[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