved
device quality and
efficacy.
Improved Thermal TIMs that enable high-
Interface efficiency thermal
Materials transfer for long-term
(``TIMs''). reliability and
performance
optimization of the LED
device.
Optimized Heat Sink Improve thermal
Design. conductivity and heat
dissipation from the
LED chip, thus reducing
efficacy loss from
rises in junction
temperature.
Active Thermal Devices such as internal
Management Systems. fans and vibrating
membranes to improve
thermal dissipation
from the LED chip.
Device-Level Optics Enhancements to the
primary optic of the
LED package such as
surface etching that
would optimize
extraction of usable
light from the LED
package and reduce
losses due to light
absorption at
interfaces.
Increased Light Reduce or eliminate
Utilization optical losses from the
(Secondary Optics). lamp housing,
diffusion, beam
shaping, and other
secondary optics to
increase efficacy using
mechanisms such as
reflective coatings and
improved diffusive
coatings.
Improved Driver Increase driver
Design. efficiency through
novel and intelligent
circuit design.
AC LEDs............ Eliminate the
requirements of a
driver and therefore
reduce efficiency
losses from the driver.
Reduced Current Driving LED chips at
Density. lower currents while
maintaining light
output, and thereby
reducing the efficiency
losses associated with
efficacy droop.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 13: DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Table
II.3 of this document regarding their applicability to the current
market and how these technologies may impact the efficacy of light
sources in CFLKs as measured according to the DOE test procedure. DOE
also seeks information on how these technologies may have changed since
they were considered in the January 2016 Final Rule analysis.
Specifically, DOE seeks information on the range of efficiencies or
performance characteristics that are currently available for each
technology option.
Issue 14: DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Table
II.3 of this document regarding their market adoption, costs, and any
concerns with incorporating them into products (e.g.,
[[Page 29959]]
impacts on consumer utility, potential safety concerns, manufacturing/
production/implementation issues, etc.), particularly as to changes
that may have occurred since the January 2016 Final Rule.
Issue 15: DOE seeks comment on other technology options that it
should consider for inclusion in its analysis and whether these
technologies impact product features or consumer utility.
2. Screening Analysis
The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the
technologies that improve the efficacy of light sources to determine
which technologies will be eliminated from further consideration and
which will be passed to the engineering analysis for further
consideration. DOE determines whether to eliminate certain technology
options from further consideration based on the following criteria:
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not
be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the
time of the compliance date of the standard, then that technology will
not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on product utility or product availability. If a
technology is determined to have significant adverse impact on the
utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers, or result
in the unavailability of any covered product type with performance
characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities,
and volumes that are substantially the same as products generally
available in the United States at the time, it will not be considered
further.
(4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a
technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or safety,
it will not be considered further.
(5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies. If a design option
utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to
achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be
considered further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.
Sections 6(c)(3) and 7(b) of the Process Rule.
Technology options identified in the technology assessment are
evaluated against these criteria using DOE analyses and inputs from
interested parties (e.g., manufacturers, trade organizations, and
energy efficiency advocates). Technologies that pass through the
screening analysis are referred to as ``design options'' in the
engineering analysis. Technology options that fail to meet one or more
of the five criteria are eliminated from consideration.
Table II.4 summarizes the technology options that DOE screened out
in the January 2016 Final Rule, and the applicable screening criteria.
Table II.4--Screened-Out Technology Options From the January 2016 Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA criteria (X = basis for screening out)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Screened-out Practicability Adverse
Lamp type technology option Technological to manufacture, Adverse impact impacts on
feasibility install, and on product health and
service utility safety
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFL..................... Multi-Photon X
Phosphors.
LED..................... Colloidal Quantum X
Dot Phosphors.
Improved Emitter X
Materials.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE considered AC LEDs as a design
option. 81 FR 580, 592. AC LEDs remove the need for a driver component,
potentially reducing efficiency losses. However, in the March 2016 NOPR
for general service lamps, DOE screened out this technology option. DOE
concluded that because commercial products were only offered by one
company, are not available across a range of lumen packages, and are
limited to G-shape lamps, the technology option did not meet the
criteria of practicability to manufacture, install, and service and
adverse impacts on product utility or product availability. 81 FR
14528, 14566 (March 17, 2016). DOE has reviewed the current market and
continued to identify only one company that is producing AC LED lamp
models. The models are offered with limited characteristics: GU10 base
and 400 lumens; candle-shaped and around 260 lumens; and G-shaped and
around 290 lumens.
Issue 16: DOE requests feedback on the technological feasibility of
AC LED lamp products--including details on shapes, bases, and lumen
ranges. DOE also requests information on whether other manufacturers
already offer or are planning to introduce AC LED lamps to the market.
Issue 17: DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, the five
screening criteria described in this section would have on each of the
technology options listed in Table II.3 of this document with respect
to their potential use in CFLKs. Similarly, DOE seeks information
regarding how these same criteria would affect any other technology
options not already identified in this document with respect to their
potential use in CFLKs.
Issue 18: With respect to the screened-out technology options
listed in Table II.4 of this document, DOE seeks information on whether
these options would, based on current and projected assessments
regarding each of them, remain screened out under the five screening
criteria described in this section. With respect to each of these
technology options, what steps, if any, could be (or have already been)
taken to facilitate the introduction of each option as a means to
improve the energy performance of CFLKs and the potential to impact
consumer utility of the CFLK.
3. Efficiency Analysis
DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) Relying on observed
efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach),
or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated
with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e.,
the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the
efficiency
[[Page 29960]]
levels established for the analysis are determined based on the market
distribution of existing products (in other words, based on the range
of efficiencies and efficiency level ``clusters'' that already exist on
the market). Using the design option approach, the efficiency levels
established for the analysis are determined through detailed
engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the efficiency
improvements from implementing specific design options that have been
identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on a
combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-level
approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended using
the design option approach to interpolate to define ``gap fill'' levels
(to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency levels) and/
or to extrapolate to the max-tech level (particularly in cases where
the max-tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently
available on the market).
In the January 2016 Final Rule DOE used an efficiency-level
approach, determining efficiency levels based generally on commercially
available lamps that incorporate the design options identified in the
technology assessment and screening analysis. 81 FR 580, 592. For each
established product class, DOE selects a baseline model as a reference
point against which any changes resulting from new or amended energy
conservation standards can be measured. The baseline model in each
product class represents the characteristics of common or typical
products in that class. Typically, a baseline model is one that meets
the current minimum energy conservation standards and provides basic
consumer utility. The current standards for CFLKs are based on efficacy
and are found at 10 CFR 430.32(s)(6).
Issue 19: DOE requests feedback on whether the current established
energy conservation standards are appropriate baselines for CFLKs to
evaluate whether to amend the current energy conservation standards for
these products.
Issue 20: DOE requests data and information regarding the most
common models of CFLKs (i.e. whether they use lamps or integrated SSL
circuitry, the number of light sources, the total lumen output of the
fixture, etc.). DOE requests information on the percent of CFLKs that
have sockets for lamps versus the percent that have integrated SSL
circuitry.
Issue 21: DOE requests feedback on the common characteristics of
light sources found in CFLKs (i.e., technology, base type, wattage,
efficacy, color rendering index (``CRI''), correlated color temperature
(``CCT''), and lifetime). DOE requests information on the percent of
CFLKs with sockets that are shipped with CFLs versus LED lamps.
Issue 22: DOE requests feedback on the appropriate baseline models
for any newly analyzed product classes that are not currently in place,
as discussed in section II.B.1 of this document. For newly analyzed
product classes, DOE requests energy use data to develop a baseline
relationship between energy use and adjusted volume.
In the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE selected a baseline and more-
efficacious substitutes taking into consideration two different
substitution scenarios: (1) A lamp replacement scenario and (2) a light
kit replacement scenario (i.e., accounting for changes to the fixture).
In both scenarios, the baseline lamp was kept the same and the baseline
fixture was assumed to have the most common total socket number of two
for CFLKs. In the lamp replacement scenario, the more-efficacious
substitute was required to have the same base type as the baseline lamp
and no changes to the fixture were made. In the light kit replacement
scenario, a more-efficacious fixture was chosen, allowing for a more-
efficacious lamp substitute with a different base type than the
baseline lamp and with a different number of sockets than the baseline
fixture. For additional discussion of the baseline selected for the
January 2016 Final Rule, see chapter 5 of the January 2016 Final Rule
TSD. 81 FR 580, 594-595.
In the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE ensured potential substitutions
maintained lumen output within 10 percent of the baseline lamp lumen
output (for the lamp replacement scenario) and within 10 percent of the
baseline fixture lumen output (for the light kit replacement scenario).
81 FR 580, 594. In the January 2016 Final Rule TSD, DOE ensured that a
wide variety of design options would be available at all efficacy
levels (``ELs'') (e.g., E12, E17, and G9 bases and candle, flame tip,
and torpedo shapes). DOE also ensured that dimmable lamps and lamps
with a range of CCTs and lumen packages were available at all ELs.
Further, DOE confirmed that CFLKs with consumer-replaceable and non-
consumer replaceable LED modules and drivers would meet EL 3. See
chapter 5 of the January 2016 Final Rule TSD.
In the January 2016 Final Rule, DOE developed a continuous equation
to establish ELs, specifying a minimum lamp efficacy for a lumen
package. To develop the general form of the equation, DOE evaluated
lamps with similar characteristics, such as technology, bulb shape, and
lifetime, across a range of lumen outputs. 81 FR 580, 596.
The maximum available efficacies analyzed in the January 2016 Final
Rule are provided in Table II.5 and Table II.6 of this document. The
maximum available efficacy level is the highest efficacy unit currently
available on the market.
Table II.5--Max Tech Efficacy From the January 2016 Final Rule
[Lamp replacement scenario]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial
Lamp type Base type Bulb shape Wattage W lumen Efficacy lm/ CRI CCT K Lamp
output lm W Lifetime hr
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LED............................. E26................ A19................ 8 820 102.5 80 2,700 25,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29961]]
Table II.6--Max Tech Efficacy From the January 2016 Final Rule
[Light Kit Replacement Scenario]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lamp Fixture
Fixture Lamp watt- Fixture initial initial Efficacy Lamp life
Lamp type Base type Bulb shape sockets age W wattage W lumen lumen lm/W CRI CCT K hr
output lm output lm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LED...................................... E26..................... A21..................... 1 15 15 1,600 1,600 106.7 82 2,700 25,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 23: DOE seeks input on whether the max-tech levels are
appropriate and technologically feasible for potential consideration as
possible energy conservation standards for the products at issue--and
if not, why not.
Issue 24: DOE seeks feedback on what design options would be
incorporated at a max-tech efficacy level, and the efficacies
associated with those levels. As part of this request, DOE also seeks
information as to whether there are limitations on the use of certain
combinations of design options.
Issue 25: DOE seeks information on the efficacy of available CFLKs,
from baseline model to max tech level, and the percent of CFLKs
available at each level of efficacy. DOE also seeks feedback on whether
the efficacy distribution varies based on whether the CFLK includes
individual lamps or integrated SSL circuitry and whether the efficacy
distribution is expected to change over time.
D. Economic Justification
In determining whether a proposed energy conservation standard is
economically justified, DOE analyzes, among other things, the potential
economic impact on consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation. DOE seeks
comment on whether there are economic barriers to the adoption of more-
stringent energy conservation standards. DOE also seeks comment and
data on any other aspects of its economic justification analysis from
the January 2016 Final Rule that may indicate whether a more-stringent
energy conservation standard would be economically justified or cost
effective.
While DOE's request for information is not limited to the following
issues, DOE is particularly interested in comment, information, and
data on the following.
1. Cost Analysis
The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted
using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost
approach depends on a suite of factors, including availability and
reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated
product, and the availability and timeliness of purchasing the CFLK on
the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:
Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically
dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to
develop a detailed bill of materials for the product.
Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing a
product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available
from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example)
to develop the bill of materials for the product.
Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown
is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as
fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which
parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise
impractical (e.g. large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price surveys
using publicly available pricing data published on major online
retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and
other commercial channels.
In the January 2016 Final Rule TSD, DOE used a price-survey
approach to develop consumer prices for the representative lamp unit at
each EL. To do so, DOE determined the consumer price of the CFLK and
then determined the portion of that price attributable to the lamp
packaged with the CFLK. Based on feedback from manufacturer interviews,
DOE identified three main distribution channels for CFLKs: Electrical/
specialty centers, home centers, and lighting showrooms. DOE compared
the consumer prices from each channel to manufacturer-suggested
distributor net prices of ceiling fans sold with CFLKs to determine
premiums for each distribution channel. Then using estimated shipments
going through each channel based on manufacturer interviews, DOE
applied the following weightings to develop one premium: Electrical/
specialty channel at 12 percent, home center channel at 80 percent, and
lighting showroom channel at 8 percent. DOE applied the average
shipment-weighted premium to the distributor net prices of the ceiling
fans sold with CFLKs to obtain their consumer price. DOE then applied
20 percent to this price to determine the consumer price of just the
CFLK. See chapter 7 of the January 2016 Final Rule TSD.
Finally, DOE applied the percentage that comprises the lamp
component of the CFLK to the CFLK consumer price. Based on manufacturer
feedback and stakeholder comments, DOE applied 15 percent for a CFLK
with a 13 W spiral CFL to obtain the consumer price of the lamp
component of the CFLK. For other representative lamp units, DOE applied
ratios of their consumer prices and the 13 W spiral CFL consumer price.
See chapter 7 of the January 2016 Final Rule TSD.
For the light kit fixture scenario, DOE also included the
incremental cost due to changes in socket configuration when
applicable. 81 FR 580, 598. Based on manufacturer feedback, DOE
estimated that medium screw base (E26) sockets cost $0.15 to the
manufacturer and GU24 and pin-base sockets cost $0.35 to the
manufacturer. See chapter 7 of the January 2016 Final Rule TSD.
For additional discussion regarding the development of end-user
prices for the January 2016 Final Rule, see chapter 6 of the January
2016 Final Rule TSD.
Issue 26: DOE requests comments on the whether the described
methodology for the pricing analysis is appropriate as well as
information on the existence of any distribution channels other than
those described and their assigned weighting.
Issue 27: DOE also requests information on the percentage of
consumer price the CFLK comprises of a ceiling fan; and the percentage
of consumer price the lamp component(s) comprises of a CFLKs and
whether they are different for different lamp types (e.g., CFL, LED
lamp).
Issue 28: DOE requests information on the consumer price of a
socket in a CFLK and whether they are different for different socket
types (e.g., E12, GU24, pin-base).
Issue 29: DOE requests information on the difference in cost (if
any) between a CFLK providing a certain light output using individual
lamps and a CFLK providing the same light output using integrated SSL
circuitry. What are the
[[Page 29962]]
primary factors affecting the cost of a CFLK using integrated SSL
circuitry?
1. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
DOE conducts the life-cycle cost (``LCC'') and payback period
(``PBP'') analysis to evaluate the economic effects of potential energy
conservation standards for CFLKs on individual consumers. The effect of
new or amended energy conservation standards on individual consumers
usually involves a reduction in operating cost and an increase in
purchase cost. For any given EL, DOE measures the PBP and the change in
LCC relative to an estimated baseline level. The LCC is the total
consumer expense of a product over its lifetime, consisting of total
installed cost (product price, sales tax, and installation costs) plus
operating costs (expenses for energy use, maintenance, and repair). To
compute the operating costs, DOE discounts future operating costs to
the time of purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the product.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers
to recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of a
more-efficient product through lower operating costs. DOE calculates
the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost at higher efficiency
levels by the change in annual operating cost for the year that amended
or new standards are assumed to take effect.
For each potential standard level, DOE measures the change in LCC
based on the estimated change in efficacy distribution in the standards
case relative to the estimated efficacy distribution in the no-new-
standards case. These efficacy distributions include market trends for
products that may exceed the efficacy associated with a given standard
level as well as the current energy conservation standards. In
contrast, the PBP for a given EL is measured relative to the baseline
product.
Table II.7 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive
inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations for CFLKs in the January 2016
Final Rule. See chapter 8 of the January 2016 Final Rule TSD and its
appendices for more detail.
Table II.7--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis
in the January 2016 Final Rule *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Source/method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Cost **.............. Multiplied the weighted-average consumer
price of each CFLK lamp and socket
(determined in the product price
determination) with a scaling factor to
account for the total weighted-average
CFLK lumen output. For LED lamps, DOE
used a price learning analysis to
project CFLK lamp prices to the
compliance year.
Sales Tax.................... Derived 2019 population-weighted-average
tax values for each state based on
Census population projections and sales
tax data from Sales Tax Clearinghouse.
Disposal Cost................ Assumed 35% of commercial CFLs are
disposed of at a cost of $0.70 per CFL.
Assumptions based on industry expert
feedback and a Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Protection mercury lamp
recycling rate report.
Annual Energy Use............ Derived in the energy use analysis.
Varies by geographic location and room
type in the residential sector and by
building type in the commercial sector.
Energy Prices................ Electricity: Based on 2014 marginal
electricity price data from the Edison
Electric Institute.
Variability: Marginal electricity prices
vary by season, U.S. region, and
baseline electricity consumption level.
Energy Price Trends.......... Based on AEO 2015 price forecasts.
Lamp Replacements............ For lamp failures during the lifetime of
the CFLK, consumers replace lamps with
lamp options available in the market
that have the same base type and provide
a similar lumen output to the initially
packaged lamps.
Residual Value............... Represents the value of surviving lamps
at the end of the CFLK lifetime. DOE
discounts the residual value to the
start of the analysis period and
calculates it based on the remaining
lamp's lifetime and price in the year
the CFLK is retired.
Product Lifetime............. Based on a ceiling fan lifetime
distribution, with a mean of 13.8 years.
Discount Rates............... Approach involves identifying all
possible debt or asset classes that
might be used to purchase the considered
appliances, or might be affected
indirectly. Primary data source was the
Federal Reserve Board's Survey of
Consumer Finances.
Efficacy Distribution........ Estimated by the market-share module of
shipments model.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* See chapter 8 of the January 2016 Final Rule TSD for references for
the data sources mentioned in this table.
** DOE did not take into account installation cost as one of the total
installed cost inputs. DOE assumed that the installation cost, which
represents all costs required to install the CFLK, was not affected by
changes in product efficacy and was therefore the same for all ELs for
both the residential and commercial sectors.
Issue 30: DOE requests comment on whether the methodology described
in the January 2016 Final Rule is appropriate.
Issue 31: DOE requests comments on whether the inputs described in
Table II.7 of this document need to be changed beyond updating to a
more recent version of the source cited in the table if an updated
version exists.
3. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') is to
estimate the financial impact of amended energy conservation standards
on manufacturers of CFLKs, and to evaluate the potential impact of such
standards on direct employment and manufacturing capacity. The MIA
includes both quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative
part of the MIA primarily relies on the Government Regulatory Impact
Model (``GRIM''), an industry cash-flow model adapted for the product
in this analysis, with the key output of industry net present value
(``INPV''). The qualitative part of the MIA addresses the potential
impacts of energy conservation standards on manufacturing capacity and
industry competition, as well as factors such as product
characteristics, impacts on particular subgroups of firms, and
important market and product trends.
As part of the MIA, DOE analyzes impacts of amended energy
conservation standards on subgroups of manufacturers of covered
products, including small business manufacturers. DOE uses the Small
Business Administration's (``SBA's'') small
[[Page 29963]]
business size standards to determine whether manufacturers qualify as
small businesses, which are listed by the applicable North American
Industry Classification System (``NAICS'') code.\10\ Manufacturing of
CFLKs is classified under NAICS 335210, ``Small Electrical Appliance
Manufacturing,'' and the SBA sets a threshold of 1,500 employees or
less for a domestic entity to be considered as a small business. This
employee threshold includes all employees in a business' parent company
and any other subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Available online at https://www.sba.gov/document/support--
table-size-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves examining the
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the
manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. While any one
regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the
combined effects of several existing or impending regulations may have
serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers,
or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single regulation may
overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. For these reasons, DOE
conducts an analysis of cumulative regulatory burden as part of its
rulemakings pertaining to appliance efficiency.
Issue 32: To the extent feasible, DOE seeks the names and contact
information of any domestic or foreign-based manufacturers that
distribute CFLKs in the United States.
Issue 33: DOE identifies small businesses as a subgroup of
manufacturers that could be disproportionally impacted by amended
energy conservation standards. DOE requests the names and contact
information of small business manufacturers, as defined by the SBA's
size threshold, of CFLKs that manufacture products in the United
States. In addition, DOE requests comment on any other manufacturer
subgroups that could be disproportionally impacted by amended energy
conservation standards. DOE requests feedback on any potential
approaches that could be considered to address impacts on
manufacturers, including small businesses.
Issue 34: DOE requests information regarding the cumulative
regulatory burden impacts on manufacturers of CFLKs associated with (1)
other DOE standards applying to different products that these
manufacturers may also make and (2) product-specific regulatory actions
of other Federal agencies. DOE also requests comment on its methodology
for computing cumulative regulatory burden and whether there are any
flexibilities it can consider that would reduce this burden while
remaining consistent with the requirements of EPCA.
III. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date
under the DATES heading, comments and information on matters addressed
in this notification and on other matters relevant to DOE's early
assessment of whether more-stringent energy conservation standards are
warranted for ceiling fan light kits.
Submitting comments via https://www.regulations.gov. The https://www.regulations.gov web page requires you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies Office staff only. Your contact information will
not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names,
organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your
comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your
comment. Following such instructions persons viewing comments will see
only first and last names, organization names, correspondence
containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to https://www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted
through https://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments
received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the
information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through https://www.regulations.gov
before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of
being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being
processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to
several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that https://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your
comment.
Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via
email also will be posted to https://www.regulations.gov. If you do not
want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not
include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead,
provide your contact information on a cover letter. Include your first
and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing
address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it
does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. Faxes will not be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special characters or any form of
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature
of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked
confidential including all the information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential'' with the
information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own
determination about the confidential status of the information and
treat it according to its determination.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket,
[[Page 29964]]
without change and as received, including any personal information
provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from
public disclosure).
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of
the process for developing energy conservation standards. DOE actively
encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the
comment period in each stage of this process. Interactions with and
between members of the public provide a balanced discussion of the
issues and assist DOE. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing
list to receive future notices and information about this process or
would like to request a public meeting should contact Appliance and
Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or via email at
[email protected].
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 26,
2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
and Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy.
That document with the original signature and date is maintained by
DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE
Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit
the document in electronic format for publication, as an official
document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no
way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on May 27, 2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021-11583 Filed 6-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P